Phase 1: Identifying experiences and expectations

29 Mar - 15 Apr 2016
Go back to Integrated DRR - CCA Mainstreaming Framework

Published on 24 April 2017 in Integrated DRR - CCA Mainstreaming Framework

1) Understanding Integration

What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts? 

2) Current Experiences

What are your experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA?  What existing resources have been helpful? How have you applied these? What are their strength or shortcomings? What are the mainstreaming challenges you are facing?

3) User Expectations and Needs

What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework? How can we ensure a user-friendly, practical and readily implementable framework? How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges?

Files

Comments (139)

Discussion Moderator

Welcome to the UNDP online discussion (e-Discussion)! The goal of this e-Discussion is to inform the development of an Integrated Framework to Mainstream DRR and CCA into Development. With your help this framework will provide practical support for governments across the globe to mainstream both disaster and climate risk into development decision making and risk-inform the 2030 Agenda. This is the first of three rounds of discussions we are organizing as part of this dialogue. This first phase, starts 29 March and will continue for two weeks until 12 April 2016.Latest figures show that over the past ten years, 1.5 billion people were affected by disasters (2015).  Many of these disasters were the result of recurrent hazards for example drought, rather than one-off events.  These hazards become disasters as a result of development decision making, which can increase or decrease vulnerability to disasters. The solution lies in country-led efforts to mainstream climate and disaster risks into every day decision making around development – including planning, budgeting and monitoring.  There are several existing guidelines and frameworks to support the mainstreaming of DRR and adaptation, however, these focus on either disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation; and not both.To help practitioners address this gap, UNDP is working to develop an integrated DRR-CCA Framework to provide practical guidance to governments to operationalise the mainstreaming and integration of DRR and CCA into development policy and practice. UNDP has decades of experience in working with its programme countries in support of mainstreaming processes, which will provide an opportune starting point for this work. To ground the framework in reality, we would like to directly draw upon your first-hand experiences. Receiving feedback from a wide range of practitioners and policy-makers, will help us identify your specific mainstreaming needs and ensure that this framework addresses the realities on the ground. Learning from your experiences with existing frameworks is therefore an essential step. We are also keen to define and scope out your expectations for an integrated framework, importantly clarifying what we mean by an “integrated” framework.I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas, and hope that you will share with us your success stories and the challenges you are facing with mainstreaming or implementing existing frameworks. This will be an essential step for the development of an integrated framework.Thank you for your participation! Angelika Planitz and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya

Naomi Tobita

As I posted previously, the experience in Yokohama, Japan may not be much of the reference for different circumstances. Thus I have to start this time with caveat emptor. For a start, I have to mention Green Up Plan in Yokohama is by the second largest city in Japan whose GDP is still the third largest in the world. The current phase of the Plan (2013-2018) has approx. USD 485 million budget for only 237 square kilometers of the space, whose scale is probably completely out of reach for the many most vulnerable communities in the world. Secondly, the Plan is based on the well-established property rights and taxation system especially about the land so that consideration for land-disputes is near non-existent for the tools of the Plan. In this sense, it is possible for Yokohama to mainstream DRR + CCA by the civil society because of the deep-rooted working legal system. If a society is shaky in this regard, the tools Yokohama uses will not be effective, or worse.     Having said that, the main tools the Yokohama Green Up Plan use are (1) the solid budgetary ground with municipal Green Tax whose approval rate among taxpayers is about 70% as of 2013, (2) securing land with greenery (forests + agricultural land + gardens in downtown) within the city that buffers the effect of natural disasters, and (3) through free and continuous training system about local environment, supporting intensive deployment of civil society that manage the secured land. In all of these 3 tools, civils society involves deeply. At the conceptual level, the Plan has a policy formulation / monitoring / evaluation body, called Citizen Council for Promotion of Greenery whose members are dignitaries from the leaders of Lovers of Forest Volunteers, academia, the Chamber of Commerce, and Yokohama Branch for National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations (JA), in addition to the career officials from the city. The latter 2 organizations are business bodies so that the Plan has a strong industrial lobby. Lovers of Forest are the volunteer organizations who actually work for environmental management in the city’s green space whose members are landlords and urbanites who reside next to the greenery. All of these organizations are made of the people simultaneously practitioners and beneficiaries from DRR+CCA mainstreaming so that dividing the main users of framework does not make sense here. (And actually we are the taxpayers sustaining the Plan.) For the practical level of the Plan, those Lovers organizations, JA members, and local business organizations deploy its members for DRR+CCA activities such as emergency supply storage checks, forestry, cleaning parks and small local streams (; Yokohama has many, which could cause serious harms when they are clogged with garbage and hit by a natural disaster), and educational events for kids and adults such as regular drills preparing for earthquakes. These activities for DRR+CCA are majority planned, executed, and M&E by these organizations with the grant from the city who, according to the ordinance decided by the elected city councilors, evaluates the proposals from the civic organizations. The technocrats of the city are more of a coordinator; the modus operandi of the city is “responding to the call of action” from the civil society, e.g. responding to “I cannot take care of this land due to inheritance tax burden, please help” with budgetary arrangement, e.g. preferential tax treatment for landlords who can organize community volunteers to environmental management, or dispatch contractors for more technically challenging cases where professionals are needed. The majority of the initiatives officers take are about technical training and education regarding DRR and CCA, such as learning indicator species for environment monitoring and evaluation, or project cycle how-to to establish long-term volunteer activity plans. The quality of the human development sessions organized by the city is high by college level lecturers, with substantial budget; e.g. the budget for environmental education including volunteer trainings in forestry alone for 2013-2018 is USD 41 million. Here, probably, Yokohama as the second largest city in Japan has an advantage of having above average (of Japan) human resources so that the skill level of volunteers starts from high even if we do not have a previous knowledge of practical environmental activities.

Susan Roylance

As international leaders consider risk reduction for climate problems, the most important thing they can do is to recognize the importance of training families to prepare themselves for a possible disasters.  As families are prepared, and know how to respond, there will be less confusion and more people to solve problems, and save lives, as necessary. 

Marcela Ballara

During a  need assessment on DRR and cCH in Mozambique , it was found out that terminology used to define climate and disaster related risks have different interpretation among practitioners engaged in these areas. As such, clarifying concepts that each discipline deals with is an important step towards determining the terms of future interaction and collaboration. In this way, it is important to understand concepts and terminologies of how climate change and disaster risk reduction knowledge and practices presently interact with each other. The gap in understanding concepts and terms was found during the interviews with stakeholders operating in CCh actions in Mozambique, a situation that is also shared at international level 

Sidney Clouston

Carbon sequestration and offsets are required to mitigate the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) causing impacts from Global Warming.  It is ideal to get assistance from nature when possible.  Most often it is freely given.  For an example Sunlight provides energy to be used in Photovoltaic technology and it is clean energy that will be able to supply expanded demand.  The existance of forests that has seen mankind remove 50% of the forests during the past two hundred  years.  Called the lungs of the Earth the forests removal causes the question to be asked.  How well would you function with half of  your lungs removed?  Trees do sequester carbon.  When Biomass is used for eneregy emissions that were sequestered in the past is released, but new growth recovers those emissions to recycle the carbon.  Our intention is to capture carbon dioxide and utilize it as concentrated feedstock for Algae.  The products made downstream will benefit the populations in the region.  Thus benefits to the Planet, the People and a Profit from products made to not only support Sustainable Development but enable Expandable Development.In addition we are researching the ideas about mitigation of the Ocean elevation problem due to Glacier melting and the Ice of Greenland growing ever thinner.  The elevation of sea levels will impact millions of people and real estate insured for billions of dollars.  One mitigation approach is for an example is to use conveyance (pipelines) to move sea water to be used in desalination for new or expanded agriculture and population needs.  One concept is to take water from the Red Sea and send it to the Dead Sea.  Another is to take some of this elevating water of the Persian Gulf for the Aral Sea.  In addition some of that water can along the way help development in Palastine and Israel, etc as well as in other areas around the world.  The Small Island States would benefit.  New construction jobs will benefit many people as development will be supported by the two key inputs.  In my opinion energy and water developments are required to support the other sustainable development goals.  

Mitchell Gold

We agree with this model that can integrate easily with our Solar Coin concept (attached presentation)

Karen Medica

In Samoa we are developing our strategy and results chain, relating to the work of the Disaster Management Office. The intention is to identify results of common interest across regional, global and national platforms. Samoa is a small country and doesnt want to be using staff to write similar but different reports all the time, so good if we can develop a coherent approach to make this work. Different frameworks we are looking at include Sendai, SDS, Samoa Pathways (for SIDS), National and Sector strategies and also align with project-relevant outcomes. We work closely with Policy and Planning to ensure at the higher national level, our goals and objectives are coherent. It is time consuming because you need to familiarise yourself well with all levels, however in the end I think the results-based approach can work for different programmatic and project needs.

Mitchell Gold

Understanding Intregration:   as an educator in the field of peace education which later was named global education we have learned how to integrate all program content through a process involving lateral thinking concepts afforded by the use of the term developed by Edward de Bono.   This one word  PO is very helpful in deteriminging relevance of information being integrated.   We have also found that it is extremely important to distill the information before integration.  This process which we have available as a designed Matrix enables a wholistic perspective to be the outputs.   This procress assists in devloping common International Language in the execution of same and we highly recommend that the UNDP communicate with the ISO 26000 Group and find out from the ISO Group where the UNGC is in its process of promoting the ISO 26000. Current experiences are rather confounding - we note that there is an agency pretending to be the go to UN Agency - and it is not "yet"  in fact we are of the thought that this current process is another tactical delay from appointing an Agency to take responsibility for the SDG's - but that is merely an uneducated opinion - just looking at feedback from the  www.unsdsn.orgWe are also of the opinion that the World Happiness Report is being published prematurely. It is our expectation that using our wholistic models using the following filters: economics, ethics, energy, and health filtered through the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of the human being will go a long way to establish a behvioural measuring tool without equal in the world.   The mainstreaming challenges that we will not be able to overcome is the existing use of the United Nations Resident Coordinator position.    We were there when the position was originally designed, but unfortunately the UNDP  has used the UNRC position already and there are many UNRC's already appointed - that need to be retrained to propoerly intregrate and implement social change mechanisms.our models can be used throughout the UN system with ease of delivery and at huge cost saving benfits.We have attached a rough draft of the simple analysis required to move the 17 SDG's either up to 20 if you add the ones that are missing, or our Basic 12 Sector model that covers the whole system. - covering the three left out of the SDG's - namely The Arts,  Science, and Spirituality We attach other detailed structures that need to be put into a digital AP  as soon as possible to develop a value chain program that will minimize costs and establish new areas for analysis not currently being addressed in the foolish design of the Happinness Report - which we also attach for your reference.. 

David & Mitzu Grubbs • President at Family Missions International Inc. from Philippines

In the Philippines we need all the ideas and suggestions we can get. We are looking to setup teams to work in these areas but are looking for ways to minimize things like flooding by eliminating garbage in all the streets.

sung.chol.choe@undp.org sung.chol

i fully agree with this integrated approach. This integrity is essential in making sure that disaster risk management goes in line with the national development strategy. The DPRK Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management has already drawn up its plan for its integrated approach and sent its directives to all affiliated organizations.   

sung.chol.choe@undp.org sung.chol

State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management agrees with this integrated apporach. DPRK is new compared with other countries. But it has shown its deep attention to this model and included it in its national development strategy.

sung.chol.choe@undp.org sung.chol

State committee for Emergency and Disaster Management agrees with this model. It has incorporated this approach in its national development strategy and pushes it forward.

Ronaldo Pila • Project development officer cum analyst at Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

I say an integrated DDR-CCA approach is better if not one of the generally acceptable approach especially when mainstreaming framework is to be considered. The holistics system approach for DDR-CCA may create inclusiveness development and participatory for all stakeholders in the village .

Syafrizal Maludin

It is essential to understand the need of working group in mitigation process. As the government provide assistance and aid for the victim others need to study at school, go fishing or trade their product. This needs is not compulsory for men, women and children.I was lucky to had experience in applying the simple technology in producing Gebangga Fiber in Pameungpeuk in West Java. This location was hit by the tsunami on 2009. We have our private partner to train the women how to produce the fiber from gebangga which meet the manufacturing standard. The fishermen also had a temporary job in collecting the branch before the safe time for them to fish and received new boat/engine. They still had time in taking care the their relatives who become the victim, but they also have productive time instead of waiting for food.

Ronaldo Pila • Project development officer cum analyst at Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

I prefer integrated DDR-CCA.  The holistics  system approach of integrated DDR -CCA   can mobilize participatory  development and generate empowerment  among stakeholders.This  method has  been proven  in several  disaster  management related   in the past in my area. On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:37 AM, "notification@unteamworks.org" <notification@unteamworks.org> wrote:

Syafrizal Maludin

It is essential to understand the need of working group in mitigation process. As the government provide assistance and aid for the victim others need to study at school, go fishing or trade their product. This needs is not compulsory for men, women and children.I was lucky to had experience in applying the simple technology in producing Gebangga Fiber in Pameungpeuk in West Java. This location was hit by the tsunami on 2009. We have our private partner to train the women how to produce the fiber from gebangga which meet the manufacturing standard. The fishermen also had a temporary job in collecting the branch before the safe time for them to fish and received new boat/engine. They still had time in taking care the their relatives who become the victim, but they also have productive time instead of waiting for food.

Lucia Ballesteros

CCA is a stage of DRR, adapataion to climate change is the preventive stage of climatic disaster risk reduction. Both sciences come from diferents approaches but share the same goal when attending climatic risk, that are: raise awareness on hazard and reduce vulnerabilities for increase the resilience, and at the end sustain the development. Ideally sustainable development where both have ecosystem management as core solution. @SidneyClouston from Nigeria, it is interesting the linkages and approaches of mitigation cc, disaster risk reduction and adaptation cc

Andrys ERAWAN • Technical Officer at UNDP

In Indonesia, we have been developing what we call DRR-CCA Convergence Framework document. The process has been started since 2013 and involved multistakeholders in both areas, DRR and CCA such as government institutions, non-government organisations, academia, practitioners in DRR, CCA and also gender. Despite tough arguments and ideas during discussions and writing process, but all share a common goal to establish a convergence framework for DRR-CCA. However, until today the draft is still not yet finalised, but the process itself has proven that such framework is definitely needed. One thing that is still unclear is the segregation of roles and responsibilities between the two key government stakeholders; disaster management agency and environment and forestry ministry. That is at national level.At sub-national level, the focus is the implementation at community level. It is relatively less problematic compared with at national level. The communities are very open to the concept of DRR-CCA Convergence. In fact, in many places, the communities have been practicing what we call DRR-CCA convergence through their local wisdom and later, we are coming and labelling it with DRR-CCA convergence. Recently, we just witnessed the urgency of DRR-CCA convergence implementation at community level. In one village with mountainous landscape, the community had invested building irrigation facilities for their farming land. One night, there was a heavy rain that caused landslides in several spots in the village including in the spots of several irrigation facilities. The farmers are expecting to harvest the crop in May/June but now, the farmers are facing a possibility of crop failure. Too bad to see how much the efforts have been put by the community to build the irrigation facilities in a landslide prone area. They should have thought building irrigation facilities and at the same time strengthening the surrounding slopes to protect what they have invested. A lesson to learn.

Diana Harutyunyan • Programme Manager at UNDP

The integrated approach for DRR and CRM is logical and important for consolidation of human and financial resources.The DRR Platform established in Armenia in the course of implementation of Hyogo National   Plan allowed UNDP to create appropriate momentum for integration of CRM concerns.  The cooperation, joint actions   and exchange of information between DRR and CC teams in UNDP Armenia allowed to build appropriate recognition on national level and inclusion of CRM issues in the Sendai National Action Plan currently under development in Armenia.The risks of climate change are most evident for agriculture sector with negative consequences for wellbeing of rural population, impoverishment, migration and child health, all this are not directly recognized as disaster but it is underling reason of vulnerability and reduced resilience potential. In that context recognition of importance for converging efforts of development community with mandate of assisting countries prone to disasters and climate change impacts in developing risk reduction policy and enhancing national capacity. The key challenge now is to help communities to transfer the ideas to actions.

Diana Harutyunyan • Programme Manager at UNDP

The integrated approach for DRR and CRM is logical and important for consolidation of human and financial resources.The DRR Platform established in Armenia in the course of implementation of Hyogo National   Plan allowed UNDP to create appropriate momentum for integration of CRM concerns.  The cooperation, joint actions   and exchange of information between DRR and CC teams in UNDP Armenia allowed to build appropriate recognition on national level and inclusion of CRM issues in the Sendai National Action Plan currently under development in Armenia.The risks of climate change are most evident for agriculture sector with negative consequences for wellbeing of rural population, impoverishment, migration and child health, all this are not directly recognized as disaster but it is underling reason of vulnerability and reduced resilience potential. In that context recognition of importance for converging efforts of development community with mandate of assisting countries prone to disasters and climate change impacts in developing risk reduction policy and enhancing national capacity. The key challenge now is to help communities to transfer the ideas to actions.

Royston Flude • CEO and Founder and President at CMDC-SPOC

Natural and Complex disasterers are becoming increasingly prevalent of which some are linked to Climate Change and others range from pandemics, food & water crisis and conflict.I was the Chair of the Disaster Relief Rotarian Action Group, which focused the Rotary International response of 1.2 million Rotarians in 35,000 clubs in 190 countries with our permanent representatives at the United Nations.  CSPOC focuses on the development of self-sustaining solutions and has established that inputs in Health, Education and Enterprise need to be integrated to deliver longitudinal self-suatainability. We regard women as the most important trans-generational change agents. Complexity Science informs us through Agent Based Modelling that it is essential to create micro groups of triads to develop self-sustaining dynamic networks. One of the major challenges is to address mind-sets and 'silo mentalities' to deliver multi-discipline cross functional working. Inevitably this also requires the engagement to Tribal (Politicians) and Ancestrial (Grandmothers) interest groups. We need to consider a phased approach with integrated invention in Response, Relief, Re-building & Resilience.In systems operating at the 'edge of choas' 80% of the outcomes are a function of the People Dimension. We need to develop a better understanding of how people function in crisis and how fear can create states of 'learned helplessness' leading to passive and active avoidance strategies due to Post Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI)/ Disorder (PTSD) Our experience validated by Costa Rica is that Education is the place to start in the Relief stage. Building a school anchors communities and minimises fear. A school should be considered as a 24x7 SMART Learning Centre for the whole comminty. Family centric soluitions provide the way forward for people to move from fear to hope and 'learned optimisim'Royston FludePresidentCSPOCwww.c-spoc.org

Armen Grigoryan • Disaster Management Programme specialist at UNDP

I believe one of the main challenges for itnegrated DRR CC mainstreaming into overall development policies at national and below levels is the political will and motivation of Governments. While at conceptual levele, there is a good udnerstanding among national counterparts at technical and political levels on the need of integrated DRR and CC mainstreaming into development, at programmatic and oeprational levels, these priorities are giving way to more politically sensitive priorities. Motivation is much greater during and in the immediate aftermath of disasters, however on a day to day development type of work, it is still challenging to convience some Government officials that investing in DRR will pay off when another disaster strikes. Two things that can help move this forward are: moving towards more binding global framework on investing in DRR and CC; and second - very strong financially proven calculation on return on investment in DRR and CC before the disasters.

Feras Darweesh

Just quick thought, technically, I believe this portal is insufficient to support this discussion and brainstorming, we need a more collaborative portal, at the minimum to support a kind of ideas voting, prioritization, merging and classification.., etc.

Robert Ruitenbeek • Managing Director / Owner at iNVENTUR! from Netherlands

Dear All,Do we need a global framework to understand that it's Human behaviour which drives the recurrent hazards and related disasters, or do we urgently need to tell each other to stop looking away and start proactively changing yourself (and share your knowlegde with your neighbors) !?Concerning environmental risks, related Human behaviour and underlaying systemic causalities I strongly advise to read the attached analysis on the interrelationships between Sustainable Development Targets and dietary change and reflect on how these insights effect the (to be localized) SDG priorities and approach.The remedy we seek is within reach of every Human!Make the right decision and start your own contribution today! Kind regards,Robert

Satya Prakash Mehra • Advisor cum Manager at Rajputana Society of Natural History

We, Rajputana Society of Natural History (RSNH), are registered organization working on the aspects of conservation and environmental protection through community participation on the principle of "Conservaion Practices for Sustainable Livelihood". Since 2007 onward we carrying out activities of improvement of water conditions in rural areas of Bharatpur (Rajasthan, India) with CSR support. The activities include structural/ civil works as well as social upliftment works targeting different stakeholders. In general, village community as a whole and in specific, women/ farmers/ children as different target groups. all the activities are focusing conservation of water and adaptation/ mitigation towards disaster/s and/or climate change. A model centre has been created in the rural area (at village Ramnagar/ Chak Ramnagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India) adjoining world heritage site - Keoladeo National Park. This centre (named Rajputana's Shakuntalam) is  model setup for to cope up against changing environmental conditions. As a learning/ training centre for the rural communities to revive eco-traditions/ conservation practices to cope up with changing scenario especially when the climate changes had affected the agriculture practices due to changes in the surrounding water conditions (available water, soil moisture, atmospheric humidity etc.). With women, RSNH team has taken up the programs of empowerment from all perspectives - economic, social, ecological etc. The linkages of conservation practices with the livelihood/ income generation of women has greater impact and understanding of changing conditions. The low availability of raw materials (floral species) has made them realized the present conditions....... Thus, sensitization programs to adapt the changing climatic conditions, and change the prevalent malpractices of deteriorating environment are undertaken.With farmers, alternating the agriculture practices as per demand of the changing climatic conditions as well as managing water resources are the key training programs undertaken by RSNH team.With children, sensitization programs towards the disastrous conditions (due to drought, flood, climate change) and the approaches to cope up with the disasters are undertaken by the RSNH team in form of PRAKRUTISHALA (Nature School). soon our team is planning to establish a formal education school along with ECO-EDUCATIONAL Training for ENVIRO-PRENEURSHIP is underway. Disaster and Climate change are the primarily focused aspects of this establishment.   As desired by the platform, I would like to share my views (at my individual capacity) on the following points:What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRRand CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts? Views - In my view integration of DRR and CCA is an important issue which is need of time especially when the anthropogenic activities are inducting climate change  resulting into the changing environmental conditions. Based on my working experiences in Rajasthan (India), which is considered to be the Desert State of Rajasthan, I felt a great change in the climate regime of the local regions. The flood prone areas are coming under dark zones and drought/ water scarce areas are receiving lot of water. It can't be denied that human activities are playing crucial role in shifting of such regimes but season and rainfall patterns are also changing.The micro-climatic conditions which need immediate attention are nowhere on the policy lists. Green spaces which maintains the heating effects of the human habitations are being overlooked by the policy makers, town planners. If in case, the policy makers and planners do prepare a plan then the implementation/ execution is poor...... Overall, poor landscaping due to any of the reasons are causing urban heats. Thus, low green cover or green spaces resulting into the disastrous conditions of rise in urban temperatures, over-use of resources (exploitation of resources) especially water. Over use of water resources is depleting the ground water causing the drought conditions or unequal distribution of water as the demand (overuse) of urban population is high therefore, resource sharing from rural areas is quite unequal................ raising the disparities among populations. The community (rural/ tribal) residing near water resources lack the facilities but those of urban areas enjoy all the facilities.Mainstreaming DRR & CCA is necessary for planing and policy with mandatory execution/ implementation. It needs integrated policy to check the challenges faced by the people. The check and balance in resource utilization is possible with the integrated plans. Separately, there are lot of contradictions. Integrated approach could be safeguarded with the evidences and facts; thus, on the basis of those examples, mandatory policy could be prepared to protect resources in terms of DRR and CCA. What are your current experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA?  What existing resources have been helpful? How have you applied these? What are their strength or shortcomings? What are the mainstreaming challenges you are facing?Views - I find it important because when we impart training on DRR, it becomes important for us to share views on the reasons. On the ground of the facts (as per discussions and observations of community/women/ farmers), we have to deal with the aspects of CC which is not at all separate issue. The CC and its impact is self convincing aspects which are raised by local people without knowing any external influences. The observations of the agriculture yield is one of the focus point which make them logical. Although they do believe in disasters (drought and flood) but these community people themselves state that today's conditions are becoming unpredictable, thus affecting their plans of cropping pattern. So they appreciate the training programs which details the aspects of adaptation strategy towards unpredictable climate changes. They also feel that if we (farmer/ village community) adapt ourself towards the climatic conditions then we could cope up with disastrous conditions. Thus, gone are the days when we discussed only about DRR (especially drought and flood), now-a-days CCA is more or less well discussed issues even among the ground workers. Therefore, our training focus on the existing integrated approach of DRR & CCA instead of separate aspects.     What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework? How can we ensure a user-friendly, practical and readily implementable framework? How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges? Views - I would like to put one important expectations from my side, and that is integration of eco-traditional indigenous practices from every corner of the globe. The framework should have the flexibility but exemplify the practical approaches (indigenous) which could be replicated on the same geographical terrains. Further, practical applications should be linked with the livelihood of the target stakeholders. Linking the community with the income generation is one of the important attributes which defines the success rate of execution. Whatever training imparted by our RSNH team largely depends on the practical approach of raising the opportunities of income. Secondly, community ownership and respect for the framework. In most of the cases, stakeholders take the learning for grated. Until unless they own the execution strategy, we must not think of success. If the framework gives respect to the local indigenous eco-traditions then such challenges could be overcome.  Note: If the platform could share the literature, materials, resources etc. for the centre created by the rural community and for the rural community then do let us know. RSNH has developed distinct centre - Rajputana Rural Enviro-preneurship Development Centre (RREDC) to impart training and share learning (ground reality) for the purpose of DRR & CCA.

Valerie Crab

Dear Satya, thank you very much for your comprehensive response. We've also well received your email, but this will be the platform which will be used for the discussions. You mention wanting to share some documentation. Please do feel free to upload any document you think are relevant to inform this discussion. You can do so by clicking on reply or creating a new post. Under the text box you will find a box allowing you to attach files. All the best

Cush Ngonzo Luwesi • Lecturer and researcher at kenyatta University

The extent to which global frameworks (like the CCA, CCM, CRM, DRR, LD & WR, Agenda 21 and others) are integrated enables easy policies and planning of emergency interventions, adaptation and mitigation of disasters at the national and local levels. This would significantly contribute to achieving sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness in poverty reduction and environmental sectors, notwithstanding energy, agriculture, water and sanitation, hygiene and health. It would likely help poor countries, which lack anticipatory capacities, to make a significant contribution to the attainment of the post Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). In our field, the focus is on reducing significantly the number of people without access to safe water and energy sources after the year 2030 in most ASALs (arid and semi arid lands), which is a key driver to environmental sustainability and socio-economic resilience in poor countries. We can easily achieve that goal by integrating global frameworks on CCA and DDR. Hence, our study conducted in 2013 in Kenya provides a rigorous  and systematic methodology for integrating a DPSIR framework alongside a VCA framework with support of hybrid hydro-economic, meteorological, agro-ecological and environmental modelling (and approaches). At the end of the assessment, a vulnerability-capability assessment (VCA+) framework was produced to enable farmers integrate economic, social and developmental variables in their DRR and CCA decision-making using “Green Water Saving” (GWS) schemes. This method can only be applied successfully at small catchments levels with palbable results. Otherwise, the integrated Vulnerability-Capability Assessment (VCA+) would lead to no satisfactory results on the ground but to mere political talks and scientific debates. 

Valerie Crab

Hi! You mention a study conducted in 2013. Is this study freely available? Do you happen to have a copy that can be shared? Thank you!

Cush Ngonzo Luwesi • Lecturer and researcher at kenyatta University

Sorry the 2014 publication rather (Book Chapter 6 in OSSREA publications) is not free but can be read online.  It  is as follows:Shisanya, CA., Luwesi, CN. and Obando, JA. (2014). “Innovative but Not Feasible: Green Water Saving Schemes at the Crossroad in Semi-Arid Lands”. In: OSSREA (eds.), Innovative Water Resource Use and Management for Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Anthology (ISBN: 978-99944-55-75-1), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 137-172. URL: https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=IrCKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=O…, you can see similar concepts in the 2 following book chapters:Luwesi, CN., Shisanya, CA. and Obando, JA. (2011). “Toward a hydro-economic approach for risk assessment and mitigation planning for farming water disasters in semi-arid Kenya”. (Chapter 2). In: M. Savino (ed), Risk Management in Environment, Production and Economy (ISBN: 978-953-307-313-2), InTech, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 27-46.  Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/risk-management-in-environment-producti… C.N., Obando J.A. and Shisanya C. (2012). Hydro-economic inventory for sustainable livelihood in Kenyan ASALs: The case of Muooni Dam (Chapter 8). CICD Series (ISSN: 1868-8575), Vol.9: 105-125  Available at:  www.uni-siegen.de/zew/publikationen/pdf/lars_proceedings_2011.pdf

sung.chol.choe@undp.org sung.chol

Thanks a lot for your spnosorship of this e-discussion. i hereby send my own and comments from DPRK's national partners who are involved in the fields of DRR and CCA. The word mainstrreaming captures a greater interest among the stakeholders in DPRM on a much more important baiss recent days. That is because DRR and CCA is considered as one of the important objectives in DPRK's national development plan. DPRK government has attached a great importance to the combination of the DRR and its national deveopment strategy. in 2016 alone, DPRK government appealed to all people at the national and community levels to be mobilized fully for the rehabilitation  of the forest which is aimed at  effecting a greater national development. This year, thanks to all people's efforts, the country secured a greater footage in forest rehabilitation which, in turn, made a greater contribution towards the overall development of the country. Meanwhile, State Committee for Emergency and Disaster Management, DPRK had already provided its own strategy to mainstream DRR/CCA in the DPRK's national development plan and pushing for its implementation. The expectation is running high among the peoeple in generaal and the mainstrakeholders to see this mainstreaming work to be planned and implemented on a steady/step-by-step basis. With best regards,     

Nidhi Nagabhatla

Integrated approaches hold good potential as a management framework. The conceptual work in this topic is vast and not effectively translated into action or practice as of uncertainties, assumptions and priorities that surface out in specific sectors (climate adaptation, disasters, human resources, natural resources, risk……) & related interventions.  Quite central to building an integrated understanding is the critical need for a common language and common action frameworks (that can serve as guiding documents and not necessarily as blue prints). For example, when we talk about CCA-it may encapsulate handling disaster situations, however that element of emergency preparedness is not clear and certainly not a priority. In summary the time dimension is large, sometimes unclear. In DRR strategies, dimension of time bound action and responses are defined with some clarity. Overall in theory, DRR is factored in CCA generic framework. Handling overlaps  yet holding priorities is an important aspect of integrated solutions.  

Everson Ndlovu

Current ExperiencesThe DRR framework in Zimbabwe is housed in the Ministry of Local Government, while the Climate Change Office is located in the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate. Already one realises coordination challenges across ministries, conflicting policy frameworks from one department of government to another. For example, while  the Ministry Of Agriculture might want to promote irrigation as a way of climate change adaptation, the power department is in another ministry  to drive water to sites. Many an irrigation are in a state of derilict as a result, simple because there is no energy or the Agriculture Ministry cannot afford energy costs. While the Climate Change Office would want improved coordination (which is ideal) one wonders as to the political will to ensure climate change is mainstreamed across all developmental goals and intitiatives across the total spectrum. While thee is need to invest in institutional capacity in Zimbabwe, there is also the need to create independent institutions (away from the arms of ministries) that multi-stakeholder oriented, run on the lines of parastatals or commissions with the full manadate to ensure compliance actross department with holistic policy frameworks that cut across entities. The frameworks should be informed from the grassroots(increased community paticipation), increase use of  local kowledge blocks. Climare or DRR coomunication needs attention (institutional capacity building), there are still areas, and these are ususlly vulnerable areas, where communities cannot access national radio and TV signals (early warning communication is already compromised) and resilience undermined. Where signals can be received, the cost of these communication gadgets is way above the reach of local communities who should be consumminmg the communication messages. Given the resource constraints poor governments face, there is need for UN agencies and other [artners to consider institutional capacity building a priority in enhancing coordibnated frameworks.

Kalyani Raj

An integrated approach to DRR and CCA is always better, however, the approach should include capacity building at the community level to provide immediate support and relief. While government does try to mainstream this into their plans, there are gaps at the regional or district level co-ordination which results in confusion and disorientation when the disaster strikes. Also many a times, post disaster relief allocation of funds or resources do find place in the planning but the allocation for preparetory capacity buiding is missing. 

Kalyani Raj

An integrated approach to DRR and CCA is always better, however, the approach should include capacity building at the community level to provide immediate support and relief. While government does try to mainstream this into their plans, there are gaps at the regional or district level co-ordination which results in confusion and disorientation when the disaster strikes. Also many a times, post disaster relief allocation of funds or resources do find place in the planning but the allocation for preparetory capacity buiding is missing. 

Kalyani Raj

An integrated approach to DRR and CCA is always better, however, the approach should include capacity building at the community level to provide immediate support and relief. While government does try to mainstream this into their plans, there are gaps at the regional or district level co-ordination which results in confusion and disorientation when the disaster strikes. Also many a times, post disaster relief allocation of funds or resources do find place in the planning but the allocation for preparatory capacity building goes missing.

Titus KUUYUOR • Programme Specialist at UNDP

What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts? The government of Mozambique and development partners have embraced the concept of DRR and CCA mainstreaming into development plans as a path way to sustainable development.  It has been noted among directors of planning that, development which is not informed by disaster risk is non-sustainable and cannot guarantee the citizen wellbeing.    The benefit, they noted are the disasters that will not occur and even when they do, recovery will be quicker than before due to less impact.  Nonetheless, there are a number of key challenges that need to be addressed toward ensuring that the concept can achieve its desire goal.  I have attached a short story from Mozambique that highlights some success stories from the government staff (planning directors) and some key challenges on DRR & CCA mainstreaming.    

Mario Epstein • from Brazil

Climate change is related to various processes of interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere, such as El Niño, ITCZ and PDO. My experience with under-developed countries or developing countries, shows that they insist on predicting climate change only based on local atmosféricoos data. In my most recent consulting project, I had success in convincing local authorities to expand the database to the drought forecast. The new model was able to predict with 6 months in advance the worst drought in decades. With this, the local government was able to implement social measures to reduce the impact of drought on the population.

Titus KUUYUOR • Programme Specialist at UNDP

What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts? The government of Mozambique and development partners have embraced the concept of DRR and CCA mainstreaming into development plans as a path way to sustainable development.  It has been noted among directors of planning that, development which is not informed by disaster risk is non-sustainable and cannot guarantee the citizen wellbeing.    The benefit, they noted are the disasters that will not occur and even when they do, recovery will be quicker than before due to less impact.  Nonetheless, there are a number of key challenges that need to be addressed toward ensuring that the concept can achieve its desire goal.  I have attached a short story from Mozambique that highlights some success stories from the government staff (planning directors) and some key challenges on DRR & CCA mainstreaming.    

Celine Paramundayil

Climate related disasters are growing in the recent years and hence an integrated Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Framework is absolutely necessary. The main thing is to address the root causes of the problem of excess Green House Gas in to the atmosphere on the one side and the destruction of forests in the name of development on the other side. Hence developed countries who have the historic responsibility of causing Climate Change must adopt a framework to curb the GHG while protecting the forests in developing countries for natural carbon sequestration as a long lasting solution. Green Climate fund to the developing countries for mitigation and adaptation should be implemented as a necessary solution to the common threat rather than a charity to the poor nations. There is urgent need to find a common solution; provision of clean cook stoves to replace cutting of trees for fuel in developing countries, Reduce the consumption of meat and change unsustainable life style of the wealthy and the middle class around the world.  Because the poor and the impoverished including Mother Earth  are disproportionately affected by  both Climate Change and other natural Disasters.

Jessie Lydia Henshaw • Senior Scientist at HDS Natural Systems Design Science from United States

I've expanded my scientific studies focused on the problem of creating an integrated framework solution for several decades.   I've made lots of progress on many fronts, but I'm unfortunately still at step #1 as far as getting the professional communities to realize we need a whole system solution.   When studying natural systems, which nature defines and we don't, there is not much sense you can make of any part without considering the rest of the system it is a part of.   So to start a study of a growing economic system the first step is to identify it as a whole.    Even the leading systems sciences still only know how to to do that with their computer models.    It's a problem of perception partly, but in any case there seem to be no institutional whole system accounting methods applying to humanity's activities as a whole,.. other than by my microscopic institution's work on the problem for nearly 40 years.   So, that economic decisions have only been counting for selective impacts of certain parts, and not  counting all the impacts for the whole is really the most fatal flaw in our current plans to save the earth.   What you find when you do that is that all these "wicked problems" we create come from what people very widely agree on as the normal way to live on earth, not what we people disagree on.  We operate humanity using economic practices inherited from the ancient past, for continually accelerating the expansion of our uses of the earth and their impacts.   It wasn't a "decision" exactly, but happened by default, by always encouraging businesses to grow as fast as they could, and having the businesses which grow the fastest taking over the decision making for the whole economy.  It follows a very basic design principle for natural systems, one  we had not noticed before, that what grows the fastest takes over.   Today we need to shift from that model, of using profits to expand the system as fast as possible, to using the profits to better the systems as fast as possible, a very different strategy, but in the common interest of all.       My main proposal to the UN is still probably the only one from anywhere to do that, offer a practical direct and inclusive method for accurately assigning responsibility for the harms to our future caused by economic decisions.   It's based on a combination of a powerful principle of systems physics, that every part uses the whole, and using inclusive accounting principles for collecting measures of all the measurable  ESG values and impact for a combined accounting, using the common unit of measure %'s of the total.   What makes that useful is it very quickly shows that today's costs to our future would be a very large part of world GDP, making it clear that it's no fiction that we are rapidly driving the earth bankrupt. That proposal was presented to the UN in Feb 2014.  I've reposted with links to the original and a brief introduction to my research journal (1).   I think you'll quickly see how sensible it is, and then have doubts whether it could ever be used, as it questions lots of things we've all been agreeing on that are also clearly out of order.   We have not been counting the systemic costs of making money, for example.   So doing that is likely to not be understood at first by people who actively use money to make money, who have been relying on counting the systemic costs of making money as "0".    One need not understand all the details, nor have change overnight, if practical changes in how profits are calculated are clearly in the common interests of all.   It's accurately measuring the systemic impacts of making money that will be the one thing that will save us.   1) a World SDG - www.synapse9.com/signals/2014/02/03/a-world-sdg/2) Publication List - www.synapse9.com/jlhpub.htm3) Research & Consulting - www.synapse9.com/jlhCRes.pdf

Jessie Lydia Henshaw • Senior Scientist at HDS Natural Systems Design Science from United States

I've expanded my scientific studies focused on the problem of creating an integrated framework solution for several decades.   I've made lots of progress on many fronts, but I'm unfortunately still at step #1 as far as getting the professional communities to realize we need a whole system solution.   When studying natural systems, which nature defines and we don't, there is not much sense you can make of any part without considering the rest of the system it is a part of.   So to start a study of a growing economic system the first step is to identify it as a whole.    Even the leading systems sciences still only know how to to do that with their computer models.    It's a problem of perception partly, but in any case there seem to be no institutional whole system accounting methods applying to humanity's activities as a whole,.. other than by my microscopic institution's work on the problem for nearly 40 years.   So, that economic decisions have only been counting for selective impacts of certain parts, and not  counting all the impacts for the whole is really the most fatal flaw in our current plans to save the earth.   What you find when you do that is that all these "wicked problems" we create come from what people very widely agree on as the normal way to live on earth, not what we people disagree on.  We operate humanity using economic practices inherited from the ancient past, for continually accelerating the expansion of our uses of the earth and their impacts.   It wasn't a "decision" exactly, but happened by default, by always encouraging businesses to grow as fast as they could, and having the businesses which grow the fastest taking over the decision making for the whole economy.  It follows a very basic design principle for natural systems, one  we had not noticed before, that what grows the fastest takes over.   Today we need to shift from that model, of using profits to expand the system as fast as possible, to using the profits to better the systems as fast as possible, a very different strategy, but in the common interest of all.       My main proposal to the UN is still probably the only one from anywhere to do that, offer a practical direct and inclusive method for accurately assigning responsibility for the harms to our future caused by economic decisions.   It's based on a combination of a powerful principle of systems physics, that every part uses the whole, and using inclusive accounting principles for collecting measures of all the measurable  ESG values and impact for a combined accounting, using the common unit of measure %'s of the total.   What makes that useful is it very quickly shows that today's costs to our future would be a very large part of world GDP, making it clear that it's no fiction that we are rapidly driving the earth bankrupt. That proposal was presented to the UN in Feb 2014.  I've reposted with links to the original and a brief introduction to my research journal (1).   I think you'll quickly see how sensible it is, and then have doubts whether it could ever be used, as it questions lots of things we've all been agreeing on that are also clearly out of order.   We have not been counting the systemic costs of making money, for example.   So doing that is likely to not be understood at first by people who actively use money to make money, who have been relying on counting the systemic costs of making money as "0".    One need not understand all the details, nor have change overnight, if practical changes in how profits are calculated are clearly in the common interests of all.   It's accurately measuring the systemic impacts of making money that will be the one thing that will save us.   1) a World SDG - www.synapse9.com/signals/2014/02/03/a-world-sdg/2) Publication List - www.synapse9.com/jlhpub.htm3) Research & Consulting - www.synapse9.com/jlhCRes.pdf

SM Farid Uddin Akhter

sasrai Day –01 Boishakh /April 14 Appeal Save Forest – Save Water – Save Earth & Life ensure Habitable Earth for EachThe biggest threat to the present Planet Earth is Rapid Running Out of the Resources (RRR).sasrai-Movement must be the Central to Realizing Sustainable Global DevelopmentEnsure Peace, Justice, Dignity, Rights, Prosperity, Security for EachNo matter Climate Changing or Not, Ice Melting or Not – We must stop Consumption Competitionhttps://www.facebook.com/fgaleeb/media_set?set=a.1698354653753742.10737…

Maereg Tafere

I want to start from the conceptual stage – Understanding integration:I am an environmentalist by profession (environmental impacts of disasters and conflicts) and I have been in the development business in Africa for over 20 years.There are two major concepts in this topic (integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development): 1) Integration, and 2) mainstreaming. Both are very challenging concepts to practice.From practical point of view, integration requires framing an interrelated concept with different branches - in this case disaster risks being the development challenge but, caused by CC & other factors. This essentially implies that the framework is not trying to bring together two distant concepts. Effective results can be obtained when people from both fields work seamlessly to achieve the same objective as far as development is concerned. However, it is difficult to bring such a result when we have two distinct entities handling the two areas.  Each has the tendency to pull things towards itself. Hence, while I think having an integrated framework is possible and is appropriate, the journey can be challenging, even frustrating.Mainstreaming by itself is another concept that can be challenging to implement. Instead of using the word mainstreaming, I personally prefer to define DRR and CC issues as core parts of planning and execution of any development work. When we use the word “mainstreaming” there is a connotation that implies the parameter being “mainstreamed” is foreign to the subject at hand. Rather it is a parameter that was neglected (because it was not an issue before) and that it needs to be factored-in in future development programs. That means planning and execution of development works will not be complete if DRR and CC are not considered. It becomes mandatory not an optional factor that can be ignored. Therefore, the role of DRR and CC people will be to identify important areas that need to be factored in the various contexts.In addition, I also suggest that we first identify the users before designing the frameworks (the framework may mean different things for different users). Who are the potential users of this integrated CC – DRR mainstreaming framework – technocrats, policy makers, practitioners, or beneficiaries? This becomes another layer of challenge and hence it would be good to consider these players when thinking about such a framework. 

Alexander Barrett

What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts? At the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, we have been mainstreaming DRR into development for the last 10 years, working with country governments across Asia. Within this period there has grown a great need to integrate CCA into our work and we have responded.The challenge that I have experienced with mainstreaming both DRR and CCA at the same time into development is that often this causes for greater focus on the area where these two concepts overlap i.e. disasters caused by hydrometrological hazards (floods, droughts, storms etc.). This means that within DRR, non-hydrometrological natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis etc.) can be overlooked and within CCA, the much needed adaptation to the permanent impacts of climate change (e.g. sea level rise, ocean acidification) can also be overlooked. It would great if a new framework highlighted where the two concepts overlapped and where they didn't and ensured that all parts were focused on in the approach.What are your experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA?  What existing resources have been helpful? How have you applied these? What are their strength or shortcomings? What are the mainstreaming challenges you are facing?A key weak area of mainstreaming into development is in the "implementation sphere" (refering to UNDP's current mainstreaming DRR framework). In the past 10 years that has been great progress in creating development policies and plans which create the enabling environment for DRR and CCA activities to take place but often there is a struggle to enforcing these policies and plans as well as then monitor and evaluate said activities. As Armen Grigoryan has already mentioned, if we can show to governments the value of DRR and CCA activities the more likely that they will champion the DRR and CCA cause.

Moortaza JIWANJI • PRRP Programme Manager at UNDP

Thank you Angelika for initiating this important discussion.  I will base responses to the questions mainly on experiences via the UNDP Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP), which is focused on integrating DRR and CCA approaches into development policy and practice in the Pacific (in Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga and Fiji):1)      Understanding integration: our experience in the Pacific has shown that whilst there are a significant number of initiatives to reduce risk to disasters and adapt to climate change, the extent to which these are embedded within development policy and practice is limited or not operationalised.  In this regards a framework for mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development is highly relevant and can assist countries in implementing the forthcoming regional Strategy for Resilient Development in the Pacific (SRDP).  The framework, will however, need to go beyond the conceptual and delve into the realities of development policy and practice.  This in our experiences has inherently become a ‘governance’ issue and can provide the building blocks for effective mainstreaming;2)      Current experiences: existing frameworks provide clear entry-points and approaches to mainstreaming.  They have also served as useful advocacy tools for mainstreaming as well checklists for practitioners when attempting to integrate DRR-CCA into development.  However, it lacks the development governance approach which is critical for enabling effective mainstreaming and therefore it would be useful if the integrated framework could develop this aspect further;3)      User expectations and needs: two points for consideration in terms of needs in the Pacific: i) the framework should ideally be written from the perspective of development practitioners (and not just DRR and CCA) stakeholders - whilst this may be an obvious point in practice we have found that taking this conversation into the development domain is more likely to lead to effective mainstreaming; ii) operationalizing the framework is key to the success of this initiative.  In this regards we have taken a governance strengthening approach to integrating DRR&CCA – applying the concept of ‘risk governance’ – by targeting people (development decision-makers), development mechanisms and development processes.

Naomi Tobita

I am not sure if my experience in my Japanese home city, Yokohama (a suburb of Tokyo and the largest port in Japan), is relevant elsewhere. But one thing clear in the city about the policy for DRR and climate change adaptation is, critical significance of civic engagement from the planning phase. In the fast-paced modern life in Japan, often bureaucrats in the city office come from elsewhere who inevitably lacks knowledge of local situation, be it geographical detail or human dynamics in the community. They are very smart to draw a plan based on the latest academic or otherwise discipline, and could allow houses to be built on a former swamp, or near seemingly innocent stream. In the 2011 earthquake, the family who recently bought their home in such places observed their houses sank in the mud with liquefaction. These days we experience numerous tiny but freak torrential rains that cause flash floods and kill 20- or 30-something (recently moved) fathers whose house received landslide due to a sudden flood in the hill. The locals, especially senior citizens who may not have a college degree but spend their entire life in the same community, shake their heads and say “Didn’t they know that place has been ‘checked’ traditionally?” “Didn’t they know how to manage the forest/stream near their home?” People have the critically important knowledge of the place, and prepare in the most reasonable way to protect ourselves. One of the most successful environmental management policy in Yokohama, called Yokohama Green Up Plan, is strongly civil society driven. The volunteers regularly engage in Most Significant Change M&E to achieve the safe and biodiversity-enhancing results for the community we have lived for centuries. The coordination among local players could be difficult sometimes even for Green Up Plan but in the end it is the quickest to get the things done. Yokohama’s deforestation has slowed its pace from annual -47ha till 2008 (average) to -12ha in 2013, and the improvement continues.    

Stanislav Kim • DDR Programme Specialist at UNDP

It is obvious that climate change increases disaster risks and generates new threats, which a countries may have no experience in dealing with. The analysis of the dynamics of frequency of climate change related disasters in the region of Europe and CIS in last 50 years proves the need for merging CCA and DRR practices not only at the political, but also at the operational level. At the same time by analyzing an ongoing CCA portfolio in the region, we can conclude that significant part of CCA interventions is already DRR by nature and the only difference is in the language of projects/programs formulation (mainly driven by donor requirements). This mean that merging of DRR and CCA is already in process at the ground/implementation level, but still requires relevant policies and programming guides development. For its elaboration we can benefit from the lessons learned and best practices developed and tested within the existing DRR/CCA projects funded by the Adaptation fund, etc. Another point is that CC and DRR international processes over the last decades have created two parallel movements not only at the global level, but also at the national. In majority of the countries the work of DDR and CC/CCA at the national level is driven by the different agencies (environment vs emergency) with lack of coordination and understanding of the need for cooperation. That is why, in addition to the development of the global DRR and CCA guides and policies, an extensive support is required to the states and UNDP COs to analyze and address all range of gaps existing at the national level. The modality of the National capacity self-assessment exercise for linking main “Rio” conventions funded by the GEF in mid of 2000, could serve as a prototype for the same process on DRR and CCA.

Diana Harutyunyan • Programme Manager at UNDP

I agree with my colleague Kim that self-assessment project can creat momentum to understand synergies between DRR and CRM as  have chance to manage project on NCSA in Armenia and it was really ground breaking experience and sape some new activities in the country

Diana Harutyunyan • Programme Manager at UNDP

I agree with my colleague Kim that self-assessment project can creat momentum to understand synergies between DRR and CRM as  have chance to manage project on NCSA in Armenia and it was really ground breaking experience and sape some new activities in the country

Kalyani Raj

An integrated approach to DRR and CCA is always better, however, the approach should include capacity building at the community level to provide immediate support and relief. While government does try to mainstream this into their plans, there are gaps at the regional or district level co-ordination which results in confusion and disorientation when the disaster strikes. Also many a times, post disaster relief allocation of funds or resources do find place in the planning but the allocation for preparatory capacity building goes missing.

Susanna

 PEDRR, the Partnership on Ecosystems for Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction has many interesting reads on this topic, to which many organisations contribute. For example: The Role of Ecosystems in Disaster Risk Reduction ; Promoting Ecosystems for Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters. More at: http://pedrr.org/top-20-suggested-readings/Wetlands International produced a set of criteria for integrating ecosystems in resilience practice: Criteria for Ecosystem-Smart Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: https://www.wetlands.org/publications/integrating-ecosystems-in-resilie… these sources are useful to you!

Marcotulio Humberto Cardona

hablando del nuevo enfoque de Reduccion a Desastres y adaptacion al Cambio climatico, deben tomar en cuenta las necesidades de la poblacion vulnerable, que viven en zonas marginadas o vulnerables, elaborar planes con la comunidad, en el salvador esta el comite nacional de proteccion civl, de ahi sigue una linea descendente a nivel departamental, municipal y local para actuar cuando haya un desastre natural como temporales fuertes, o terremotos

Jessica TRONI • Technical Specialist at UNDP

Adaptation assumes that the development process can be controlled (you adapt and therefore manage climate surprises).  But extremes, which are becoming more pronounced with climate change, can upset the best laid plans.  That is one of the intersections between CCA and DRR – adapting to both changes in the mean ranges of climatic hazards, but also supporting people to manage and recover from the extremes, understanding that the extremes are changing.  Also noteworthy is that it will be impossible to reduce risks to zero (either the technical possibilities are not there or it is too costly, and we simply cannot predict the extremes).  So some level of residual risk will always be present.  Either social protection or insurance could help people get back on their feet (depending on the risk and whether it is actuarially possible to insure against).Resilience frameworks have much to recommend them. Resilience models provide a socio-ecological system boundary within which a set of system dynamics can be observed. If properly researched for a specific location, it should develop an understanding of a dynamic system integrating all human and ecological factors, it should identify critical thresholds that, if crossed, would change fundamental properties in the system dynamic (often in negative ways) and the need to support flexibility and action within the boundaries of a ‘stable state’.In practice that variability in stressors is needed to maintain resilience. Promoting resilient systems is not about insulating people from economic shocks (which would keep people tied to risky locations for example), rather it is about giving people the tools and means to be able to manage and adapt to economic shocks, Given the right enabling environment, people can self-organise and adapt.  But as noted above, in most cases risks cannot be reduced to zero, and neither it is realistic nor desirable to aspire to that.In assessing the degree to which a system is resilient, we need to understand the factors affecting system dynamics:  e.g. the casual relationships underlying vulnerability, the existence of thresholds or tipping points in any of the component elements in the system dynamic; the presence of feedback loops; and system inertia (or path dependency). Societal processes of change are enabled or constrained by rules, values and knowledge cultures, and so institutions and the governance systems is critical to enabling resilience and adaptation.The concepts of vulnerability, resilience, adaptation and risk reduction are closely related, but distinct.  One would define resilience as the ability of a system to maintain high-level objectives (e.g productive rural livelihoods) in the face of changes or disturbances; and adaptation as the actions taken to move a socio-ecological system towards a state that enables it to deliver a high level objectives. Adaptation is disaster risk reduction if a climate change lens is applied to the problem.Assessment methodologies have been developed such as the Resilience, Adaptation and Transformation Assessment Framework (RATA) to assess agro-ecosystem resilience. This draws on national indicator sets, as well as expert knowledge, to measure concepts relating to resilience, adaptation and transformation of agroecosystems in the face of climate change. It attempts to characterise a system, identify controlling variables, analyse current state and future desired states of an agro-ecosystem and evaluate its condition with respect to resilience adaptive capacity and transformability.     

Mujahid Hussain

Let start from the conceptual approaches of the difference between DRR and CCA and how these differ and where these two approached can be blend it.  In DRR, we address all potential hazards and particular focus on those associated with high risk and vulnerabilities.   It covers both short and long term hazards and it perceived from society to environment.  In CCA, we are only focuses on climate related hazards. It is long term and perceived environment to society. So DRR actually address the CCA issues as well. If we further expand the domain of the debate, ideally it should cover the SDGs as well. SDGs are the overarching umbrella with integrating DRR and CCA.  The discussion of DRR and CCA discussion without looking to broader picture of sustainable development is like glass half full.The growing role of DRR and CCA in a changing climate with overlapping activities e.g. reducing risks & promoting preparedness have created challenge to tap for resources in the right direction in the competing environment. There is a need to agree on some kind of mainstreaming is necessary for longer term development & sustainability  and open space of opportunity to learn from each other. There is much stronger need to bridge or blend in between DRR and CCA “blend” efforts – starting on risk preparedness – to enhance longer-term development activities. The overarching goal of this blending to increase the resilience among vulnerable communities and institutions in facing an uncertain climate. I am sharing very interesting stuff on how to integrate DRR and CCA and what the barriers/challenges we have in this discourse. The material developed by KNOW-4-DRR. ENABLING KNOWLEDGE FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN INTEGRATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

Bob Stuart • from Canada

I keep glazing over, trying to figure out which little box you want this in, but I think you should hear about the Pickle Family Circus, and our local wildfire problem.The Pickle Family Circus of Northern California was wonderful to watch from the moment they arrived.  It looked like high-speed chaos, interspersed with knots of order like three brawny men using synchronized sledgehammers on the tent pegs.  Soon, however, a big shelter would appear, with rigging strong enough for the trapeze artists.  Not only was every site a bit different, the job was never done the same way twice.  Probably any two members could have done the whole job themselves without speaking a word, so everyone just ran around doing the first job they saw open.  They could have done it the Army way, with one man planning the job and teaching each soldier one part, but instead, they ran on general principles, and maximized the input from individual intelligence.  This is the durable, adaptable way to go. Last summer, we had terrible forest fires in Northern Saskatchewan, an area which the Government had been treating like a big Company Town.  Unable to respond effectively to the fires, they gave up and declared a "let it burn" policy, with evacuations  that were far more traumatic than necessary.  They forced out the local firefighters, and wasted days on hastily training strangers to the land, who could easily get lost and never know what was around the next hill without help.  The response obviously was worse both for the disaster and for the climate.The basic problem is that the sitting government receives more campaign cash from the contractors they used than the ones they ignored, and would prefer fewer residents in the area voting against the mines, dumps, and other desecration. The local governments were weakened already, due to such opposition.  While you probably can't and shouldn't avoid hiring for-profit contractors, it is essential to keep the tasks small and explicit, without opportunity for steering a project off the rails into another expensive event.  A successful inventor I knew used dozens of small machine shops to supply one component each for any one of his products, doing the assembly in-house.  Previously, his suppliers would catch on, and do the assembly and sales themselves. EVERYONE should be aware of basic climate maintenance principles, and take it into account during disaster relief just out of habit.  I hope that the next generation will have to be told that it is sometimes OK  to not recycle, or to use full throttle, if lives are at stake. 

Ilan Kelman

My on-the-ground experience is that all interventions for climate change adaptation (CCA) have, at some point, been discussed, tried, or implemented in the context of disaster risk reduction (DRR). I saw no difference between CCA (according to the IPCC definition) and DRR (according to the UNISDR definition) except that DRR expands beyond CCA, covering much more than CCA. This experience led us to write the paper which is freely downloadable at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5 with the ideas expanded in other free papers at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13753-015-0046-5 and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-016-2294-0 In summary, starting with the IPCC and UNISDR definitions, DRR does everything in CCA and more. Consequently, CCA is a subset of DRR. Meanwhile, development processes cover DRR processes, so DRR is a subset of development. We provide examples, details, and discussion in these three papers. I see no need for separation, duplication, and creating silos. We are all aiming for the same goals. We need to come together to pool our ideas, knowledge, wisdom, and experience, not partitioning people into DRR or CCA camps. Let's ensure that any governmental framework uses the experience from the people who are being directly affected by disasters, including disasters involving hazards influenced by climate change. Let's work together, not separately!

Discussion Moderator

Thank you for your active participation in this e-discussion. For the next few days, we would like you to dig deeper and share more concrete examples on how a practical tool for mainstreaming DRR and CCA could look like.  We are not intending to embark on a new global policy framework that integrates the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Paris Climate Agreement. Our emphasis is on developing a tool that will help practitioners risk-inform development planning and investments and bring about greater synergies by mainstreaming DRR and CCA in an integrated manner.Some participants mentioned that this type of framework should start with a common understanding of the terminology, concepts, and scope to create a common language across organizations and countries. This will be important for bringing together two still largely separate communities of practice. There is already considerable material available on the rationale and conceptual understanding of integrated approaches to DRR and CCA from which we will be able to draw.It was, however, also mentioned that to achieve integration the framework needs to go beyond the conceptual and delve into the realities of development policy and practice. We heard from you, that merging of DRR and CCA is already in process at the ground/implementation level, but still requires relevant policies and programming guides. Since we would like the framework to be based on practice and the reality on the ground, we look forward to receiving more insight on your understanding of integration and about your practical experiences of how you have actually achieved ‘mainstreaming’.  Many of you provided excellent examples, to mention just a few: on community engagement in Japan and India, or government engagement in Mozambique, the need for sustainable livelihoods in Kenya. This type of input is very valuable to the process. We seek more of these.There was an interesting comment that the concept of ‘mainstreaming’ implies that particular parameters, i.e. DRR and CCA, are foreign to development or were neglected, and that considering them needs to become part and parcel of development. We hope that the mainstreaming framework will be able to advance the understanding that disaster and climate risks are often caused by (or exacerbated by) unwise development decisions, and therefore not separate from development. Development is part of problem and needs to be part of the solution too!Some of you mentioned tools that already exist or are under development in Kenya, Samoa, Indonesia, etc. We look forward to hearing more on how these were developed and your experiences in applying these, both your successes and the difficulties you encountered. In particular, we are interested in how meaningful community and government involvement can be achieved.Capacity development, sustainable livelihoods, income generation, preventing more climate change in the first place, and several other needs were expressed. The DRR-CCA Mainstreaming Framework can support such solutions, but what is needed to make the tool effective to implement these solutions?There was also a question raised as to who are the intended users of the mainstreaming tool. We would be interested to hear from you: who do you believe would be the most appropriate users of this integrated CC-DRR Mainstreaming Framework – technocrats, policy makers, practitioners, or beneficiaries?For those of you who have not yet done this, we kindly ask you to fill in your complete profile information: your name, position, and your organization or affiliation. This will help all of us know who you are.Thank you again and we look forward to continuing this discussion with you!Angelika Planitz and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya

Mitchell Gold

 I am totally perplexed by this process that is taking place at the same time of investigations by DESA and unsdsn.org  and UNDP are all still searching for means to move  forward with the SDG's.     Do you think foir one moinutre that your activity is separate form the SDG's?     If you do you are going at things the wrong way.   If you do think that they are not related you are thoinking incorrectly.Either way your focus needs to shift.   You require an introdfuction to holistic thinking principles which by their very nature will assist in any integration of any kind of program content.   stop making lemonade when you are trying to make butter..This is not the way in which to develop consensus on delivery of program content or to have any common agreements.  You are attempting to do something so that you can say you did so.   We developed the ISO 26000 over a 5 year period invoilving hundreds of people from around the world  to establoish effective Standards  - including the support and commitment of the UNGC to promote the ISO 26000 across the UN system.  Had this been done you might have some framework for discussions.   IMHO you are wasting everyones time including your  own.

Jessie Lydia Henshaw • Senior Scientist at HDS Natural Systems Design Science from United States

Mitchell,   I totally sympathize with your view, but the dissenting voices also do have valid observations to make, and the consensus was as always, drivien through without resolving a great many issues.    You put a lot of faith in the ISO 26000 stabdard, but the consensus on that was equally driven to a conclusion, with many of the valid exceptions not responded to.   I'm not sure I was even able to raise the major objections I've been voicing to contributing institutions, concerning the scientific design of the sustainability metrics we use, and how measurements of whole system impacts need to be done.   I think probably not, as the strong objections I've been making go to the heart of why we don't attribute any responsibility for the harm we are doing to the earth,  adding up to "0" impact in fact, for the choices that investors make for what to profit from.    The exclusion of such clear misconceptions of how to design a whole system response to our multiple and multiplying crises really does point to uncorrectible bias in how our measurement standards were framed.What I'd done, recogniziing the problem a decade a go, was develop a much broader standard in fact, that even investors looking for the most profit would eventually like in the end, once understanding as a way to measure the long term **common interest** and profitabilit of the whole, rather than short term selfish interest of winning competitors.  There;'s nothing wrong with the interests of winning competitors so long as they don't undermine the whole, but that's what's been happening and the vast majority of investors are literally unaware of, given how financial profit and investment choices have been defined.    So I designed my "World SDG" as a fully scineitific measure of the profitability of investment choices for the world as a whole, using good whole system math and broad decision making transparency, proposed as a true guidance for the SDG's and our earth system as a whole.   For reasons I suspect even you would recognize it has yet to be given a fair hearing in the institutional forums.    So I present it here. The science behind it is what anyone would really need to first understand, that a great many individual experts have  recognized as valid (if preliminary too) but then were unable or unwilling to raise for discussion in their institutions.    It's to recognize that in a global economy every share of GDP has to be initially presumed to have a proportional share of responsibility for the impacts of the system as a whole.   If you just follow that thouroiugh you get the result I had thoroughally peer reviewed and published in 2011 (1), and thinking of how to implement it globally you'd get something like my 2014 World SDG proposal to the UN (2) offered to OWG-7 while attending the OWG meetings as a science advisor and a representative of the UN NGO MG Commons Cluster at the time.   I don't know what else to tell you but that this subject has not yet been adequately discussed.1 - http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/10/1908/2 - http://synapse9.com/signals/2014/02/03/a-world-sdg/

GEORGES RADJOU

02/04/2016 [Paris]Friends,I am wishing you got the right information and expertise related to the teamwork deadline/ending on 25 March 2016. BIRD (Business Innovation Research Development) is always committed to participate to UN teamwork and consultations (online or with a real presence at the conference centers for process meeting or decision making). Particularly, as the head of BIRD organization. I have much more opportunity to travel or to network as I live in a developed country (France). For example, if you live in a remote place on earth, it is more likely for BIRD delegate members  and friends to have difficulties to exchange. Therefore, my job is to bridge these gaps, someway and somehow.Anyway, UN is already knowledgeable on these facts that geographical distances and lacking of real time management can be an impediment/obstacle (as also it could be an opportunity for decision making based on judgment/assessment -It is preventing the organization to react to event).Best for BIRD is to have better anticipatory management with (i) a per-action, (ii) pro-action and (iii) a management control. These are fueling adaptation -for sure, in the mind and texts of the European Union (EU). I think it -participatory management, and with additional risk reduction strategies, opportunity management -  should be extended (if it is not the case) to other organizations (national or intergovernmental). For example, it was sad (unbelievable that in Nepal, earthquake was not a prioritize. Priority 1, was given to firefighting). It can happen in any cities (including Paris, where it is still unsure that me are taking the right decision about Seine river flood management. In principle, it is good to have a simulation for a real or assumed catastrophic event (example of century flood in Paris). However, the real experience of crisis is claiming a different approach).As I have worked already with UNDP (Harding) and UNISDR (Cario) and other UN staffs, I have submitted solutions for DRR in line with Sendai (SFDRR). I can suggest that I am going to review these documents, which are already quite complete actually (100% complete) and post them on the UN teamwork online consultation, in the near future (time to retrieve the documents in the BIRD archives)ECOSOC is carrying the burden of Post 2015 SDGs and helping vulnerable organizations (individual, households, firms, NGO, governments...) to solve their disaster issues (management, reduction, resiliency).  Goal 11 is about making smart, inclusive, sustainable and resilient cities. I have participated in Sendai conference between 14 March- 18 March 2015 and I met partners (Saritsa, red fund organizations) there.  It brought new solutions ahead for the Objectives of reducing internationally disaster. We should dig further with operational strategies and required operations. Thanks for all and best for the future projects, Angelika and Pradeep.Georges Radjou, CEO, MBA, DUPEBH

Cush Ngonzo Luwesi • Lecturer and researcher at kenyatta University

How A Practical Tool for Mainstreaming DRR and CCA Would Look LikeLuwesi, Shisanya and Obando (2012) discussed hydro-economic issues arising from water disasters (floods and droughts) that often result into crop failure and energy disruption in Kenyan “Arid and semi-arid tropics” (ASATs). The study was conducted in Muooni Dam Catchment, Machakos County, Kenya. It employed a “Vulnerability-Capability Assessment” framework previously known as “Hydro-Economic Risk Assessment and Management” (HERAM) (See Luwesi, 2010; and Luwesi et al. 2011 and 2012). This framework was used to assess the impact of water disasters (floods and droughts) on the hydrology and the geomorphology (land use/ cover) of the catchment area, the social welfare of local stakeholders, and the economic efficiency of water use in agriculture and other land uses under fluctuating rainfall regimes (or in the course of the predicted climatic and environmental changes). In a nutshell, HERAM integrates three major techniques used in DRR into CCA to assess impact in a watershed and shed light on the design of a long term adaptation strategy focusing on the water sector. The framework encompass an “Hydro-geomorphologic impact assessment”, a “social impact assessment” and an “Economic inventory” of the impacts of water disasters on water use in agriculture and other land uses in the catchment, as well as the social welfare and economic viability of these activities. In essesnce, the new framework provides answers to the following key questions: (a) Who among farmers are vulnerable to drought and flood? And why? (b) What can be done to improve their situation and foster development in the catchment?In response to those key questions the following specific steps summarize the three researches cross-references above : (1) Vulnerability assessment; (2) Response to Vulnerability & Adaptation Management; and (3) Post Disaster Management and Resilience.(1) Vulnerability Assessment1.1 Problem statement which formulates in very clear terms the issue on the stake1.2 Environmental Baselines: encompass key climatological and hydro-geomorphologic risk factors/ drivers and their status at a point in time to enable a possible clustering of vulnerable population by hydro-climatic and ecological (land use) zones1.3 Risk/ Shocks prediction: screening the hazards to determine the evolution and scope of the hazard and its shocks in the affected region to refine the clustering based on predicted hydro-climatic and ecological (land use) trend shifts.1.4 Exposure to Risks/ Shocks to determine the extent to which some populations and land use activities will likely distributed in the areas to be affected by the hazard in the region1.5 Capacity Inventory to determine the amount of existing resources (capacity) prior and after the disaster and the level of awareness of local stakeholders1.6 Measuring Impact to determine the amount of loss attributed to the disaster1.7 Measuring Vulnerability rate to determine the levels of vulnerability in order to cluster the populations for a possible intervention amount of loss attributed to the disaster(2)   Response to Vulnerability & Adaptation Management2.1 Participatory Planning of adaptation/ Mitigation interventions to determine the types of implements needed to address vulnerability factors/ drivers and their feasibility in terms of technological requirements, timing, costs and funding availability and social acceptability. The following key steps are involved:2.2 Organizing Implementation the adaptation/ mitigation schemes in terms of governance and institutional framework to build enabling institutions to enhance capability and designate those who will be responsible for implementing specific tasks;2.3 Design & Actual implementation of the adaptation/ mitigation strategy; and2.4 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of the adaptation/ mitigation schemes and an observatory for managing climate risks/ shocks.(3) Post Disaster Management to ensure ResilienceThis step enables moving from emergency response (or simple episodic responses) to recovery and growth. This is where we blended critical development needs into the design of the vulnerability response and set a performance management system to be able to monitor the long term impact of a humanitarian intervention in the recovery and development of the region. In our study, we focused on the development of hydro-economic and political strategies that were embedded in a “Performance based Management Rating” (PMR) of water management institutions to cover and mitigate risks related to surface water flow unreliability. The development of these strategies was followed by the capacity building of local skills in managing the scarce resource. For instance, harvesting and storing rainwater was accompanied by: (i) the construction of large storages (dams) for harvesting and conserving excess rainwater during above normal rainfall regimes; (ii) the vulgarization of appropriate methods for the protection of water quality and conservation of its quantity; (iii) the introduction and application of water allocation plans and metrics; (iv) the charging of a fair price for water use, effluent discharge and catchment conservation; and (v) the use of participatory structures, institutions and knowledge systems for mainstreaming gender balance and social equity, and easing water conflicts.Finally, Green Water Credits (GWC) were suggested as financial incentives for upstream and midstream farmers to enable them planting of trees in the catchment and controlling soil erosion through use of agro-forestry, terraces, grass waterways, and other soil and water conservation measures implemented in the farmland. Promoting these activities would likely conserve soil moisture and fertility in farms located downstream, and protect wetlands and ecosystems. For that reason, “rich farmers” (or mainly those downstream in the case of Muooni Catchment) would likely be willing to pay a fair price to the “poorer ones” (most likely those upstream in the case of Muooni Catchment, Kenya) in compensation of their green water saving services. Thus, GWC schemes would enable the creation of new employments through sustainable water resources management, the equitable distribution of natural and economic resources, and the pursuit of social peace, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability in various land–use projects.List of References on the subject:Chris Allan Shisanya, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, Joy Apiyo Obando      (2014). “Innovative but Not Feasible: Green Water Saving Schemes at the Crossroad in Semi-Arid Lands”. In: OSSREA (eds.), Innovative Water Resource Use and Management for Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Anthology (ISBN: 978-99944-55-75-1), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 137-172Luwesi CN, Shisanya CA & Obando JA (2012). Warming and Greening: The Dilemma facing Green Water Economy under Changing Hydro-Climatic Conditions in Muooni Catchment (Machakos, Kenya). (ISBN: 978-3-8484-8562-8). Lambert Academic Publishing AG & CO.KG, Saarbrüken, Germany, 304 P.Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, Chris Allan Shisanya and Joy Apiyo Obando (2011). “Toward a hydro-economic approach for risk assessment and mitigation planning for farming water disasters in semi-arid Kenya”. In: M. Savino (ed), Risk Management in Environment, Production and Economy (ISBN: 978-953-307-313-2), InTech, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 27-46.Cush L. Ngonzo, Chris A. Shisanya and Joy A. Obando (2010). Land use and water demand under a Changing Climate: Experiences of Smallholder Farmers from Muooni. In: S.P. Saikia (eds.), Climate Change (ISBN: 817089370-4), International Book Distributors, Dehradun, India, pp. 117-140.Luwesi CN (2010). Hydro-economic Inventory in Changing Environment – An assessment of the efficiency of farming water demand under fluctuating rainfall regimes in semi-arid lands of South-East Kenya (ISBN: 978-3-8433-7607-5). Lambert Academic Publishing AG & CO.KG, Saarbrüken, Germany, 180 P.

Kishan Khoday • Team Leader in the Arab Region - Climate Change, DRR & Resilience / Energy & Environment at UNDP from Canada

     In the Arab region one see first-hand how converging climate change and disaster risks are reshaping the landscape for conflict, migration and development. The region is experiencing one of the most dramatic periods of change in its history - with an escalation of conflict, a dramatic resurgence of poverty and emergence of twenty million refugees and internally displaced persons, with climate and disaster risks one of the important root causes of the ongoing crisis in the region.          In the years preceding the onset of the Arab uprisings, from 2006 to 2011, the region suffered one of its worst droughts on record, contributing to famine in some areas, widespread loss of millions of farm-based livelihoods in places like Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, and contributing to the displacement of millions across the region. Beyond an isolated event, recent scientific evidence now also shows that the region may be in the midst of a broader multi-decadal climate-induced mega-drought, equal in strength only to the historic droughts that shook the Middle East 1000 years ago.       To develop capacities in the region to manage converging climate and disaster risks, UNDP is now leading support for design and launch a new Climate Risk Nexus Initiative (2016-2020) to build more resilience-based approaches to development in the region. An initiative with the League of Arab States (LAS), the Arab Water Council, World Food Programme and the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, it seeks to develop integrated approaches to achieving the Arab Action Plan on Climate Change and the Arab Strategy on DRR. As a new flagship UN inter-agency initiative, it also supports partners to find integrated approaches to achieve SDG 13, the Paris climate agreement and the Sendai DRR framework.      After expected endorsement of the initiative by the LAS Economic and Social Council, activities will commence under four main areas of work: (i) science and data for decision-making, (ii) tools and technology for risk-informed development; (iii) local leadership and capacity development for integrated CC-DRR approaches; and (iv) new integrated strategies and policies for managing risks and building resilience-based approached to development. Regards UNDP actions in the region, four areas in focus:  Risk governance: managing climate change and disasters in an integrated manner requires leaders to understand converging nature of risks in decision-making processes. This includes regional and local capacities for integrated risk assessments, methodologies and tools that support new risk-informed models of development. An initial focus of UNDP support is on building risk governance at the city level, with a new Arab cities resilience report developed with regional partners to map converging climate and disaster risks, as basis for more targeted local capacity development activities.  Climate and disaster induced displacement: For rural farmers and fishermen, more severe droughts and rising sea levels affect livelihoods and are an existential threat triggering forced migration within countries, and beyond. UNDP supports local capacity development initiatives across the region to address the root causes of climate and disaster induced displacement, including preventive measures through climate adaptation in agriculture and irrigation systems, expanding early warning systems for climate and disaster risks, and developing capacity to expand the use social protection systems such as climate-indexed insurance.Resource insecurity: As climate and disaster impacts expand, natural assets (such as land and water) and ecosystem services (such as agricultural productivity) have become more fragile. This is exacerbating social vulnerability and conflict, including stresses for the co-management of transboundary water in an already water-scare region. UNDP supports development and implementation a new regional action plans and capacities for co-management, including for shared groundwater resources. Resource developments must factor in climate and disaster risks, and transboundary agreements made flexible to ensure countries can cooperate in an era of growing climate and disasters impacts. Resilient recovery: Most conflict-affected countries in the region are also climate and disaster risk hotspots, with communities hosting refugees and IDPs also suffering from water-scarcity and more frequent and severe droughts. Given the protracted nature of conflict in the region, climate and disaster risks must be factored into both immediate and long-term recovery and reconstruction efforts. This includes UNDP support for immediate recovery such as use of solar solutions to meet basic needs of refugee host communities, and mainstreaming climate and disaster risks into the longer-term recovery agenda to make new water infrastructure and agriculture livelihoods resilient to future climate and disaster scenarios. Regards,Kishan KhodayTeam Leader in the Arab RegionClimate Change, DRR and ResilienceUNDP Regional Hub for Arab States

Ashwini Sathnur • Capacity Development Expert at United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) from India

Question 1:-Mainstreaming efforts lead to the implementation of the Inclusive Development ideology. It aims to achieve 100% participation which involves specially - abled, the disaster - struck persons, temporarily disabled persons and also the disaster - prone individuals. Climate change could impact the health of individuals along with the occurrences of the disasters - man made or natural. Due to the cause of one situation / crisis, multiple impacts could be observed i.e both disaster risk and mainstreaming crisis. Hence this leads to creating solutions for both DRR and CCA, which are integrated into one framework. Question 2:-Climate change and quantum neural network example application aims to provide a solution for both DRR [climate change] and CCA [human health]. When solar flares lead to imbalances in human health, ICT solutions enable the neurological simulated functioning - so that human rsponses are created and manifested in human beings, in response to stimuli. Question 3:-Sustainable development via mobile hand held devices provie ICT applications which are user - friendly, practical and provides an implementable framework. By providing communication mechanisms to visually impaired and hearing impaired persons via Accessibility, their participative measures in employment increases. This leads to higher productivity and inclusive work - culture. Thus leading to socio - economic progress of the society!

Marisa Foraci • UNV Economist at UNDP

In response to question 3 that invites to share experiences on integrating frameworks I would like to share our UNDP Cambodia experience in applying frameworks that integrate DRR and CCA.In 2008 the Institute of Development Studies put together a framework aimed at guiding practical approaches integrating Climate Change Adaptation Disaster Risk Reduction and Social Protection. Inspired by this framework UNDP Cambodia embarked in an institutional landscaping exercise that intended to put together a framework to foster the integration of SP, CCA, and DRR in policy and practice in 2013. The objective of the exercise was twofold from one hand to make social protection interventions more resilient to risks from disaster hazards and climate change, and from another hand to understand how social protection, through its vulnerability reduction interventions, could play a critical role in buffering the negative impact of climate change and disasters. The exercise or Adaptive Social Protection Initiative consisted in a Situation Analysis (Béné and Tech 2014) and two theory of Change workshops (Manda and Yamamoto 2014) that were organized and facilitated by UNDP-CO in Cambodia and that culminated in the production of a Strategy Paper in 2014.We presented the results of the framework to the government with a Roadmap and we did apply its principles to our own programming. Everybody did see value in approaching things from this new angle, but we would perceive the reticence of silo minded practices as a strong bias for this sort of approaches to take root in both government action and development practitioners’ modus operandi. For more information you can refer to the published Strategy Paper http://www.kh.undp.org/content/dam/cambodia/docs/PovRed/Adaptive%20Social%20Protection%20in%20Cambodia_Eng.pdf

Paul Venton

Dear TeamFirstly, from my perspective, I'd like to endorse the comments made by Jessica Troni (who emphasises a "systems" approach) and Moortaza Jiwanji (who emphasises the important topic of risk governance). I'm sure I have missed other similarly strong contributions from others.Whatever framework is used, it must have some key bedrocks. For example: conducive towards local community engagement and empowerment; a risk-informed basis; and supporting healthy disaster risk governance.A framework can have an emphasis on climate-related risks (and disaster risks not covered by this), as some boundaries are necessary. But the framework should also be cognizant of other risks and trends (e.g. urbanization) and how these affect disaster/climate risks.The framework must also be capable of supporting the process of understanding historic, present day and future risks.Another critical component would be its ability to identify and draw attention to the underlying causes of risk, and hence what it takes to alleviate them to the extent possible.Finally, the framework should capture best practice on how progress is to be measured.All this is highly complex! Hence my interest and support for the systems thinking mentioned by others. Another, possibly related, way of approaching this in a necessarily dynamic way, is by looking for "entry points" in development processes. These will vary by context and change over time. But if a framework approach is flexible enough to support the identification of appropriate entry points, these can then be leveraged for maximum traction. For example, one commentator mentioned progress made on social protection in Cambodia. Others have mentioned insurance.Nature-based solutions should also be given weight of importance whenever there is the opportunity.How this fits with existing frameworks (DRR, CCA, Resilience and Sustainable Development) and strengthens the international development discourse, rather than offering another alternative aproach is perhaps most vital of all. Really it all comes down to a sustainable development framework that is well able to proceed despite shocks and stresses. I hope that helps.Thanks for the opportunity to comment.Paul 

Randolph Femmer • Founder and Senior Director at The Wecskaop Project

Addressing here topic 2 insights and recommendations from experience:To implement wise decisions and effective solutions concerning DRR and CCA begins with two essential requirements involving - (A) Today's massive, non-stop, and unending avalanche of worldwide population growth, and (B) Immediate one-week "Biospheric Literacy" education of policymakers, educators, all college students of every major, and citizens everwhere of the core principles, understandings, and data sets that comprise "What EVERY scholar, educator, student, policymaker, and citizen should KNOW about our planet."(A) Concerning population growth.  ALL citizens and DRR and CCA planners and decisionmakers should know that a real-world graph of worldwide human population growth over the 10,000 years of civilization is a pronounced and extreme J-curve - and that we reached two billion worldwide in 1930, three billion in 1960, four billion in 1975, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999, and seven billion in 2011.  (And they should know how LARGE each one of those billions is.)[Notice from the above that we have just ADDED FIVE additional BILLIONS to our planet in less than one human lifetime and that we have been ADDING one additional billion after another and another and another every twelve to fifteen years.]  [Which suggests the importance of the education component of our recommendations which we set forth below and which include the emergency-scale necessity of universal literacy concerning exactly how LARGE each of our billions actually is.]  [Citizens, students, policymakers, and DRR and CCA planners should also know that worldwide population numbers back in 1981 were growing larger by 80 million extra each year, and that NOW worldwide number are growing larger by 83, 84, and 86 million extra per year.  (In other words, despite 35 years of conferences, academic papers, plenary speakers, recommendations, and tons of money, our worldwide numbers are increasing MORE each year NOW than they were way back then.) (And so are our ever-accumulating and worldwide wastes, impacts, damage, obliterations, and eradications of the only  planetary life-support machinery so far known to exist anywhere in the universe.)](B)  Concerning the education component in our original suggestion:  In past centuries, fundamental literacy was imagined to involve basic reading, writing, grammatical, and minimal mathematical skills.  In the times in which today's young people live, however, essential literacy must include core "biospheric" literacy principles, data sets, and understandings that underlie our planet's razor-thin surface films which both comprise and house the ONLY planetary life-support machinery so far known to exist anywhere in the universe.(Brief and easy content.  How long?  Easily communicated in an easy one-day workshop for policymakers or academe, or as an easy and enjoyable one-or-two-week unit for students and first-year undergraduates of every maor.)  (Imagine, for example, six open-courseware ppt presentations in a morning workshop session or as a one-week science unit.)  The good news is that such freely-downloadable open-courseware resources already exist and are readily-available online courtesy of The WECSKAOP Project - What Every Citizen Should Know About Our Planet.  The six ppts, together with related pdf "executive summary briefings" are accessible at, for example, www (dot) scribd (dot) com/TheWecskaopProject.By the way, as three slides in one of our ppts memorably show, the answer to "How LARGE is a Billion" is 38,461 years.

Mahendra Rajaram

Dear All,With the experience from the Indian Context, I wish to place few points, for your consideration related to 3 questions regarding present discussion.1              What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts?  Integrating DRR/CCA into other sector needs lot of clarity on the subjects/issues among the Development Practioners working at all levels. For example, a person/organisation working on child rights issues, need to have holistic approach towards  poverty, housing, gender, livelihood, education, health, disaster management, climate change etc. and know also how to inter-link. But, unfortunately many of them work in silos. For integrating DRR/CCA a proper understanding of ground realties is important. Same is the case with the officials in Government Ministries and Departments, who work in silos. If the framework tries to visualize of integrating DRR and CCA into development, it would be mammoth task. What I mean by mammoth task is that the entire government machinery from planning department to implementation department (the gram panchayat in Indian context) need to have holistic view of Welfare and Development issues. Majority of the officials are focussed on the work that there department/ministry is doing or show lack interest in knowing about other department works. Instead of Integrating DRR/CCA as a separate topic, it will be important to identify the works that are related or close to DRR/CCA activities, presently under implementation by Development Organisations/Government Ministries. For example, Watershed Management programs address both DRR/CCA issues (Mitigation/ Preparedness). The Watershed Management program addresses drought, landslides and flood management, and integrating DRR/CCA approaches will not disturb the ongoing works of the departments. Similarly, the Education department can integrate Retro-fitting for the existing buildings and adopt building codes for new buildings. The department/ministry programs prepared are to synchronise with DRR/CCA approaches. For Example, DRR/CCA approaches should be like salt/sugar which dissolves in water/milk, which adds taste, but not visible. So should be case of DRR/CCA integration approaches. 2      What are your current experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA?  What existing resources have been helpful? How have you applied these? What are their strength or shortcomings? What are the mainstreaming challenges you are facing? Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction is a series of 14 guidance notes for use by development organisations in adapting programming, project appraisal and evaluation tools to mainstream disaster risk reduction into their development work in hazard-prone countries. The series is also of relevance to stakeholders involved in climate change adaptation. This preliminary note outlines the rationale underlying the series, introduces the guidance notes and highlights critical factors contributing to the successful mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into development policy and practice. The document can be read at http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1066_toolsformainstreamingDRR.pdf This manual outlines the use of the Guidance Tool for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into the Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Country Work Programme (G Tool) as a method to integrate climate change considerations into disaster risk reduction initiatives. It is intended primarily for use by disaster management professionals and has been developed to help CDEMA Participating States (PS) incorporate climate change adaptation into the CDM country work programme. This process is known as mainstreaming climate change adaptation into disaster risk reduction or CCA2DRR. Please read the document at https://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/cca_guidance_tool_e_book_.pdf   Mainstreaming DRR/CCA into District Development Planning: The module is designed to enable the trainers/officials to faculty to make the course participants understand CCA/DRR concerns at local level and to equip them with knowledge and skills for assessing, delineating strategies and delivering their roles in relation to the risk mitigation/ prevention and implementation of effective response to extreme events.  Please view the document at http://nidm.gov.in/PDF/modules/climate.pdf 3      What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework? How can we ensure a user-friendly, practical and readily implementable framework? How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges? Though the framework will be developed keeping global view, the framework needs to be convertible to country specific. The approaches for mainstreaming should not become an independent component for Government Staff and Development workers and them trying to insert the component as an extra work to the already existing development activities, will not bring expected results. The DRR/CCA mainstreaming framework should be dissolvable in the existing programs/schemes or to be part of any new schemes. And this will help is easy assimilation. For example what percentage of funds will be earmarked for mitigation and preparedness in any of the schemes/projects; what will be the work weightage given for mitigation and preparedness. As a case to understand, some of Ministries and Departments in Government of India and States, prepare Result Framework Document (RFD) every year highlighting the yearly activities, time frame and weightage to each of the activities, which is to be assessed every quarter by the concerned Minister and Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary. So how does the idea of DRR/CCA can find place in the RFD is vital. The framework developed to be available in various mediums for use of different stakeholders. Can be made into numerous capsules, keeping in context the SDGs and its indicators. For example SDG -1 “end poverty in all its forms”, it is visible to all that disasters continue the cycle of poverty among vulnerable population. So how can poverty eradication program integrate DRR/CCA approaches?  Similarly, if SDG-4 (quality education) is to be achieved, will the schools be functional during emergencies and recovery, will children be in safe location, children they be secured etc. So how does education department integrate DRR/CCA in its education program?  Regards, Mahendra Rajaram,Moderator, DM Community of Practice,UN Solution Exchange, UNDP-India.   

Олег Халидуллин • from Kazakhstan

Hypothesis CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE O.H. Halidullin
The author of 20 inventions. Kazakhstan,
Almaty, mkr. Samal 2, d.25, kv8, 7115215@mail.ru
SUmmary. Half of the Earth's land a man took from nature, using it under arable land, dumps, reservoirs, landfills, areas of cities and roads, flood spills - 67% of the 149 million km2. Each hectare of fertile territory contained 20 tons of underground living creatures, which together with the roots of plants turn water into steam respiration and transpiration. Now, with necrosis of the territory, the water evaporates without modification and with greater intensity. Gone is the most important link in the water cycle in nature. Water precipitation from the atmosphere, and half of it is returned unchanged. Areas towns and villages all over the world occupy a small area - only about 4%. However, this area produced many types of water effects: heat, pressure, cooling, evaporation, washing and drying of all that surrounds us. Created unprecedented nature, the volume of water that goes into the atmosphere without performing natural destination. Unnatural evaporation of very large amounts of impact on atmospheric phenomena, creating natural disasters. The frequency and the destructiveness of these disasters is increasing every year. There is a new phenomenon, a new phenomenon. The unknown nature of artificial evaporation from their properties, their laws, their mechanisms of interaction with the atmosphere and biota.
Research is urgently needed phenomenon, proof of its reality and destructiveness. This requires urgent comparison of the volume and the velocity of circulation of water pre-industrial and technological periods.
The research results suggest the development of new concepts for braking climate change by reducing artificial evaporation, return the nature of its destruction unit - conversion of natural water biota.
In addition to the quantitative, can be considered and qualitative characteristics of vapor. No studies conducted quality organic vapors and fumes from degraded areas, water vapor from the structural changes after the production processes.
It is assumed one more line of research unnatural vapor. It is necessary to pay attention to changes in water quality at the molecular level. There are studies that show changes in the structure of water, the existence of clusters. The structure of water changes when moving in the pipes, the impact on the water temperature, pressure, mechanics, long-term storage. Especially voluminous such a change in the interaction of water with the blades of the turbine power plant, with marine propeller blades. Concentrating in the seas and oceans, the distorted structure, covered with large waters evaporate into the atmosphere carrying a molecule with an unnatural structure.
Still need to pay attention to the moisture in the air, in the vapor state. All internal combustion engines, compressors, turbines, aircraft, everything firebox all furnaces, air sucked in myself and air moisture, exposing its structural changes.
It is possible that these additional areas, are essential building blocks of a new phenomenon, as something in its own way participate in celestial mechanics.

Keywords. Natural evaporation, land degradation. artificial evaporation, the water cycle, the cycle of unit volumes of water, intensity of vapors, structural changes, the distorted structure.

Firdavs Faizulloev • Programme Manager at UNDP

Dear Friends, below i would like to share our experience in Tajikistan with regard to mainstreaming of DRR into development.That disasters and development are closely linked, and that disasters can damage or destroy developmental efforts, are widely accepted by national and international stakeholders in Tajikistan and particularly UNDP. It generally understood that the sustainable development can reduce the risk of disaster. At the same time, if disaster risk reduction (DRR) is not addressed as an integral part of development, then the result can be an increase in disasters and negative impacts on livelihoods, leading development efforts to accomplish the complete opposite of what was intended.UNDP, like many organizations in Tajikistan, espouses the view that disaster risk management should be an integral part of the development process. In the past, UNDP focused on disaster risk management projects that addressed disaster warning, planning and response capacity building. UNDP is currently increasing attention to the integration of disaster risk reduction into the development process by making DRR an active component within its portfolio of development programs and projects.UNDP Tajikistan’s ExperiencesDisaster risk reduction is a crosscutting policy for UNDP. To date, UNDP Tajikistan has incorporated DRR into the country strategy documents (e.g., United Nations Development Assistance Framework and UNDP’s Tajikistan County Program). The next step is to incorporate DRR actions into UNDP Tajikistan’s portfolio of development activities. To this end, since 2010, UNDP’s Disaster Risk Management Programme (DRMP) has been implementing projects support by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and UNDP’s Bureau for Programme and Policy Support (BPPS) to integrate disaster risk reduction into development activities managed directly by UNDP and by other parties.UNDP DRMP held awareness raising sessions with UNDP staff to build capacities on methods and approaches for DRR integration into projects and programmes. DRMP also screened all ongoing UNDP projects to develop DRR integration action plans specific to each project.In 2012, UNDP initiated a DRR certification process. DRR certification can assist projects to:

  • Define hazards that threaten implementation and outcomes, and
  • Identify and implement specific actions to address these threats.

Through certification UNDP projects are better able to assure developmental outcomes will not be damaged or eliminated by disasters in the near or long term.Programmes can achieve a partial or full DRR certification depending on the level of assessment conducted and the integration of DRR actions into development activities.  While partial DRR certification is not the preferred result, it recognizes progress towards full DRR certification as the certification process itself can require a significant change in how development projects are designed and implemented.The DRR Certification process is ongoing and has focused on DRMP’s own portfolio, and the Energy and Environment programme, both in the process of partial certification.  Lessons from the DRMP and Energy and Environment certification efforts to be used to adapt the process for other programmes in the UNDP portfolio. The DRR Certification process is being shared with other developmental programs in Tajikistan with the endpoint of promoting the process across the developmental sector in the country.Project Level Experience UNDP has been implementing a number of disaster response, mitigation, risk reduction and recovery projects since DRMP establishment 2003. With the establishment of the Tajikistan National Disaster Risk Management Strategy, based on Hyogo Framework for Action, by the Government in 2010, UNDP Tajikistan shifted focus on disaster risk management programming to increase the integration of DRR into DRMPs’ project portfolio.  Even before enactment of the National Strategy, DRMP  initiated a project to incorporate disaster risk reduction sections into District Development Plans (DDP) developed and implemented by District authorities. In collaboration with Government authorities and other stakeholders, a DRR methodology was approved as part of the standard development planning process.  The DRR aspects were integrated into each development section reflected in the Plans.In 2014-2015, UNDP, in partnership with MEDT and local authorities, continued its efforts to integrate DRR aspects into development planning processes, through its work on district development plans (DDPs). In total, the coverage by DDPs integrating DRR issues constitutes 36 districts.Currently the Government of Tajikistan is developing a long-term National Development Strategy (2016-2030) and midterm National Development Programme for 2016-2020. UNDP provided significant inputs for both strategic documents and ensured integration of DRM into them.Following adoption of Sendai DRR Framework, the development of National Disaster Risk Management Strategy is being initiated by the Committee of Emergency Situations. UNDP is providing expertise to alight this document with international strategies with focus to national priorities.UNDP also indentified a DRR opportunity through community-level disaster risk reduction activities, focusing on the root causes of disasters and aimed at social vulnerability reduction. Through UNDP’s network of province-level Area Offices, DRMP jointly with Energy and Environment Programme launched the   local-level DRR Funds, utilising income from UNDP-supported micro-loan programs. Under this approach, funded by UNDP’s BPPS and other donor funds, four micro-loan organizations were capitalized with two objectives, to:

  • Increase lending to boost local economic grown and reduce livelihoods vulnerability (with 40% of the recipients women) and
  • Generate funds from the loan proceeds which could be used at the sub-district level for risk reduction (70% of income) and response (30% if income).

The resulting funds are managed by local Fund Administration Councils with involvement of Committee of Emergency Situations, target community leaders, UNDP and other stakeholders. Under agreement with the micro-loan organizations, at least 25,000 USD expected to be available annually to each committee for DRR and response activities over a five-year period. This initiative is tended to build the community resilience so they could withstand any external shocks by their internal means.

Christine Wamsler

Dear all,Thanks for this great initiative.I have been working on mainstreaming risk reduction and climate change adaptation during the last 15 years. Some integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming frameworks (including theoretical and operational frameworks) have already been developed during recent years. They have been developed together with, and tested by, governmental and non-governmental organisations in both developed and so-called developing countries. Related theory, empirical studies, analyses and practical guidelines are for instance described in the publications below.Integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming theory:Wamsler, C. (2014) Cities, Disaster Risk, and Adaptation, Routledge Series on Critical Introduction to Urbanism and the City, London: Routledge. (Peer reviewed). Further developed mainstreaming theory and empirical analyses/testing:Wamsler, C., Pauleit, S. ‘Making headway in climate policy mainstreaming and ecosystem-based adaptation: Two pioneering countries, different pathways, one goal’. Climatic Change. Forthcoming.Wamsler, C. (2015) ‘Mainstreaming Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Transformation Toward Sustainability in Urban Governance and Planning’. Ecology and Society 20(2):30. Wamsler, C., Lüderitz, C. and Brink, E. (2014). ‘Local Levers for Change: Mainstreaming Ecosystem-based Adaptation into Municipal Planning to Foster Sustainability Transitions’. Global Environmental Change (GEC) 29 (2014) 189-201. Applied and tested guidelines for integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming:Wamsler, C. (2015) Guideline for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Municipal Planning and Governance. Working Paper 31. Disaster Studies and Management Working Paper Series of the University College London (UCL) Hazard Centre. (English,German and Swedish version) German title: Integration des Themenfeldes Klimaanpassung in Stadtverwaltung und -planung. Swedish title: Integration av klimatanpassning i kommunal verksamhet och planering. Wamsler, C. (2009) Operational Framework for Integrating Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into Urban Development, Brookes World Poverty Institute (BWPI), Working Paper Series No. 101, Manchester: BWPI.More info can also be found under my personal webpage at Lund Universtity Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS).Let me know if this is of help & good luck with your work on integrated RR/CCA mainstreaming!Christine

Diawoye KONTE • Technical Specialist at UNDP

UNDP support the integration of DRR/CCA-gender issues into the regional development plans in NigerDue to its geographical position Niger is prone to a variety of natural hazards particularly droughts and floods, which have consistently increased in frequency and severity in the last decades. The majority of these disasters are climate-related. The successive disasters of the last years have weakened domestic economies of households in Niger; accelerated losses of livelihoods, reduced the resilience of communities to disasters and favored failover of vulnerable groups in structural poverty. Expected climate variability and change will exacerbate these constraints and negatively impact the economy of rural populations, especially the poorest people (more than 80 percent of the country’s population live directly on agriculture. It has become essential to integrate these dimensions into development plans at various levels.In 2015, Niger regions (8 in total) were all in the process of revising their development plans. Under the Preparedness for Resilient Recovery Project, the CO in collaboration with BBPS (CADRI) supported the integration of DRR/CCA-gender issues in the Regional Development Plans and Regional Planning Schemas through continued technical support to the regions councils and the organization in December 2015 of workshop training on the topic of integrated DRR/CCA-gender mainstreaming into the development planning for 60 regional experts.The guidance document for the regional development plans and the Regional Planning Schemas have been revised and integrate better DRR/CCA issues.We are working now to support somme pilot municipalities to meanstream the nexus DRR/CCA into the local development plans

Discussion Moderator

Dear participants,Thank you again for your great contributions to this discussion. We are happy to see more country examples being shared, such as from Cambodia, Fiji, India, Indonesian, Japan, Kenya, Mozambique Pakistan, Tajikistan, Thailand and many more. Your detailed first-hand experiences and elaboration of your viewpoints, have provided some very enriching and valuable insights into some core issues, including the need for: a systems approach; support for risk governance (the enabling environment); an understanding of the underlying causes of risk (i.e. vulnerabilities, capacities, historic context, emerging trends); ways to handle the intersections and differences between CCA, DRR and development; and the importance of strengthening the development discourse rather than offering alternative approaches.Advancing further, we would like you to focus more on the design aspect of the tool. From the discussion, it is quite clear that a lot of tools and frameworks already exist and we would like to draw upon these alongside your experiences, as the basis for an integrated framework. A few interesting issues have been raised:1. Understanding Integration. Some of you have pointed out that CCA is actually DRR (and vice versa). Others have warned that the emphasis on CCA and DRR may be at the detriment of other risks (e.g. earthquakes or tsunamis). It was also mentioned that ideally the framework should be much broader, taking the SDGs or resilience as the overarching umbrellas for integrating DRR and CCA.  How feasible or practical is it to proceed with such a holistic approach? How can the framework maintain focus on DRR and CCA; yet simultaneously embed them as core components of development planning and budgeting?2. Current mainstreaming experiences. Some of you have shown that government leadership, political will, coordination and capacity, are essential ingredients for successful mainstreaming – with others more explicitly referencing ‘risk governance’ and the importance of tackling the underlying governance issues as the ‘bedrock’ or ‘building blocks’ for effective mainstreaming (see Fiji and Tajikistan examples). Others have highlighted (like the example from Japan) that the principles of community participation, inclusion or accountability are important for successful mainstreaming. Can you share other factors that have been essential for advancing with mainstreaming? How are you measuring the success of mainstreaming? Which performance indicators can indicate the success of implementation?  What experiences do you have with addressing gender and social inclusion issues as part of DRR CCA mainstreaming?3. User expectations and needs. Participants have talked about the users of the tool such as communities, government officials at all levels and UN entities. What about the private sector? Have you experienced innovative ways in which the public sector, the private sector and communities have come together on DRR/CCA? We are keen to make the framework relevant to different stakeholder groups, and consequently will need to make it relevant to different context and levels (i.e. national, subnational and sector). How in your opinion, can that be best achieved? Please continue sharing your thoughts and where possible, specific examples. The first phase of this e-discussion is coming to a close already next week Tuesday and we would like to collect as many relevant inputs from you as possible by then. Please also do not forget to update your user profile if you have not yet done so.Thank you again and we look forward to continuing this discussion. Angelika Planitz and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya

Jessie Henshaw

The shocking main thing being left out of DRR-CCA responses *the tidal wave of other crises emerging as costs of how we misused the wealth of the earth.   We just didn't know to count it.1) Understanding IntegrationWith an unstable struggling global economic system there are innumerable numbers of hidden feedbacks that may cause helping one part to destabilize another.   Take reviving the growth of one sector undermining the stability of others, as has happened extensively without people noticing, in how excessive resource demand from leading economies drove prices out of reach for local self-supporting farming cultures, that to operate had to sell their products at prices their neighbors could not afford.   There are hundreds of these destructive feedbacks taking place, with almost no economist willing to discuss them as direct consequences of the world economy pressing the natural price/supply limits of resources globally.  You don't need me to tell you the obvious, that the global pattern of increasing crises conditions of ever more kinds and ever greater consequence, is directly caused by the way the wealthy world invested in creating its wealth.   So leaving the leading economies of the world out of the SDG's, and so ignoring the decisions they made that inadvertently caused the whole condition of globally spreading crises we now face, was a terrible mistake.   What we need, must do without fail, is manage the SDG's as a global problem, with an honest and *inclusive* accounting system to monitor the burden on the earth caused by ALL patterns of investing in extracting wealth from the earth's resources and people.  I made a good proposal to the UN on how to do that, a sound method of whole system accounting.   I wish I could expect the obvious need for a transparent and inclusive self-management proposal to inform people on the total cost to our future of current decisions.   That's what we need, and even if the science needs to develop further, it certainly can if we start.   We just need to start on the clear understanding that we don't really know where we are going and need the bring together all the best available science on the consequence of our choices in a central inclusive accounting .http://synapse9.com/signals/2014/02/03/a-world-sdg/2) Current ExperiencesMy experience has been of facing vigorous institutional opposition to studying a whole system impact accounting system, despite frequent agreement from individuals that it's needed.   The apparent reason is that it represented "change".  The biggest part would actually be a fairly big shock.   It’s taking the step of assigning responsibility for the impacts of investments that cause harm to our future on the financial decisions to profit from them.  That's never been done before.   It however is the one way of measuring responsibility that can inform decision makers of the impacts of their decisions, before they make them.   They’d rather not think of their decisions as being responsible, and so effectively reject having the information that would tell them what their decisions cause.  I worked for a couple years looking for people at the UN while observing the OWG process and talking to NGO's, country representatives, UN and Independent experts of all kinds, and from there spent a year working with the UNEP-FI/WRI project to write sustainability rules for the financial industry, an absolutely perfect place for me to test out why it was that the whole institutional world is controlled by financial interests that don't want to take any responsibility at all for the consequences of their decisions.  It just came as a complete shock to them, that anyone would even think that the decisions to cause the impacts would be responsible for the impacts being caused.  It wasn't and isn't to "blame" them for what they didn't understand.   It was only to **inform** them of what they didn't understand.   In any case they never realized how having the information is what would allow people to make decisions that would be more profitable for everyone.3) User Expectations and NeedsThe process of implementing the World SDG would begin with gathering the measurable impacts of present economic development on future economic development, including all unacceptable disruption of societies and ecologies, just adding up the whole list of every measureable harm to our future people can agree on being unacceptable, attributable to how our world economy developed.   It's to be able to "internalize all unacceptable externalities", with all to be treated as "inadvertent" costs to our future until we can determine "instrumental causes" where possible, assigning just "qualitative ratings" if not possible to assign "monetary costs": - the costs of increasing disasters and disaster risk ,  - the costs of added resource and natural capital degradation,   - the costs of causing societal disruptions  - the costs of necessary investment and remediation and catastrophic losses for climate change  - the costs of avoidable financial catastrophesThen use the quite practical most scientific and accurate method available, for assigning likely material responsivity for every investment, for all shares of GDP, adding up to "the total".  Then decision makers and regulators could compare the scientifically assigned shares of responsibility for the economy's harms with the benefits to be gained, before deciding.There's really no more "user friendly way to do an inclusive accounting of what we are doing to ourselves.   Sadly, my expectation is that we'll continue to procrastinate... till we are clearly unable to avoid major losses of historic world costal development before this king of inclusive look at what we're doing is looked at seriously.* (also see 4/8/2006 comment on how to avoid technology injections being so often disruptive)

Joshva Raja John

I still wanted to propose that we have Disaster Information and Communication Management as a discipline of research and study and also should become part of the education system around the world. such information and communication management enable people of all ages to preparedness, rescue and mitigation and also post-disaster engagement. If we network these three kinds of information and communication at all levels such as community, individuals and then at organisational and institutional and then government and media and public institutions, then if the right information and useful communication are shared at right time not only many lives could be saved but also humanity possibly can face the reality of disaster in a reduced destructive way.Such information also helps in terms of city planning and management particularly during the time of flood. The education can also create an awareness of decentralising the concept of cities and also encouraging people live away from the potential places of disasters. There are many ways preparedness in terms of information and communication through education and public awareness can help in reducing the loss of lives.Even during the time of disaster it might help in networking the rescue and other activities so that people might receive help in time. Those who are available to help and those who need help can be connected through such networks at all levels and thus possibly use the technology, workforce and effectiveness in reaching the place (in time) can also be put together effectively in this Disaster Information and Communication management and networking.

Ian Rector

My contribution to this discussion is framed to respond to all three questions holistically rather than individually to avoid repetition. From my perspective the burning question is: Why have mainstreaming efforts of the past two decades, failed to achieve the desired level of traction and impact – particularly in the development context?There may be many reasons however I would like to focus on just a few to reinforce what I believe to be the most significant challenges in achieving mainstreaming in the foreseeable future. The caveat I am putting forward is that while recognizing that mitigation is very important for addressing global warming and through this the level of climate variability – my comments are restricted to climate variability and the relationship this has with DRR, development and CCA.Firstly, I do not believe that mainstreaming is a well understood action. Answers to questions such as: Why mainstream? What to mainstream? Where to mainstream? and how to mainstream? all need to be clearly articulated in a common and consistent manner.Secondly, I do not believe that CCA and DRR are consistently understood and applied. Much of this stems from the way that the two issues are structured within the UN System and then articulated globally across member states. Financing is also an issue and this makes understanding and applying the programmatic synergies more difficult.Thirdly, I do not believe that climate change adaptation can be mainstreamed in the context being discussed here, simply because the determination of adaptation solutions is in itself (or should be) an outcome of a risk-informed mainstreaming process that starts with the analysis of climate variability and their impacts.Fourthly, I also do not believe that DRR, as suggested here, can be mainstreamed simply because it is part of a broader mainstreaming process. DRR is often perceived as a single action that can be simply picked-up and mainstreamed. The problems here are that instead of promoting risk-informed development, mainstreaming efforts are instead promoted through a DRR lens. Instead of integration we usually end up with parallel systems which continue to side-stream DRR efforts and as such keep it firmly entrenched within the “disaster” box.Fifthly, the language we use is often confusing and inconsistent. Quite often senior political and government officials react according to their perceptions of what they are being told. Identifying and then marketing our product, is a key to successful mainstreaming.Identifying the causal relationships is a key to mainstreamingA simple way to describe the causal relationships between climate variability, DRR and climate change adaptation is to revert back to the Management 101 model associated with “inputs-process-outputs”.Climate variability is a major input simply because it provides countries with the start point for analysing the direct and indirect impacts of climate change and how these can create new risks and/or interact and change existing risk factors or identify potential future risks. The given is that this only refers to climate related hazards and the risk base-line data needs to be broader than this.DRR is an input (through introducing non climatic risks) and a process that provides the operating framework for the identification and analysis of base-line data around risk contexts (including climate and non-climatic shocks and stresses) and then applying these at a sector (including cross-sector) and community level. A key outcome of this process is base-line information that is required to underpin risk-informed development and adaptation planning and decision making.Development and adaptation (as a sub-set of development) solutions are an output of the risk analysis process. At present adaptation is primarily associated with climate risks however in many countries existing risk created through non-climatic influences (conflict, corruption, illegal land use, etc.) has a far greater day-to-day impact on lives and livelihoods. This is why it is important for adaptation solutions to be considered and designed around a wide range of risk exposure. NAPAs for example would be a key element of the base-line information as this would give them more credibility as a strategic platform than they currently have.How to be successful in achieving mainstreaming goalsThere are many micro level issues that must be considered but are not discussed here. What I am suggesting is, that in the simplest of forms, mainstreaming is about creating a system that facilitates resilience outcomes[1] through risk-informed planning and decision making regardless of the risk source. There is no reason (other than financial) to separate the causes of risk as this only reinforces fragmented approaches in addition to providing solutions to only part of the problem.Mainstreaming is therefore as much a transformational shift in thinking and practise as anything else and so when considering mainstreaming approaches political, cultural and other aspects need to be factored in.From my experiences, member states usually struggle to set up separate DRR and CC policy, institutional and governance structures. They are also often coerced into tackling mainstreaming through single sector externally driven approaches which are generally ineffective given that mainstreaming seeks to achieve resilience outcomes and this means that all sectors must be resilient. More emphasis should therefore be placed on strengthening core business structures around the issue of risk-informed development and less on promoting DRR and CCV as separate streams. They should instead be a means to an end (resilience).A national mainstreaming framework (based on our UNOPS model) should therefore facilitate:

  1. The identification and analysis of climate variability impacts including the direct and indirect[2] risk factors
  2. The identification of full risk contexts around new, existing and future risk scenarios (base-line data);
  3. The processes for the analysis of sector, cross-sector and community risk and vulnerability leading to the identification of development, adaptation and residual risk management solutions.
  4. The establishment of baseline information (including NAPAs) as the outcome of a risk-informed process rather than a three or five day workshop.
  5. Mechanisms for the strengthening of existing policy, governance and institutional systems, together with the skills, competencies and technology to implement steps 1-4 including the increased capacity to access and apply risk informed planning and decision making at all levels.

ConclusionIf mainstreaming is going to be successful then transformational shifts in thinking and practise at the global, regional and country levels will be required and this means making sure that there is a consistent and agreed pathway for taking the agenda forward.With the introduction of the new SDGs the timing is now perfect to re-invent and strengthen mainstreaming approaches. However a strategic global leader is required to drive this process so that DRR and CCA silos are broken down and new innovative approaches introduced. [1] Resilience outcomes may be development and adaptation focused or they may be people focused under humanitarian frameworks.[2] Indirect impacts refer to how climate variability affects and or changes existing risk such as flooding and drought.

Jessie Henshaw

Ian,   What caught my eye in your recommendation was saying "member states usually struggle to set up separate DRR and CC policy, institutional and governance structures. "  [ed 4/13/16]As an scientist, architect and planner, I spent a couple years advising NGO's at meetings on the SDG's at the UN.  From what I saw I think the main reason most nations can't get going on it would be the  relatively weak institutional structures, everywhere but in the wealthiest states.   There's also the critical absense of an applicable model follow.   Even the wealthy states have nothing like an integrated sustainability plan or budget.   I the failure of my persistent efforts at the UN to raise a discussion of it must point to why there's no country seems to have an integrated plan to account for and respond to its sustainability challenges.  So no one seems to see where the starting point should be.   for any other kind of project a the place to start is with some sort of comprehensive accounting, so for us that's be a global DRR-CCA + otherESG challenges assessment.       Another reason the starting point needs to be global is that so many of the challenges are not due to any local cause, but instead are global consequences of generating global GDP, for which no one seems yet to be working on a comprehensive accounting of either.   It's a good starting point as then everyone would have a way to see in print what the global budget priorities have to be.   The share of world GDP that must be set aside would become clear, as the amout to spend to keep future costs from rising.  So everyone could see a clear picture of their own place in it.  Perhaps might indicate a central world DRR-CCA institute then takes the lead, a world "army of engineers" dedicated to serving the needs of all the local DRR-CCA partnerships.  I can't be sure given how oddly people are reacting... but seeing the costs beside the cost escalaters for delay... would seem as likely to get people going and organized efficiently if anything would.   My direct experience has mostly been as an observer, watching the recurrent US discussions of the urgency to address "infrastrcuture", occurring over every 3-5 years.  They finally drew attention to the long span bridges a while back, but the US as a whole seems to be just putting increasing burdens on old and aging infrastructures of all sorts as a rule.   No one publishes the economics, so our investments going to new things in other places, that generate greater short term profits. likely a bad choice. I looked briefly on the web and found one active CCA accounting effort, the COP 21: Long Term Infrastructure Investors Association (LTIIA) for an example.   I have not read it but just note that the rising DRR and CCA costs we face are in competition with each other, and in competition with all the other unpredicted new infrastructure costs and their escalators, and confronting a general world budget crisis of national debt.  Even the Saudi's are "strapped" at the moment.   I've not heard others raising those direct budgetary conflicts of interest... is why I mention them here.    It was actually my beginning to see them a few decades ago that got me so interested long ago in modeling the math that would be needed.  So, I think as a matter of being practical, there needs to be an effort to aggregate what we know and bring together the talent to start framing a practical overall plan and budget.   That's how anything has to start in my experience.  You don't get the "start-up" funding without it.    It seems ever less realistic to expect these new costs to be handled in the nomal course of business, wouldn't you think?

Yahaya Daouda

Disposer d’un cadre commun, intégré qui adresse à la fois la RRC et l’ACC peut s’avérer bien approprié et indiqué en fonction des contextes du pays comme au sahel par exemple où les risques les plus importants (probabilité x impacts) sont les sécheresses et les inondations.Au Tchad, il existe 2 cadres distincts : Programme National d’Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques (PANA, géré par le Ministère de l’Environnement) et le Plan d’Action National de renforcement des capacités en Réduction des Risques de Catastrophes (PAN-RRC, conjointement piloté par le Ministère du Plan et celui de l’Administration du Territoire). Depuis 2015, Il existe un Groupe de Travail sur la RRC regroupant les principales parties prenantes concernées par la RRC et l’ACC. Cet espace offre déjà un cadre de dialogue, de concertation et d’échange d’expériences entre ces acteurs.Les principaux défis pour une meilleure intégration des cadres RRC et ACC sont i) Gouvernance des risques encore faible : inadéquation de l’ancrage, de l’arrangement institutionnel pour la gestion de ces cadres, RRC/ACC pas encore suffisamment érigées en rang des priorités  ii) la faiblesse des capacités nationales et locales 

Dr. Abdulghany Mohamed • from Canada

Dear Moderators and participants,Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and for your invaluable contributions.To begin with, I am pleased to learn from the contributions that in addition to the disparate frameworks highlighted by the discussion organizers there are “out there” frameworks and endeavours (by various individuals and organizations) that also aim at integrating DRR and CCA. I am positive they will greatly help to enrich the proposed framework we are currently discussing. Moreover, I would like to contribute from the perspective of an educator who has had (continues to have) the privilege to train policy-makers/analysts and business managers. In other words, my contribution shall dwell on User Expectations and Needs and its attendant questions; viz.: What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework? How can we ensure a user-friendly, practical and readily implementable framework? How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges?Briefly, it is my hope that the prospective integrated framework shall be built on the following premises:(a)   Disasters and climate change are not limited to climate parameters; they are about multiple interacting processes (at multiple spatial and temporal levels and involving multiple actors) whose outcomes/consequences influence the actors’ (e.g., policy makers’) capacity to perceive and respond to development challenges and opportunities. Thus, while the proposed framework shall of necessity be bounded it does not preclude policy-makers from taking a holistic approach.(b)   To the extent that societies are unevenly exposed to impacts of disasters and climate change, are of varying vulnerabilities and unequally/asymmetrically endowed in response capabilities, the proposed framework should guide policy-makers to mainstream DDR and CCA in such a way that responses to disasters and climate change should not only be localized and contextually relevant/appropriate (e.g., responses be planned and implemented based on local values and needs identified/felt by local communities themselves) but they should also not exacerbate the vulnerabilities already experienced by various societies/individuals. Moreover, the proposed framework should be designed with the aim of resisting the temptation to impose global approaches to local contexts ostensibly in the name of localization.(c)    DRR and CCA are more than technical responses for they involve social, cultural, political processes as well. Indeed, development is a highly contested and uncertain social-economic-political process. Thus, mainstreaming DRR & CCA should be amenable to opening up space for social debate/dialogue, disputes, contestation, collaboration, and transformation as well as it should facilitate the tapping of local knowledge and where appropriate (e.g., in immigrant majority societies such as Canada) it should make space for indigenous peoples to join policymakers at the table.(d)   DRR as well as CC adaptation in development are complex and multifaceted (yet overlapping) set of processes: consequently the framework should be nuanced yet implementable and considerate and respectful of (and does not crowd-out or overshadow) other development imperatives. (e)   As a response to (human made) changing conditions (and aspirations), adaptation is both a proactive (with regard to new development projects/programs) and reactive (with regard to already existing projects/programs some of which may have to be phased out or modified): the framework should thus enable policy makers and implementers to prevent/mitigate and reduce potential/actual disasters (including those induced by climate change) while simultaneously enabling societies to progress broadly speaking (i.e., beyond simply promoting economic growth).(f)     As mainstreaming DRR and CCA bring out the limitations of extant/current approaches, they will most likely call for a redefinition of the meaning of “development” requiring us to interrogate our worldviews so as to provide an entry point through which deeper, broader and sustainable social transformations can be pursued by disparate societies/peoples: as such the proposed framework should not only be flexible enough to implement but it should also be empowering to stakeholders. (g)   DDR and CCA are long-term and global in nature and not about quick fixes; thus placing a premium on timely, multi-pronged and inclusive response strategies to address multiple stressors. Thus, the proposed framework should explicit encourage policy-makers to productively engage with multiple stakeholders who are critical and valuable partners for the long run helping realise a more creative/innovative and positively inclusive, equitable global economy/society.  (h)   In engaging the for-profit private sector, the proposed framework should be explicitly cognizant of the issues of power, social trust, transparency, challenges of auditability and the key contradictions of corporate social responsibility. (i)     While capacity building, emulation of best practices, etc. are crucial in development, institutional convergence (be it at the local or national levels) must not be an explicit/sought after aim of the proposed framework. Thus, it is critical that the proposed framework should “permit” or at least be amenable to institutional diversity for at least the following three reasons: (i)       path dependency – i.e., adoption and implementation of the proposed framework must be understood within the context of the fact that institutional environments/settings (including existing and prior policy choices) are dynamic and perhaps most importantly they mediate pressures for change as well as shape the “new” policies and ideas, programs/projects.(ii)     functional equivalency – i.e., similar policy objectives/goals can be achieved via seemingly different/divergent institutional regimes; (iii)   tightness of fit – “new” institutions do not get introduced in a vacuum. As such they need to be able to dialectically relate to and depend on inputs from the system they may belong.These three reasons coupled with the benefits of institutional diversity should impel us to carefully consider the pressures/temptations for institutional convergence especially if we are to minimise resentment and resistance wrought by perceived imposition. In short, the proposed framework should be sensitive to the fact that (self-autonomous) societies have unique histories, political ideologies, cultures and aspirations.Sorry for the long post. Looking forward to your ideas and contributions.Cheers,Dr. Abdulghany Mohamed

Jessie Henshaw

During the Webinar discussion today I remembered all my writing for interventions in the OWG process during the drafting of the SDG's on the general lack of discussion and therefore neglect of the high likelihood that intensive trchnology transfers would be highly disruptive, as we've see for years and years, The question has to be asked,*What about technologies that may be culturally disruptive?We've seen it in many places, like when raising agricultural productivity raising the price of products out of reach for local markets.   External aid and industries disrupt traditional ways of life and transmission of local customs, replacing local economies and habitations, not meaning to invade but doing so disruptively?   In theory “money” is supposed to relieve all the strains but that’s usually what’s doing the disruption too.   When does that get addressed? I had the wonderful privilege of attending most of the UN’s Open Working Group sessions that worked to draft the SDG’s.   Though I raised the likely impacts of the SDG’s as a critically important design problem, pointedly and often, that was not what people wanted to talk about.  Is now the time to talk about it?  When do we talk about it?The problem with technology transfer is the given certainty that the culture it is being facilitated for is not adapted to it, and more likely to be further disrupted even if it’s inadvertent since the technology itself only needs some small part of the culture to be reshaped to make the it technically work.  Whether intended or not that’s how to create the displaced populations, government duplicity and social confusion of, colonialism, industrial islands and land leasing, commercialism, corruption, social services substituted for loss of habitat, growing displaced populations with little to do, “in the way”, all because the “technology” was not something that needed them.  Traditional societies are uprooted and bankrupted by high efficiency industrial farming.Healthy cultures are like families, in which all decisions are made in the common interest of all the members.  Growth economics, though, made a world of ever more aggressive and powerful special interests, unaware that was going to be disruptive and become the cause of today’s problems.   So seeing the problems created, and the money to be made in remaking them, our worst nature seem to be called upon again to “do it right this time” when it seems most likely to be just repeating the error made before. We shouldn’t be acting on struggling cultures internal or international, in the interests of external actors.  We should be seeing what we can do to remove our interference, support others healing and search for directions, to let them sort out their own destinies, on their own. It might go slow at first but it’s likely to work out best in the end.  If “aid” is given it should as a rule not be for the aid giver’s purposes, and be given with an obligation for the recipient, a kind of “contract” to use the aid to do as much for the recipient’s purposes as they received, to “pay it forward.Expecting others would eventually learn that given a wind fall the question to ask is what does their family need.  We’ll learn in due time, that for the gifts that come our way with no cost, the same applies to us.  * (also see 4/6/2006 comment on practical accounting of reaponsibility for earth impats)jlh(continued in the top attachment: +SDIs CultureLed Intro notes.pdf )(also found with the other attachments at http://www.synapse9.com/_SDIinteg/ )

Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh

Integrating DRR and CCA into development seems extremely challenging as long as growth, particularly the infrastructural growth is taken as development of the nation. In today’s times, developing economies are competing to maintain and improve growth rate, which is directly proportionate to infrastructure creation. Then infrastructures have to be completed within time with justifiable investment. This blind competition creates infrastructure, which adds to risk and vulnerability – be it highways, railways, bridges or high rises. Our dedicated financial institutions, such as the World Bank, encourage infrastructure creation, but is there and provision of DRR audit in each mega infrastructure project? We may have powerful discussion, but how could we influence decision-making of those who control resources, and who are least affected and little bothered to mitigate disaster risks. 

Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh

Integrating DRR and CCA into development seems extremely challenging as long as growth, particularly the infrastructural growth is taken as development of the nation. In today’s times, developing economies are competing to maintain and improve growth rate, which is directly proportionate to infrastructure creation. Then infrastructures have to be completed within time with justifiable investment. This blind competition creates infrastructure, which adds to risk and vulnerability – be it highways, railways, bridges or high rises. Our dedicated financial institutions, such as the World Bank, encourage infrastructure creation, but is there and provision of DRR audit in each mega infrastructure project? We may have powerful discussion, but how could we influence decision-making of those who control resources, and who are least affected and little bothered to mitigate disaster risks. 

Stephanie Jill Hodge

 Having been through this analysis, consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the best integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in a number of ways by different organizations and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question about definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is generally used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsibe for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving, the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery. l. (2012) “What Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses” Cybergeo: Eu-ropean Journal of Geography, Environnement, Nature, Paysage, 621 cybergeo.revues.org/25554, Béné, C. et al. (2012) ”Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes” IDS Working Paper 405, Institute of Devel-opment Studies, Brighton, and Rose, A. (2009) “Economic Resilience to Disasters” CARRI Research Report 8, Community and Regional Resilience Institute, Oak Ridge   Having been through this analysis, consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the best integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in a number of ways by different organizations and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question about definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is generally used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsibe for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving, the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery.

Stephanie Jill Hodge

I have been through this analysis, and the consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the good integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the current programming split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in a number of ways by different organizations, and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question of definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is generally used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsible for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross-sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery.Having been through this analysis, the consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the best integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in some ways by different organizations, and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question of definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsibe for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving, the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery.

Stephanie Jill Hodge

I have been through this analysis, and the consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the good integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the current programming split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in a number of ways by different organizations, and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question of definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is generally used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsible for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross-sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery.Having been through this analysis, the consensus is that resilience programming might serve as the best integrating approach that also bridge the void/ divide between humanitarian and development programming. This includes for the split between CCA DRR. Vulnerability and resilience are interpreted in some ways by different organizations, and their relationship depends on definitions. Whether resilience frameworks for analysis and management of complex systems (including environmental, health and education systems) will be a positive step is therefore to a large degree a question of definitions. Furthermore, vulnerability is used with the assumption of a linear relationship between hazards and impacts while resilience frameworks for social-ecological systems tend to recognize the non-linearity and is based on the notion of critical thresholds. As such this reflects that resilience’ in complex systems is a process rather than an end state. This dynamic aspect of resilience (a process) makes it management tool and risk sensitizing the sectors against hazards including conflicts and climate change. I was programme manager responsibe for developing the attached CCADRR guidance to support governments mainstream CCA and DRR as an integrated and cross sectoral exercise towards resilience (involving communities in the overall planning and governance processes of the sector -building cohesion) and serving, the sectors and more relevant quality service delivery.

Jessie Henshaw

I'd agree that that idea of resilience programming has an appeal as a potentially unifying analysys.   It really has to be focused on whole systems,  as resilience is a whole system property.  That's what my World SDG and Systems Energy Assessment methods provide practical design models for doing.    I frequently find resilience not being treated as a whole system property though, like equating profitability with resilience, ignoring the disaster risk and health of interdependencies perhaps.   For example when Sustainabile Cities are studied the universal practice, as far as I can tell, is to separate the urban resilience from its environmental resilience, if only because the data collectors in the urban region only have data collected from inside their region. I think that's unconscious, but it's incredibly consistent everywhere I look and my frequent suggestions that the urban burden on both near and remote environments be included has been dropped from consideration every time.   You really cannot talk about "resilience" at all honestly without accounting for both of course.So... not to go into all the details of how to solve that (a systemic problem we have with understanding the boundaries of what we are measureing...) I do agree that resilience assessment and programming would be a good direction to go.   The concept of resilience is also a good one for combining studies of qualitative and quantitative data.  

Kit Nicholson

The UNDP Regional Hub in Bangkok has been working for five years on mainstreaming CC into planning and budgeting in S and SE Asia, through the use of CC Public Expenditure and Institutional Reviews and CC Financing Frameworks (CCFFs). Action on Climate Today is building on this experience in S Asia. DRR expenditure that responds to increasing risks from CC is included in CC related expenditure provided that it is part of an explicit strategy that responds to risks that increase with CC and is not just emergency response.CPEIRs and CCFFs generate parallel budget tables of CC related expenditure, showing past trends and potential future scenarios. These use weights in a similar way to gender budgeting. There has been some recent discussion about a 'Virtual Budget Alliance' that would bring together all the main cross-sectoral strategic concerns of government (eg CC, gender, biodiversity, children ...) so that Ministries of Finance could get a coherent overview of all these issues and did not feel bombarded by lobbyists. I have little detailed experience of DRR, but it seems to me that there is usually a fairly clear budget home for DRR and that it therefore operates more like a sector in planning and budgeting. I'm sure there are many cross-sectoral features of DRR, but it might get a higher priority in the budget process if it were seen as a sector, not a cross-sectoral concern.

Ilan Kelman

Good to see some critiquing and questioning of resilience approaches. A lot of recent practice-orientated scientific work on understanding and interpreting resilience has ended up being quite critical of the notion, pointing out problems which its misapplication produces. I provide some examples below, with several of the papers being free to download.I would also urge that, rather than continuing to separate DRR and CCA, since we all have the same basic interests, why not work on bringing them together? DRR does everything covered by CCA's mandate and much more, so it seems that CCA should be viewed as a subset within DRR http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5  That way, we all work together under a single, common framework without causing problems by being separate and by creating artificial differences.ILAN Here is a series of papers taking a critiquing approach about resilience:1. http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2707/2013/nhess-13-2707-20…. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-016-2294-03. http://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/8664. http://phg.sagepub.com/content/39/3/249.full.pdf+html5. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/096535613113019706. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/DPM-03-2013-00537. http://www.ilankelman.org/articles1/kelman2008udp.pdf8. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-59. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/DPM-12-2012-014310. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/0965356071081701111. http://epc.sagepub.com/content/32/5/934.abstract12. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2013.78772113. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/area.12118/abstract14. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ip/sear/2013/00000021/00000003/ar…. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622811001846

Jessie Lydia Henshaw • Senior Scientist at HDS Natural Systems Design Science from United States

Ilan, Thanks for the references.   You didn't indicate your opinion.   The articles seem to be quite diverse in subject matter, but 10 of the 15 not available.  One issue I sensed was present was the big differences between thinking of resilience as a target for outside actors to set as their goal, when intervening in someone else's society.  The other option is for outside forces to use various measures of resilience to guage how well they are serving a society's and culture's own purposes.   That's what you'd do if thinking of your work as designing services rathre then controls.    Either can very easily fail for lots of reasons, of course, and with the earth we don't have an option of failure, so all that would be good to talk about.    I think generally speaking you need buy-in from the cultures you work with, and so taking a posture of serving their own objectives, treating them as the 'client' as a designers do, and expecting them to pay the favor forward too, would lead to stronger and better responses. 

malcolm.dalesa@undp.org Dalesa

Response to Quiding Question 1) Undertstanding integrationThis post was developed jointly by Ben Tabi (Department of Local Authority), Malcolm Dalesa (UNDP) and Bikash Dash (UNDP Technical Adviser).We would like to share an experience from Vanuatu, where CCDRR has been integrated into the sub-national planning, budgeting and monitoring process.  This is a clear example of how mainstreaming can be more effective when embedded ‘from within’ existing or new development planning systems.  UNDP, through the Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP), supported the Government of Vanuatu to undertake a Risk Governance Assessment (RGA) from national to local levels (vertically) and across all Government and other stakeholders (horizontally) involved in CCA, DRR and DM initiatives. This included a complete analysis of a broad range of issues including existing; policy, institutional systems, mandates, partnerships, information management and communications. Please refer to the following website for a copy of the report: http://www.nab.vu/sites/all/files/documents/03/04/2014%20-%2012%3A42/final_rga_report_26_february_14.pdf. Capacity gaps identified during RGA for the sub-national level was a lack of a planning, budgeting and monitoring mechanism and limited understanding of disaster and climate change risk, including the interwoven gender social inclusion risks, amongst stakeholders working at national and local level within Government of Vanuatu. The Department of Local Authorities (DLA) therefore requested the PRRP programme to provide technical assistance to develop planning, budgeting and monitoring guidelines, and this was applied as a starting point for the integration of CCDRR into sub-national development.   The risk proofed planning, budgeting and monitoring guidelines proposes a “bottom up” approach. Experience with DLA so far shows that quality of risk integration is better and sustainable when ‘weaved’ into the a new development planning system i.e. it becomes part of the foundations of development planning as opposed to an add-on. The Guidelines have been developed and widely consulted with all stakeholders and have been piloted in three out of six provinces.  They will be sent to the Council of Ministers in June, 2016 for endorsement.  Furthermore, the Decentralization Act and associated policy framework will be reviewed to accommodate these changes.  In order to sustain these changes, UNDP will support the Government of Vanuatu at three levels: policy (Review of Decentralization Act by suggesting improvement and integrating risks), systems and procedure (by developing a risk proofed planning, budgeting and monitoring guidelines) and individual (providing training to the staff at national and provincial level on how to develop a plan and integrate risk at each step). 

Mohammad Salim • Programme Analyst at UNDP

My understanding from Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation:  Efforts to reduce the impact of climate change are known as climate change adaptation. CCA, in other words, is a practice to make adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Managing the additional risks brought about by climate change is a dynamic process given the uncertainty of climate change impacts and the uncertainty linked to increased variability. Climate change is a new factor that will act as an additional stress to increase the existing vulnerabilities of many people. As a result of global warming, climate related hazards like floods, droughts, landslides, heat waves, and storms are expected to become more frequent and/or possibly also more intense (e.g. tropical cyclones/hurricanes may have more rainfall and stronger winds, cover more territory). This will result in increasing vulnerability as climate trends will damage livelihoods, increase poverty and damage food security. In addition, some climate-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, storms, floods, droughts, heat and cold waves will affect places that have not experienced them before. Benefits of mainstreaming DRR-CCA in development framework: In recent years disaster risks have been on the rise due to factors such as population growth, unplanned urbanization, environmental degradation, conflicts and competition for scarce resources, climate change, disease epidemics, poverty and pressure from development within high-risk zones. However, these disaster risks can be significantly reduced through strategies and actions that seek to decrease vulnerability and exposure to hazards within wider efforts to address poverty and inequality and through risk-informed humanitarian responses to disasters and other crises. Recognizing the importance of DRR, in 2005 168 governments and all leading development and humanitarian actors signed the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), committing themselves to a ten-year multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral plan to invest in DRR as a means to building disaster-resilient societies. Noticeable progress has been achieved in introducing legislation and policies for DRR, establishing early warning systems, and increasing the level of disaster preparedness. However, these are just first steps taken in the long journey to disaster- resilient societies. DRR is an important element of climate change adaptation (CCA). Amongst others, the impacts of climate change include an increase in the frequency and severity of the hydro-meteorological events. Some types of extreme weather and climate events have already increased in frequency or magnitude, and this trend is expected to continue over coming decades. Climate change is altering the face of disaster risk, not only through increased weather-related risks and sea-level and temperature rises, but also through increases in societal vulnerabilities - for example, from stresses on water availability, agriculture and ecosystems. Therefore, it has a lot of advantages to integrate DRR-CCA into development framework where Sendia framework also identify this issue very important.

Katerina Sefeti Nabola

What are your experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA?  What existing resources have been helpful? How have you applied these? What are their strength or shortcomings? What are the mainstreaming challenges you are facing?The devastating effects to the Agriculture Sector as a result of Tropical Cyclone Winston in February 2016 highlighted the need for more collaboration between the private and public sectors during disasters and though the Ministry of Agriculture took a commanding lead directly after the cyclone, the gaps in communicating technical advice to those most affected were evident. To overcome this shortcoming, the Ministry together with support from the UNDP, via the Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP) engaged private sector networking providers (Digicel and Vodafone Fiji) to send out a series of SMS Alerts to a geographically-targeted population with the aim of avoiding food security issues by providing advice on when to start planting, what to plant as well as animal husbandry.  The Ministry was better able to facilitate the engagement of the private sector through the Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster mechanism.The Ministry is also integrating Disaster Risk Management into all divisions and levels within the Ministry including at sub-national level.  There is a dedicated DRM unit within the Ministry to drive this forward which has developed DRM Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to all divisions/levels.  Public Sector Investment Program Consultations between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance and Strategic Planning at the beginning of every Financial Year allows for inclusivity of crossing cutting issues such as DRM and CCA into the Ministry’s Annual Corporate Plan from which Divisional Business Plans and Individual Work plans are developed. There still remain challenges ahead despite the inclusion of a DRM component into Divisional Business Plans, as further sensitization, resources and human capacity are required to genuinely take this forward.  However, the Ministry now has a full-time DRM post within a dedicated unit to help make this happen. 

Katharine Jenty KIRSCH-WOOD • Programme Specialist at UNDP

Dear colleagues,Thanks for the rich discussion.  I’ve just a got a couple of points  which I hope might be useful on a couple of questions posed so far:1              What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? How can an integrated approach build upon ongoing separate DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts?  Its clear from the posts above integrating DRR and CCA makes sense in general and in fact that most people commenting are in favour of an even more holistic resilience based approach.Its also clear that between them the SDGs, Paris agreement and Sendai framework can be tools for global level integration, providing more than 200 indicators, as well as cross referenced targets (all three reference each other.)  Given this, the global ‘framework’ for integration seems to be at least nominally in place.I would also question how ‘separate’ the DRR and CCA mainstreaming efforts actually are in practice.  In Viet Nam where I work, I see disaster projects cropping up in the INDC report, the IPCC special report on extreme events quoting extensively from DRM resources, and increasing DRM related funding coming from CCA ‘pots.’  Legally the law on disaster prevention and control mentions CCA and vice versa. The issues focus more around the mandates of separate ministerial responsibilities for disasters and CCA and the reality that for other ministries (finance, health, transport) climate change and disaster management are issues, but do not yet stand out as priorities. 3      What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework? How can we ensure a user-friendly, practical and readily implementable framework? How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges?I truly believe the value added of the UN system in this debate can be helping make complex issues actionable by busy Government officials and other stakeholders.  The complexity of the discussion so far outlines how quickly dialogue can become inaccessible to end users.  The challenge in mainstreaming is empowering existing technical specialists to be able to adapt their skills to take on new information (such as helping a qualified road engineer adjust her calculations to account for increased climate change rainfall) and in making the financial case that risk reduction is an effective investment.  This doesn’t mean dumbing down, it means more enabling more effective communication in format that are accessible to end users.  Don’t send a transport expert climate models and expect them to decode them, but develop tools that can present findings in an accessible manner.We are working on this in Viet Nam through a climate resilient infrastructure project jointly implemented by GoV, UNDP and ADB.  Its complex and messy but extremely interesting.I’d also note that it’s important to note that any framework is just a tool; it can’t replace actual local level analysis and contextualisation. Finally, I can’t stress enough how important it is to be able to actually incorporate elements of cost benefit or cost effectiveness analysis into frameworks.  Governments will not act unless the benefits can be quantified in terms they understand, such as lives saved or prolonged, or economic benefits. This is a real weakness in many current tools that keep analysis very theoretical and inclusive, but which struggle to make a case beyond our own community. 

Naomi Tobita

Concentrating on very local experience in the city of Yokohama, Japan, the success of DRR-CCA mainstreaming would be observed how “natural” people respond to the issues, so that opinion polls or interviewing shall be the instrument for the measurement. “Natural” in this case means “nothing special to combine DRR and CCA in our daily lives.” Though very anecdotal, I report my experience with some forest volunteers (within Yokohama Green Up Plan since 2008) for one of the south forests in Yokohama. Their activity is on the hard-pan very fragile to flash flood or earthquake. From 2011 their forest is designated as a part of city’s Yokohama b-Plan that is reported to UNCBD as a representative of Japanese policy for biodiversity promotion. They told me they are very proud of their field chosen to be a part of UN endeavor, but it is nothing more than another recognition of their decades of activities to secure the unstable environment. They continue their once-in-a-week activities of forestry as before. (The city of Yokohama’s Green Up Plan, b-Plan and all the other DRR-CCCA policies can be found in their home page http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp. As you may expect, I am sorry to say it is the page for Japanese audience and no detailed foreign language translation is available.)   Unfortunately (or fortunately), we Japanese have learned in a hard way “special DRR” big projects have very limited success when the real big one comes. (I have met ordinary widows in Ishinomaki and Sanriku watching the on-going construction of 35m high levees in very cool eyes.) The best strategy Japanese know to protect ourselves is accumulating tiny daily matters that can be expanded from ordinary to emergency in a second. When our lives are mainly consists of the private sector, and we build with minute points of daily lives for DRR, not-involving private sector is not an option. For example, when 3/11 happened and the food shelves nation-wide became empty within a couple of hours, people realized our distribution system was not right for the emergency. Now the Japanese distribution industry is preparing themselves for the “next one,” and realizes their profit margin and CO2 emission is improving thanks to this DRR projects. A part of the bottle necks at that time was unnecessary traffic congestion for trucks, and the several layers of middle merchants. Smart usage of IoT and reorganization of the industry reduce wastes of such kinds, and consequently advance their bottom line in “non-disaster” time. (http://newswitch.jp/p/2892) The lessons learned in this case may be a cliché of economists, but the original motive for corporate action is definitely DRR.When we consider the DRR-CCA in the bottom-up way of miniscule ordinary lives, the approach naturally becomes holistic. The practicality issue may be similar to the agenda business faces these days with swam economics. Groth etal wrote in their Open Democracy blog in 2014 recommendations for managers to deal with 3D manufacturing (https://www.opendemocracy.net/olaf-groth-mark-esposito-terence-tse/from-few-to-many-swarm-economics). Translating their recommendation for DRR-CCA policy makers, it could be (1) Assess the risks and benefits of policy making shifted from top-down to bottom-up, including funding implications, (2) Collect data of actual bottom-up approach that would suggest the necessary regulations to make the transfer smooth, (3) Evaluate human capital needs, and (4) Develop strategies of transfer, including the assessment how actual players might be affected, and could assist the process.

Cush Ngonzo Luwesi • Lecturer and researcher at kenyatta University

How Can We Integrate the Public and Private Sectors in a DRR-CCA Financial Scheme?Following on my previous comments on CCA-DRR framework in the water sector, I am currently writing a book with the support of the Nordic Africa Institute of Uppsala, Sweden. This publication will provide a wide range of reference materials for capacity building and practice of financial management in the water service providers while providing food for thought for further researches on “Financial Innovations” for the water sector. The book specifically suggests strategies for policy makers, managing directors and financial managers living in the developing world at large to source for market and non-market funding and opportunities for efficient management and development of their water resources. The collection builds on the available literature and experiences from Africa. It is our hoped that water service managers and resource developers will adopt and implement best practices in innovative water finance recommended in this book.Throughout this book, the reader is reminded how tiny, and sometimes unpredictable are finances from the government (through the ministry and public trust funds) and development partners (AfD, DANIDA, DfID, DFAT, GiZ, JICA, SIDA, USAID, etc.). Yet, the rivalry between various social classes for access to clean and safe water and the exclusion of the marginalized groups makes water a very important economic good. Unfortunately, as much as it is a social good water pricing is subject to ceiling, thus making it difficult for water companies and institutions to raise sufficient funding from their daily sales of water services to fund their operations and maintenance as well as asset development. Of course, sustainable cost recovery involves sufficient and reliable cashflows from the “3 Ts”, namely “Tariffs”, “Taxation” and “Transfer” from development partners. Current water expenditure has to be paid either by user fees (tariffs), domestic tax payers (taxation) or donors’ grant and support. However, capital expenditure for water infrastructure development requires more efforts in terms of quality service, efficiency and effectiveness in financial management. The constraints faced in cost recovery and others have prompted water financiers to craft innovative funding mechanisms, and marketing, communications and partnerships along with some personal initiatives from leaders of water companies and institutions to secure commercial financing.At the heart of this book will be unveiled innovative ways of financing operations and assets to supplement water financial management and internal savings mainly using Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) alongside commercial loans, “Output Based Aid” (OBA) and other governmental facilities such as Community Development Local and Trust Funds. The PPPs will include various schemes ranging from subsidized loans from development banks( e.g. World Bank, African Development Banks, kfW) to microfinance and bank loans as well as funding from NGOs and private companies through such schemes as BOL (Build, Operate and Lease),  BOS (Build, Operate and Sell) and BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer). Finally, the book concludes with examples of leadership in communication and marketing as well as enhanced credibility and trustworthiness by applying the principles of financial management. Success stories are drawn from Embu, Nyeri and Murang’a Water and Sanitation Companies of Kenya as well as water users of Musingini (Machakos, Kenya) for accessing funding from commercial banks and other private sources. This definitely shows how innovative a DRR-CCA Framework shall be when it comes to its financial sustainability.

Cush Ngonzo Luwesi • Lecturer and researcher at kenyatta University

How Can We Integrate the Public and Private Sectors in a DRR-CCA Financial Scheme?Following on my previous comments on CCA-DRR framework in the water sector, I am currently writing a book with the support of the Nordic Africa Institute of Uppsala, Sweden. This publication will provide a wide range of reference materials for capacity building and practice of financial management in the water service providers while providing food for thought for further researches on “Financial Innovations” for the water sector. The book specifically suggests strategies for policy makers, managing directors and financial managers living in the developing world at large to source for market and non-market funding and opportunities for efficient management and development of their water resources. The collection builds on the available literature and experiences from Africa. It is our hoped that water service managers and resource developers will adopt and implement best practices in innovative water finance recommended in this book.Throughout this book, the reader is reminded how tiny, and sometimes unpredictable are finances from the government (through the ministry and public trust funds) and development partners (AfD, DANIDA, DfID, DFAT, GiZ, JICA, SIDA, USAID, etc.). Yet, the rivalry between various social classes for access to clean and safe water and the exclusion of the marginalized groups makes water a very important economic good. Unfortunately, as much as it is a social good water pricing is subject to ceiling, thus making it difficult for water companies and institutions to raise sufficient funding from their daily sales of water services to fund their operations and maintenance as well as asset development. Of course, sustainable cost recovery involves sufficient and reliable cashflows from the “3 Ts”, namely “Tariffs”, “Taxation” and “Transfer” from development partners. Current water expenditure has to be paid either by user fees (tariffs), domestic tax payers (taxation) or donors’ grant and support. However, capital expenditure for water infrastructure development requires more efforts in terms of quality service, efficiency and effectiveness in financial management. The constraints faced in cost recovery and others have prompted water financiers to craft innovative funding mechanisms, and marketing, communications and partnerships along with some personal initiatives from leaders of water companies and institutions to secure commercial financing.At the heart of this book will be unveiled innovative ways of financing operations and assets to supplement water financial management and internal savings mainly using Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) alongside commercial loans, “Output Based Aid” (OBA) and other governmental facilities such as Community Development Local and Trust Funds. The PPPs will include various schemes ranging from subsidized loans from development banks( e.g. World Bank, African Development Banks, kfW) to microfinance and bank loans as well as funding from NGOs and private companies through such schemes as BOL (Build, Operate and Lease),  BOS (Build, Operate and Sell) and BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer). Finally, the book concludes with examples of leadership in communication and marketing as well as enhanced credibility and trustworthiness by applying the principles of financial management. Success stories are drawn from Embu, Nyeri and Murang’a Water and Sanitation Companies of Kenya as well as water users of Musingini (Machakos, Kenya) for accessing funding from commercial banks and other private sources. This definitely shows how innovative a DRR-CCA Framework shall be when it comes to its financial sustainability.

Mohammad Salim • Programme Analyst at UNDP

In Afghanistan, the government has recently started mainstreaming DRR-CCA in development planning. UNDP Afghanistan will support the government to integrate DRR-CCA in to local development planning under GEF supported project. However, UNDP anticipate the following challenges; Challenges and opportunities DRR and CCA mainstreaming, like other mainstreaming processes, encounters both foreseeable and unforeseeable barriers and challenges along the way. They include, among others, bureaucratic organizational processes, lack of capacity and knowledge, high staff turnover, ineffective procedures for retaining organizational memory and a culture of working in ‘silos’. At a practical level, there are also disparate issues such as un-clarity of roles and responsibilities and time constraint when it comes to DRR and CCA mainstreaming.  The lack of funding for cross-cutting initiatives is another hurdle. It is also very challenging to demonstrate the results of mainstreaming to donors – something that is being increasingly called for in the current financial environment. Donor priorities do not necessarily support initiatives of mainstreaming and tend instead to focus on “hard” solutions, whereas many DRR and CCA approaches produce “soft” results over longer-term periods. It is also challenging to overcome mainstreaming fatigue. This is often encountered, as programme staff are so busy executing the core mandate of their programmes that anything that is viewed as an addition to current workload is often perceived as negative.  

Mohammad Salim • Programme Analyst at UNDP

I think this framework should be very simple and friendly, explaining each processes step by step. Once the framework is developed, more focus on the capacity of the poor countries like Afghanistan where the government capacity should be built to implement this framework, otherwise this would be like other documents just put in the shelves. Specific budget should be allocated to mainstreaming and donors should be convinced to put this in their first priorities.

Jessie Henshaw

If we're trying to get down to the basics, an ask, as Katharine Jenty does, what is our "understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? " From a whole system view the benefits of coordingating climate change impact reduction (DRR) with impact mitigation and adaptation (CCA) should be tremendous.   To understand the risks and possibilitie we do also recognize that the two objectives are also in a large way in direct conflict.  "Mitigation" has been and is intended to foster the current global development process, of ever faster exapnding human use of the earth for economic growth.   That naturally produces DRA disaster risk acceleraton.    The problem is "mitating" impacts for a system of increasing impacts.  It's not just for alleviating risks within a steady state system to reinforce its "resilience", as we usually think "mitigation" and "resilience" meaning.   That we don't yet even aggregate and account for growing whole system disaster risks and liabilities, produced by our active accelerating development of the earth, is what I've been previously been saying is an essential step to begin to see that our main purposes are presently incompatible.

Sione Vaka

Firstly, I would like to extend my sincere appreciations to the moderators of this discussion for raising this very important and thought provoking discussion to enable us to share our experiences from different parts of the world.  My response to the questions will mainly be based on experiences with integrating climate change and disaster related risks into the government national developments, budgets, Policies, and Plans in one of the most vulnerable developing country in the world, Tonga.1)           Understanding integration: In Tonga, we are not separating disaster risk from climate risk but are mainstreaming or “integrating” these into the development context together. In terms of Climate Change and disaster risk contexts, Integration (mainstreaming) is basically the act of weaving the risk components into the government’s existing and new national development planning, Policies and budgeting processes which is a big challenge.  Integration involves planning, management, design, and implementation therefore it is not just writing a policy/plan or strategy but implementation is essential.  The beauty of integration (mainstreaming) in the perspective of development is that it avoids developing or duplicating series of policies and plans for CCA/DRR.  An example in Tonga context, with the efforts to integrate Climate Change and Disaster Risks into Agriculture Sector, Pacific Risk Resilience Program (PRRP) in partnership with the World Bank has developed the Tonga Agriculture Sector Plan (TASP) as a result of a prior research as part of the Tonga’s national planning process priorities to maximize the contributions from Agriculture Sector to its economic growth and to sustain food security. Gaps in planning, budgeting, capacity, Gender and Social Inclusion, monitor and evaluation were identified. As a result, PRRP has been working to develop capacity in terms of funded post and provide technical assistances to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Forestry and FIshieres (MAFF) as one of a number of areas of risk governance strengthening. 2)           Current mainstreaming experiences: Mainstreaming climate change is not just adding on CCA and DRR themes in the national development framework, but rather creating a comprehensive integration and interweaving of CCA and DRR issues with other environment issues and socio-economic themes and dealing with the trade-offs in the whole process of decision making or the complete planning cycle.  For mainstreaming to be effective, risk should be integrated in all levels of the planning process from the national to the community levels and underlying mechanisms to support linkages and communications should be strengthened.  From the prior research leading to TASP, the result from a consultation of about 600 farmers at the villages, there are broken linkages between farmers group and the Ministry therefore TASP addresses some of the organisational issues and provide strategic directions to minimise these broken linkages.3)           User expectations and needs: Climate change is a major developmental issue for Tonga.  If climate change and disaster risks are not integrated and mainstream into Tonga’s developments than the development in Tonga will not be sustainable.  TASP is a good example of how Tonga used the perspective of development to integrate risk instead of developing a separate CCA/DRR plan for the Agricultural sector.  TASP implementation is also made possible, because its development is linked to risk governance strengthening.  Firstly, by supporting the mechanism component (of risk governance) in terms of the strategic plan which also outlines institutional arrangements.  Not only that but, secondly it is also accompanied by capacity development (recruiting a new post within MAFF with knowledge and capacity) to ensure that in time the sector processes (i.e. planning, implementation and M & E) will include risk management at their heart. 

Sipuru Rove

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock \"""

Arun Sahdeo

Though making  SDGs or community resilience as the overarching umbrellas for integrating DRR and CCA seems to be an ideal framework it would not be practical and would have inherent difficulties in implementing and monitoring progress.  In the process DRR & CCA would get marginalized without a coherent and sustained efforts. Therefore, the  framework DRR & CCA should go hand in hand with the overall developmental framework and should adopt a realistic approach by integrating  common threads of the two  without losing focus on critical aspects of sustainable development.  Integration of development planning and DRR & CCA needs an enabling environment with adequate policy & budgetary support, tools & techniques and capacity development across different levels. Our experience in India  suggest that  policy and guidelines by federal government supported by allocation of budget goes a long way in creating an enabling environment for seamless integration of DRR & CCA in developmental planning. 

Arun Sahdeo

Though making  SDGs or community resilience as the overarching umbrellas for integrating DRR and CCA seems to be an ideal framework it would not be practical and would have inherent difficulties in implementing and monitoring progress.  In the process DRR & CCA would get marginalized without a coherent and sustained efforts. Therefore, the  framework DRR & CCA should go hand in hand with the overall developmental framework and should adopt a realistic approach by integrating  common threads of the two  without losing focus on critical aspects of sustainable development.  Integration of development planning and DRR & CCA needs an enabling environment with adequate policy & budgetary support, tools & techniques and capacity development across different levels. Our experience in India  suggest that  policy and guidelines by federal government supported by allocation of budget goes a long way in creating an enabling environment for seamless integration of DRR & CCA in developmental planning. 

Jack Filiomea

In the Solomon Islands, the Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination, which is responsible for development projects across the entire government, have started mainstreaming risks into development planning by:-        Undertaking awareness raising activities on risk as a development issue. These have been successful, but change is slow within the Government as they have competing priorities and sensitisation of risk as a development issue is relatively new. As a result, persistence and perseverance are the key.-        Co-ordinating across sectors. As a central ministry responsible for all development projects, it is critical that sector focal points within MDPAC work to encourage and advocate each of the sectors to be proactive and start integrating risk within their own ministry activities. Where strong champions exist with the sectors, for instance in the Ministry of Education and the Ministry for Agriculture, mainstreaming of risks has progressed really well. Additionally, within the Ministry of Infrastructure, with support from development partners, DRR and CCA work has progressed a great deal. Coaching and mentoring of sector focal points has proven to be one of the key mechanisms to ensure risk is integrated within the respective Ministries.Interestingly, international dialogue on DRR and CCA is starting to filter through to discussions locally. These discussions are starting to sensitise the population in Solomon Islands. However, one of the most significant challenges in the Solomon Islands is translating these discussions into meaningful and practical policies, processes and activities.

Phearanich HING • Policy Analyst at UNDP

What is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development?The framework of an integrating approach for mainstreaming CCA and DRR in development helps to address current development priorities and strengthen resilience. In Cambodia, the framework toward mainstreaming CCA and DRR addresses reducing vulnerabilities of the poor and/or the vulnerable to become poor. Specific policies include social safety nets, improving access to and control over productive resources (land, water, forests, and fisheries), and improving health. I agree with some of the comments raised here that mainstreaming CCA and DRR is an integral solution to achieving sustainable development. At the practical level, however, the fundamental question is how it can be achieved. First of all, CCA and DRR share common goal in preventing harmful impact of extreme events and build resilient livelihood of people to prevent them from shock during such events. Nevertheless, CCA and DRR principles are treated as separated efforts. DRR intervention in Cambodia tends to focus on emergency relief rather than long terms development and with little linkage to CCA. Secondly, mainstreaming CCA and DRR process requires a cohesive approach, involving a wide range of knowledge, different technical disciplines, local knowledge, public sector, and private sector. But, mainstreaming CCA and DRR in development plans including private sector’s investment is not a common practice. Lastly, there has been a fragmentation approach amongst development agencies’ support to mainstream CCA and DRR. Different concepts and tools have been introduced and sometime lead to confusion amongst national and local planners. Lastly, What are your experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA? The government of Cambodia recently has recognized a need to have an integrated approach for CCA and DRR and it is reflected in the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan 2014-2023. The Strategic Plan calls for adaptive social protection and participatory approaches in reducing loss and damage. Under this Strategic Plan there are 14 sectoral climate change strategies and action plans  including the Climate Change Strategic for Disaster Management Sector. At the sub-national levels, different interventions tried to merge the CCA and DRR practices and piloted the efforts. Given UNDP’s extensive experience working to support Cambodia in decentralisation reform and building resilience, UNDP has supported the government to develop a Technical Manual on Mainstreaming CCA and DRM into Commune Planning (attached). The manual includes Vulnerability Reduction Assessment tool (attached), piloted in 21 out of 25 provinces in Cambodia. What are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework?I would like to echo some of the suggestions made earlier that the framework should be adaptive and flexible to integrate and systematize into local development plan context. In addition, I would like to see the framework that allows for “learning-oriented” process for different countries to review and reflect experience and take on innovative solutions. The framework should also ensure the linkage of CCA and DRR in building long term resilience through strengthening ecological systems, services and goods that provide water, maintain soil for productive agriculture, and reducing risk from natural hazards.  Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan 2104-2023:  http://camclimate.org.kh/en/documents-and-media/library/category/127-national-strategic-plan.htmlClimate Chnage Strategic for Disaster Management Sector: http://camclimate.org.kh/en/documents-and-media/library/category/117-sectoral-ccsp.html?download=532:sectoral-ccsp-for-disaster-risk-management    

Viviane Ralimanga

La production d´un seul cadre qui intègre à la fois la réduction des risques de catastrophes et l´adaptation aux changements climatiques est une excellente initiative que je salue. Ces deux phénomènes sont en effet étroitement inter reliés dans la mesure où les changements climatiques ont un impact direct sur les risques de catastrophes naturels. Trouver des solutions pour s´adapter aux changements climatiques revient ainsi en quelque sorte à identifier les mesures qui permettent de réduire ou atténuer ou éviter les effets des catastrophes naturelles qu´il s´agisse des inondations, des cyclones, de la sècheresse ou autre fléau.En travaillant avec un seul document qui traite à la fois la réduction de risques de catastrophes et l´adaptation aux changements climatiques les développeurs et les humanitaires auront une vision globale de ces deux problèmes et prendre des mesures préventives et correctives    Ce cadre unique devra servir en priorité les décideurs et les techniciens de tous les départements ministériels en charge du développement économique, qu´il s´agisse du ministère de la planification, du ministère des finances, du ministère de l´aménagement du territoire, de celui de l´énergie, de l´industrialisation, des infrastructures. De même,  les ministères en charge des affaires sociales et humanitaires, y inclus les entités nationales en charge de la gestion des risques et catastrophes naturelles, le ministère de l´éducation,  etc.… bref l´ensemble du gouvernement, ainsi que les responsables des mairies, des villes ou encore  les centres en charge de la recherche, la météorologie …. Auront besoin de ce cadre. En disposant de cet outil unique, les responsables de ces départements pourront formuler des politiques sectorielles, des programmes de développement et des projets prévoyants qui permettent de gérer et  pallier aux effets conjugués des changements climatiques. Ils ne seront plus surpris par les impacts de ces phénomènes car ils auront intégré dans leurs programmes et leurs projets de construction les éléments et paramètres relatifs aux  changements climatiques et aux catastrophes naturelles.  Des écoles qui sont bâties en respectant les normes anticycloniques  et des  villes qui sont construites en tenant compte des normes environnementales et des facteurs climatiques seront plus sures et auront une durée de vie plus longue. Les pays pourront donc utiliser leurs ressources financières de manière optimale. Il doit aussi servir les partenaires au développement, le secteur privé tel que les compagnies minières ou encore les sociétés industrielles qui produisent des déchets de tous ordres et dont les interventions peuvent avoir des impacts directs sur l´environnement. Les ONGs qui travaillent avec les communautés soit dans le cadre des actions de développement soit dans le cadre des actions humanitaires auront également besoin de ce cadreLe législatif (Parlement) et la judiciaire auront aussi besoin de l´outil. Ils seront amenés à préparer et adopter des cadres légaux et à légiférer  pour protéger les intérêts des populations par exemple (santé..) Par conséquent,  le cadre doit être un document pratique, accessible à tous, ne dépassant pas 30 pages. Il doit être traduit dans toutes les langues des Nations Unies une fois finalisé.  

Husam TUBAIL • Programme Analyst at UNDP

Thanks for launching this online discussions on mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development planning process. I would like to share my thoughts on question 2, the current experience. During 2015-2016, UNDP supported the State of Palestine in developing National Climate Change Adaptation Plan and an Institutional Framework for Disaster Risk Management.  In my view successful integration of DRR and CCA into the development planning process would require creating a coordination mechanism that links all entities to the highest executive authority of the government. Such mechanism needs to adopt the following principles to ensure effective integration: 1) the principle of Responsibility: DRR and CCA is the responsibility of all levels of government, all sectors, and all entities including civil society, and the private sector. 2) Principle of Collaboration and coordination: All entities must ensure the best possible collaboration and coordination within other actors. 3) Principle of Normality: The procedures developed should follow established procedures and processes that are as close to the normal working processes as possible. 4) Learning-driven approach: It is important that risk reduction and climate change adaptation measures are built on experiences, good practices and lessons learned.

mohammad.waseem.rahimi@undp.org Waseem

Climate change increasing vulnerabilities:DRR is an important element of the Disaster Risk Management. The impacts of climate change included an increase in the frequency and severity of the hydro-meteorological events. Some types of extreme weather and climate events have already increased in frequency or magnitude, and this trend is expected to continue over coming years. Climate change is altering the face of disaster risk, not only through increased weather-related risks and sea-level and temperature rises, but also through increases in societal vulnerabilities - for example, from tresses on water availability, agriculture and ecosystems. It is a factor that will act as an additional stress to increase the existing vulnerabilities. As a result of global warming, climate related hazards like floods, droughts, heat waves, and storms are expected to become more frequent and/or possibly also more intense (e.g. tropical cyclones/hurricanes may have more rainfall and stronger winds, cover more territory). This will result in increasing vulnerability as climate trends will damage livelihoods, increase poverty and damage food security. In addition, some climate-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, storms, floods, droughts, heat and cold waves will affect places that have not experienced them formerly.

Himadri Maitra

Reply to Question No. 1:Dear All, Non structural risk reduction processes enhances copying capacity of the  people. If risk is created from climate change the also it is true. In the long run this coping capacity becomes “adaptation”, which is use to term as CCA.Thus the CCA is a kind of DRR where the source of risk is climate change. Like other hazards that may turn into disasters if the vulnerability is not properly addressed, climate change may also turned into disaster, if not properly addressed.Now, when governance issue is in question, for DRR, there is NDMA and in states there is SDMA. In West Bengal, there is department of Disaster Management upto block level. But for CCA this type of institutional structure of governance is not present. This question arises or will arise until climate change issues are understood as disaster risk or it is understood that climate change has a major contribution to disaster risk. The concept is clear to the pundits of climate change issues but not clear to the institutional level of governance, or, I may say, there is no initiative to make it clear.Like DRR, CCA is also a multidimensional, multisectoral development issue. And it will be better to address these two issues in the same frame, considering only the spatial and temporal dimensions. ‘DRR-CCA’ is not a sector specific issue, so it should be integrated into developmental planning of each and every development sectors. Otherwise it will get a step motherly behavior from different sector managers of the government. It is because the bureaucratic structure of the government institution, the administration, follows the rules set by the hierarchy, not by the objectives the governance meant  for.DRR-CCA is not only community based management issue, it is also institutional issue. Awareness of the community crates copying capacity which leads to risk reduction, but awareness and sensitization among different levels of administration can create an environment for good governance. Also community cannot enact rules and regulations and does not have the power to implement.Therefore a tradeoff between top down approach and bottom up approach is necessary. And in case of India, it is possible because of panchayat system. Institutions (governance & political institutions) are vital tool for this integration and a proper mechanism can be evolved. If there is a political will there is a way. 

Discussion Moderator

Posted on Behalf of Melchior Mataki, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) I think the issue of mainstreaming DRR and CCA in development planning (and implementation) is self-evident and in my view should be pursued irrespective of the challenges it faces. In other words, the rationale of mainstreaming DRR and CCA in development planning is unequalled by the challenges of mainstreaming. Less than 5 years ago, mainstreaming was largely an issue promoted and supported mainly by external partners of the Solomon Islands. Nowadays, there is acceptance by a number of central ministries as well as line ministries beside the ministry responsible for DRR and CCA of the need to factor in DRR and CCA in development planning. However, a lot remains to be done in terms of translating policy documents to tangible programmes and activities with budgets on the ground as alluded to by Mr. Filomea. I would like to dwell more on a related matter and of equal importance or more, since it has ramifications on the mainstreaming of DRR and CCA into development planning and round it off by linking it to mainstreaming. Unlike mainstreaming of DRR and CCA into development planning which enjoys a degree of concurrence amongst national stakeholders, there is resistance with some quarters at the national (experts) level to the integration of CCA and DRR and this stems from notion that the push for integration of CCA and DRR is externally driven by partners to capitalize on the potential financial flows arising from climate finance. Reflecting on the above at the regional level, the postponement of the integration of the two regional frameworks for disaster risk management and climate change may have also been an offshoot of the above notion and the uncertainty over how the integration may affect resource flows. One other perspective against the integration stems from the separation of CCA and DRR as distinct bodies of knowledge and practice. The distinctions between the two are amplified by the fact that at the international level, there are parallel UN multilateral processes on DDR and CCA.  In addition, the inclusion of both climate and geological related hazards in DRR is discomforting to some practitioners in the field of CCA or climate change for that matter. On the contrary, if we focus on “impacts” rather than “source”, which is of importance to communities and the public, the distinction based on source of hazard becomes almost irrelevant. For example, a tsunami can damage coastal properties and similarly storm surge and strong winds generated by a powerful tropical cyclone can exert similar impacts.  DRR in the Solomon Islands has become over time a second priority to its “partner” Disaster Management (DM). The gradual waning of attention to DRR is not intentional but an inadvertent consequence of the frequency of extremes (especially weather-related ones), which keeps our NDMO preoccupied with DM work for most of a calendar year. In other words, we are in a constant mode of recovery from nature-induced disasters. In my view, CCA offers an opportunity to reinvigorate DRR provided the issues mentioned above are sorted out at the national level. CCA and DRR share a number of commonalities and the core of their commonality is their focus on “peace time” measures and actions to avoid, protect, retreat and accommodate risks.  In my view the conduit or arena to integrate DRR and CCA centres on their mainstreaming into development plans and eventually to the implementation of development programmes by all stakeholders according to their context, capacity and resources. In other words, the uptake of DRR and CCA by development planners and practitioners including the public provides a neutral ground to address climatic and non-climatic risks in an integrated manner. In this regard, the embedding of officers with DRR and CCA expertise in central and line ministries as described by Mr. Sipuru is an ideal approach to raise the profile of risk governance and subsequently risk management within government, and to inculcate DRR and CCA and eventually create a network of practitioners to integrate DRR and CCA and mainstream into development planning and implementation. This process cannot be done overnight and needs to nurtured overtime to ensure its sustainability.      

Discussion Moderator

Dear Participants,We have extended Phase 1 of this e-discussion on developing a practical framework for mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development until the 15th April. This will allow you to share any final comments, or additional country case studies. We are particularly interested in collecting more DRR/CCA mainstreaming experiences that address issues of gender and social inclusion. For instance, what are some of the practical tools utilized to incorporate gender-disaggregated data and information into risk assessment exercises?Since we will provide you prior to the start of Phase 2 with a detailed summary of the first 2 weeks of the discussion, we decided not to inundate you with a lengthy message at this stage.Your contributions and insights so far have been tremendous! We would like to express our gratitude for sharing your understanding of what this vast topic means to you in in your particular context.Please mark your agendas for Phase 2 of the e-discussion: Collecting Feedback and Case Studies on an Outline Integrated Framework, starting on 25th April and ending on 6th May. We look forward to your inputs!Thank you! Angelika Planitz and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

14-04-2016 [Paris]Friends,Understanding the integrationIt is an opportunity to share with you some food for thoughts. This 1rst step with identification was a passionate one. We all have an experience about the DRR and CCA. We are living and hopefully these contributions are going to pay in the future. some of them have been already integrated, as I can see with some organizations on the web. For example Post 2015 has already started on 1-1-2016. I want also to thank for extending the consultation until 15-04-2016 for late coming or in case people have difficulties to share their experiences online and they still need more time.On the topic of identification and expectation, BIRD viewpoint was about unifying these expectations and identifications in a common set of guiding principles for actions in such a way, there is a shape and an organization. For example, if you are linking UN goals (a framework of the Global agenda for Actions -2015 i.e Climate change ambition (COP21 outcome), Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (March 2015) with the proposals for actions. From Words to Actions, clearly -through BIRD viewpoint- I assumed there is a need for principles of actions, which are not the UN goals, but they are helping to go from Goals and frameworks to strategy goals and requirement for operations in order to implement the solutions for DRR + CCA. In such a way the document attached is representing an attempt for such activities.2- A small assessment from the reading of some interesting comments. I wonder if some countries could not apply DRR or CCA- this activity of identification and further digging would stay like pure a business communication. Which is also excellent! (I assumed there was a psychological effect to solve issue , just with the purpose of communicating about DRR and CCA. while the issue can remain. What do you think? (Can we change all issues)Also another type of experience I discovered in the comments- They are already communities leaving very close to nature. In such a way there is possibility to learn from them for sustainability sustained development (DRR+CCA). Particularly, when the organization for change goes through decentralized structures.(or decentralization supported by strong states centralization)Last, in the gender and desegregation, possibly if you can look at an indicator for women groups in the public space. This is echoing from the UN Youth indigenous Caucasus group. This is also valid for a number of groups that are voiceless today, in emerging or developed nations. (indigenous or not). recently old chief of Indians from USA (102 years old passed). He was popular in USA (with our elected representatives -Obama...because he was able to show the indigenous skills during world war 2 in Europe)Your tenure of the consultation with a discipline and we are still looking forward the process to learn about improving the future of DRR and CCA. Thanks, friends.GeorgesBIRD

Francis Matheka

The DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework should aim to converge the different ongoing work in the two fields. At the practical level, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts interventions turn out to be almost the same thing. One of the main challenge appears to be that the two aspects are undertaken by different players without any form of consultation or comparing of notes. The framework should therefore have clear guidelines on coordination of the different sectors, players and stakeholders.From this e-discussion one key expectation is that we can have practical examples of DRR-CCA Frameworks from countries where this has been done and has worked well. 

Francis Matheka

The DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework should aim to converge the different ongoing work in the two fields. At the practical level, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts interventions turn out to be almost the same thing. One of the main challenge appears to be that the two aspects are undertaken by different players without any form of consultation or comparing of notes. The framework should therefore have clear guidelines on coordination of the different sectors, players and stakeholders.From this e-discussion one key expectation is that we can have practical examples of DRR-CCA Frameworks from countries where this has been done and has worked well. 

Priyo SAYOKO • Programme Specialist at UNDP

It is obvious that the convergence between DRR and CCA should not be debated, since both approaches are ultimately directed to human development. However, it was confusing in the past when both DRR and CCA were introduced and unfortunately in Indonesia, DRR is the responsibility of the Indonesian National Board for Disaster Management, and CCA is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and the two agencies were claiming that CCA was more important than DRR and vice verca. This perception as well as the silo mindset have been there for quite some time with no clear guidance from the National Planning Agency. In UNDP Indonesia, the two units (Environment and Conflict Prevention and Recovery) were developing a concept paper discussing both DRR and CCA, and trying to implement it at sub-national levels. The issue was shared and discussed with relevant government institutions and the lessons learned from the process so far tell us that strong commitment and clear roles and responsibilities distribution of each actor, especially government actors are the key to the success of CCA-DRR convergence. Five components of convergence were considered important to be looked at, when developing a new initiative related to CCA & DRR:  1) Policy, 2) Institutional arrangement, 3) Funding mechanism, 4) Implementation including monitoring and evaluation, and 5) climate risk assessment method. At the national level, it was understood that no need to change the existing regulations, and it is realized that the most important thing is the two concepts (DRR and CCA) should not be separated because both of them are needed, one is to understand climate variability to be able to adapt with extreme weather, and second is to reduce the risk of disaster.

visaka Hidellage

1. Such framework should would promote risk based planning; help to better understand risks and their manifestation, incorporating measures to prevent new and reduce potential risks while focusing on managing residual risks. Dependency on reliable data, localized data, accuracy and timeliness of data, ability to interpret and incorporate information to plans and measures, flexibility to make changes based on new information or information that need action within short period of time etc. become crucial for achieving DRR-CCA. Currently this is a draw back as it is difficult to convince planners to take you seriously (DRR-CCA together or separately) if a strong case cannot be built. (May be I am going out of topic here but it is clear inadequate is paid to ‘the data issue’ so far. Despite investing a lot on quite sophisticated data bases at national and international level there is little or no link between this and data needed for local decision making).  There are range of obvious benefits like being more resource efficient, stronger common advocacy message and less confusing to planners and stakeholder who get similar messages using slightly different definitions and jargons etc.. I cannot think of any serious draw backs as long as such frameworks leave adequate space for DRR initiatives that may not have high dependency on climate change such as development induced risks.Separate DRR and CCA initiatives take similar approaches. Guidance for DRR initiatives to incorporate CCA and vise-versa could be a start   2. Existing resources are helpful; there are resources which can be used even by new comers to the subject, although often need adapting to specific context, problems etc. Capacity to use guidance therefore is equally important.  There are variety of resource we have used including resource produced by UNDP, other external sources such as those produced by Duryog Nivaran.Most available resource provide sound logic and good guidance and there are plenty to choose from depending on your own requirements and ability to interpret and adapt to your own situation.Challenges; by mainstreaming challenges if you mean bringing DRR-CCA together, think these are not big. Perspectives, jargons, people and ownership etc issues that may continue to prevail but should not be able strong enough to prevent mainstreaming  Capacity gaps and inability of DRR/CCA specialists to make a strong enough case within public sector , non-compatibility with current systems, inclination to leave DRR/CCA to ministries of DM or sustainable development, inability to shift at once to different ways (to e.g.  holistic planning vertically/horizontally) although there is better understanding compared to earlier, narrow definitions of DRR/CCA planning particularly by private sector and being quite satisfied with narrow application etc.   3. Challenges to mainstreaming CCA-DRR into development: risk based planning and development is quite different to conventional planning and way development take place.  While reduction of current losses is definitely an incentive to consider such approaches, realizing risk based outputs generally would be costlier and would takes more time compared to same output which is not risk-based. Given short political cycles in our countries convincing decision makers to invest more for something that would take longer time although more sustainable would be challenging. It would be difficult to claim credit for risks not realized, and easier to win popularity for being effective in emergency response (sorry if this is a too cynical view!) But having said that there is certainly a better awareness about the importance of disaster management if not risk management amongst planners and decision makers. But they do prefer to have some tips or methods to improve current planning and delivery set up rather than changing the way planning happens (which is understandable). We should also be senstive and realistic and should be able to help planers/ decision makers achieve their immediate objectives first.  Sri Lanka Comprehensive Disaster Management Project currently works very much on sectors and with a rather narrow focus within sectors. While we realize this is not enough, we consider this to be a start.  We constantly face the challenge of getting a lot of enthusiasm generated at local level without being able get adequate or additional resource allocated. This is quite true for public (e.g experience of CCA project in Sri Lanka) and private sector (e.g. work of SLCDMP with SMEs)  Lot more things need to fall in to place such as financing and I do not mean just risk insurance but financing for risk based development, especially for local development and for small entrepreneurs.  Apart from local planers and development officials, banks and financing institutions, stakeholders of value chains etc  need to start mainstreaming too.

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

Friends,Sorry for cross-posting. Have you heard about Kumamoto? Right now the Kyushu island of Japan was striken by an earthquake of magnitude 6 (Richter Scale). No Earley Warning and no tsunami bulletin. No comment. I am Just being with a small number of people who passed and their families. It is not a disaster. More fears than real casualties and losses. Remember Tokohu disaster in 2011 and Fukushima. They are lots of technologies in Japan. and they worked. Possibly it is not enough. We haven't yet detected and prevented Kumamoto. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is invetigating of the occurence of a surprise earthquake (natural hazard). By the time I am emailing , I assume he will be informed about what has happened, exactly?Sendai, the new framework for Disaster Risk Reduction(SFDRR) (2015-2030), the successor of Hyogo Framework For Actions (HFA) and priorities (2005-2015) has a wealth of recommendations to put words into actions (resources, technologies, know-how sciences). Hoping participants we not find difficult to follow the following process. Thanks, friends.BIRD

Karen Medica

2) Current mainstreaming experiences - the DMO is tasked with assessing mainstreaming in 14 sectors across whole of government and reporting corporatively as well as nationally. We have developed a simple tool that we are trialing now. It is a scorecard and its development was based on other examples across the Asia Pacific region, however the tool is specifically for use in Samoa.In future this tool can be shared, especially with Pacific partners. The rationale is to provide an evidence-based scorecard that examines sector plans, progress reports and disaster recovery efforts. We also assign scores to how sectors are integrating gender, disability and climate change. Assessment is done by DMO in partnership with the sector (that provide a self-assessment). The tool is then used as a means for further discussion to improve mainstreaming. It includes recommendations and follow up work that involves DMO and the said sector. In cases where sectors have plans that express mainstreaming intention, whilst this is regarded well we are mostly interested in examining implementation as the 'real-time' evidence of mainstreaming and integrating DRR and CCA.Importantly, the tool also provides a baseline to measure change and hence provides a simple indicator that is used in our monitoring and evaluation of performance.

Keita SUGIMOTO • Mine Action Specialist at UNDP

On Question 2. Current Experiences.In Angola, in partnership with the UN Office for DisasterRisk Reduction (UNISDR), we have just started this week a process to identifycost-effective and evidence-based policy and financial options to reduce thecountry's climate and disaster risk.The process comprises three components, the first of whichis a training workshop targeted at national, technical staff in the country toinstall and operationalize the disaster loss accounting software to trackdisaster losses both contemporary and in the past. The second component willbuild on that work to create risk and vulnerability profiles based on the datacollected and other technical analysis. The third component will take theprevious two elements and use them to identify cost-effective andevidence-based policy and financial options to reduce the country's climate anddisaster risk.The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted inMarch last year as a successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework for Action, isa holistic approach to ensure that disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptationare integrated into all public policy including health, education,transportation, agriculture, investment and development.  The Yaoundé Declaration – endorsed at the 7thAfrica Working Group Meeting - also urges member states and Africa’s regionaleconomic communities to align their strategies with the Sendai Framework, andasks ministers of planning, economy and finance to incorporate disaster risk reductionand climate change adaptation into their policies. Risk management ispredominantly a governance concern and a process that is as much political andeconomic, as it is technical. We also need to work better together – acrossdisciplines and sectors.Based on this understanding, in introducing disaster lossaccounting system in Angola, we ensured involvement of the representatives ofall sector ministries, as well as institutions responsible for risk informationmanagement. Involvement of those sectorial representatives was criticalespecially as they effectively contributed to the adaptation of the disaster lossaccounting system to the Angola-specific context by providing inputs from the perspectivesof both data producers and users. In developing integrated DRR and CCAmainstreaming framework, I believe that involvement of all sector representativeswill continue to be important from data production to analysis and to the presentationof evidence-based policy options.

Paolo DALLA STELLA • Sustainable Develop Analyst at UNDP

ON QUESTION 2: Ghana has made substantive progress in terms of mainstreaming DRR-CCA into policies and plans at both the national and subnational levels.Since 2008, UNDP has facilitated stakeholder engagement/consultation, high-level policy dialogues, and provided technical and financial support to a series of key national processes aimed to mainstream climate change and DRR into development planning, develop policies and plans, and meet Ghana’s international obligations under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These include:

  • The National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), together with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), have undertaken a process to mainstream climate change and DRR into national and district development plans and budgets. Climate change was also fully integrated into the Ghana Shared Growth Development Agenda (GSGDA 1 and 2).
  • Following a comprehensive stakeholder process begun in 2010, the National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) was approved by Cabinet in June 2013. The vision of the Policy is “to ensure a climate resilient and climate compatible economy while achieving sustainable development through equitable low carbon economic growth for Ghana.”  The Policy adopted a sectoral approach to tackle climate change, taking into consideration the cross-sectoral nature of climate change and its effect on the economy and society. As a second phase of the Policy, the Government developed the National Climate Change Policy Strategies (NCCPS) in 2014. This document outlines a set of specific initiatives and programmes in the form of an Action Programme for implementation for 2015-2020.
  • Ghana has also successfully submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to UNFCCC. Beyond the submission, a number of concrete steps such as the ratification process and awareness raising strategies etc have taken place after the climate change negotiations that took place in Paris in December 2015 to ensure that the INDCs are fully converted into Ghana’s National Determined Contributions (GNDCs) by the close of 2016. Included in the INDCs are 20 priority mitigation programmes and 11 priority adaptation programmes, for a total budget of $22.6 billion for the period 2020-2030.
  • DRR considerations have been fully incorporated into the NCCP, which recognizes that “more than 80% of the disasters in Ghana are considered to be climate-related”. The process to revise Act 517, which led to the establishment of National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), is well advanced and puts more emphasis on disaster prevention, with the creation of a National Disaster Management Fund. UNDP also technically contributed to the development of the Ghana Plan of Action on DRR and Climate Change Adaptation (2011-2015), and the revision of the National Contingency Plan.

Lessons learned:

  • High level political engagement for DRR-CCA related actions at both the national and local levels is crucial.  
  • Broad consultations with key stakeholders to identify key challenges and solutions are needed.
  • Provision of support to Ministry of Finance for enhanced economic analysis of DRR-CCA needs, and budgeting for these at both the national and sub national levels is key.
  • Need to develop advocacy materials for key financial and planning institutions, as well as key line ministries, at the national and sub-national levels and deliver appropriate training on designing climate-resilient investment plans. Building on these training interventions, assist key ministries to re-align their budgeting processes so that these fully incorporate funding for climate change adaptation actions, bearing in mind the special needs of women to make their livelihoods climate-resilient.
  • Need to explore different mechanisms and approaches to build strong leadership and institutional frameworks to manage DRR/CC risks and opportunities in an integrated manner at the local and national levels.
  • A key challenge is how to ensure a coordinated implementation of DRR/CC policies and plans, given their cross-sectoral nature.

Paolo Dalla Stella (Programme Specialist - Sustianable Development) and Stephen Kansuk (Project Officer)

khurshid.alam@undp.org Alam

UNDP Bangladesh has invested significantly, over last two decades, on mainstreaming risk and shocks into national development planning and policies. These are done through two flagship projects: comprehensive disaster management programme (100 million) and Poverty, Environment and Climate change Mainstreaming (PECM).  These projects worked with Ministry of Disaster Management, Ministry of Planning and 13 other sectoral ministries. We have developed an array of tools and guidelines to support the mainstreaming process, with varying degree of successes.  For resilience, we aim to ensure that development stays stronger than shocks and risk. Therefore, we approached mainstreaming as one of the processes, and realized that technical disaster management approaches are not sufficient. Broadly, Bangladesh’s successes managing disaster risks is not necessarily achieved through the work of disaster management stakeholders with their tools but also by development forces like FDI, remittances and growing economic opportunities. But irony is that no one has shaped these forces to resilience purpose (or it happened randomly). This is an old priority but we are addressing them with new engagement with political and development actors. We also need to make a balanced approach in using both development and risk reduction instruments.   Let me also share with you a number of important lessons we have learnt First, risk information is key and precondition to mainstreaming risk into development, but capacity building of planning officials are something at local and national level is vital—and precondition for success. Second, mind-set change is important. Often mainstreaming projects are placed in operational sphere of a ministry than strategic one, thus delivered limited results. Uneven progress of mainstreaming across ministries can be explained by larger political economy and demand crated externally.  Third, measuring mainstreaming is a difficult task during or immediately after a project closure. Wider contextual analysis is highly important. Technical inputs can work far better when it is balanced with political engagement. Outcomes take time to archive and very much dependent on opportunities in larger policy environment.  Fourth, mainstreaming risk and shocks into private investment has very different context and realities. Finding an entry is the key and very much dependent on context—and financial incentives is important at early stage.  Fifth, resilience and risk informed development can not be achieved without working of whole of government approach. But most governments are not ready as business allocation is still sectorally aligned—and is not apolitical reality. Incremental approach best suited and governance innovation is required.  We are now working on a number programmes on resilience: (i) New Resilience Programme with multiple ministries, (ii) inclusive budgeting for climate change with ministry of finance, (iii) local government initiatives for climate change to mainstream climate change into local planning and budgeting.

Rob Wheeler

Understanding Integration:  Along with the need to focus specifically on joint approaches to disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA) and sustainable development, the Framework also needs to add and integrate as well dramatic and substantial climate mitigation as an essential means for also achieving disaster risk reduction and reducing the need for CCA. By taking action to limit and reduce the impacts from climate change AT THE SAME TIME AS we strive to reduce the risks from disasters, adapt to climate change, and achieve the SDGs, we will begin to be able to reduce the need to do such things. They all go together and a truly holistic and fully integrated framework is needed - really across all sectors, issue areas and even levels of governnance. In order to do these things a major effort is needed to restore the natural environment, degraded and polluted water sheds, both large and small natural water cycles, and water tables, etc. This can be done by investing in such things as: key line farming and land restoration projects, creating water retention landscapes, changing our agricultural practices, investing in soil restoration, using biochar sequestration and carbon farming, reforesting and healing degraded landscapes and desert areas, use of agroforestry and agroecology, creation of buffer zones to protect both the natural environment and human populations - particularly where there is a danger of natural disasters and climatic impacts, and to pay a great deal of attention to transition zones or areas where there is a transition from one type of ecosystem to another - where biological diversity and richness and abundance of species and habitats tends to be the greatest, etc.  In addition the framework needs the emphasis the value that a holistic integrated regenerative approach to both preventing and following up on climate disasters can provide. It also needs to address the spiritual/cultural/worldview dimensions that the Global Ecovillage Network has identified appropriately as being a 4th dimension of sustainable development that is fundamentally important, along with the need to create regional hubs, training centers and resource and service centers to support community based development and the usage of permaculture and ecovillage design education training programs.  These are all techniques, processes and practices that many within the Global Ecovillage Network and our associates are well versed in and can provide access to. We ought to be consulted and brought in to develop guidelines and processes for best practices.  I would provide more specific examples now, however we have been organizing and preparing for a major meeting that we are holding in Africa in conjunction with the African Environmental Ministers Conference in preparation for UNEA2. And I have thus been totally pre-occupied with that since we got notice of this discussion process two weeks ago. However I can tell you that the Global Ecovillage Network put together a special web section on our website that includes examples of best practices and success stories for addressing climate change and preventing natural disasters. This includes a section on responses to natural disasters, reforesting and restoring the natural environment, biochar sequestration, and carbon farming and restorative agricultural practices. This is all essential information that ought to be referenced, drawn from and included in the new Mainstreaming Framework. See: http://ecovillage.org/node/5998   I am also attaching an article that I wrote that was published in Outreach Journal at COP21 focusing on Carbon Farming. It explains the importance and need for restoring the natural environment and sequestering carbon in plants and soils; and is thus an essential background document for understanding and developing an adequate and appropriate Mainstreaming Framework on DDR, CCA, and CCM. 

Rob Wheeler

Current Experiences and User Expectations and Needs: There is a great need within the international community to dramatically upscale support for capacity building and development (particularly for civil society participation and initiatives) that needs to come from the UN agencies, national governments, development banks, and international community; and this must be included as a major element in the new framework - particularly as it is an aspect of implementation that is often either not much paid attention to, under-funded or overlooked.  Support and encouragement for the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships is also needed bringing together the business and educational communities, government, farming community, environmentalists, and civil society practitioners, etc. We need to bring the joint and integrated approach to addressing DDR, CCA, CCM and the SDGs down to the community level and couple this with the provision of hands on experiences and participatory training programs.  The Global Ecovillage Network and it’s sister organization, GAIA Education, have developed a curriculum and have been holding Ecovillage Design Education training programs in more than 30 countries around the world. Typical EDE courses last all day long for 4 weeks and are quite intensive and include hands on learning and permaculture education. They integrate the 3, or we suggest 4, dimensions of sustainable development (including also spiritual/cultural/worldview) and cover pretty much all of the SDGs in a fully integrated and holistic manner.  The EDE curriculum and training program includes and addresses many aspects of DDR, CCA, CCM and the SDGs as a whole. It or they could thus be included as a primary tool for usage with the Mainstreaming Framework; and could also be adapted, if there is sufficient support provided, so as to specifically address the need to approach DDR, CCA, CCM, and the SDGs in a fully integrated manner and at local community based level.  The Global Ecovillage Network is developing an EmerGENcies Programme to address the needs both to respond and prevent natural disasters and in a holistic and integrated manner. The Global Ecovillage Network also put together a special web section on our website that includes examples of best practices and success stories for addressing climate change and preventing natural disasters. This includes a section on responses to natural disasters and our new EmerGENcies program, reforesting and restoring the natural environment, biochar sequestration, carbon farming and restorative agricultural practices. This is all essential information that ought to be referenced, drawn from and included in the new Mainstreaming Framework and supported by the international community, particularly at a local and national level. See: http://ecovillage.org/node/5998  Please see as well my posting on Understanding Integration which gives further examples and details about the types of programs and activities that the Global Ecovillage Network has developed and offers that ought to be referenced and drawn from for the Mainstreaming Framework. 

Seema Mohanty

 Q1. Mainstreaming DRR and CCA refers to a cross-sectoral integration of both disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation policies and measures into government actions and development programs to reduce vulnerability and promote sustainability.DRR Mainstreaming Framework can be a diagnostic tool to carry out mapping exercise to systematically assess current situation and need for DRR and based on it developed mainstreaming strategy. Further, it can be used for planning, monitoring, measuring progress and a tool kit for advocacy.  Mainstreaming DRR is a process the end goal is resilient development.Q2. Mainstreaming DRR Framework and  development Framework should go hand in hand with strengthening disaster response capacities because more resilient development will not only lessen the burden on disaster response systems but more importantly DRR addresses the right of people to be protected from disaster before it happens. The creation of regulatory frameworks for mainstreaming DRR/CCA prescribes actions government actors should undertake at different governance levels and sectors in order to achieve DRR/CCA goals and objectives in national or sectoral planningQ3. Several guidelines / toolkits and modules of the country and state specific have the approach of integrating DRR and CCA in to development Plan/programme of the country/state. We have referred resources developed by the Govt of India with the technical support of National Institute of Disaster Management and various technical agencies at national international level for developing standardise guideline and module for mainstreaming DRR and CCA in to development plan both at strategy level and practice level. Challenges includes lack of awareness, financial constraints at different levels, institutional blockage and political willingness and interference. The other practical challenges for mainstreaming , what we  are facing are;

  • where to delegate DRR/CCA policy making responsibilities; • how to integrate DRR/CCA goals and objectives into existing planning; • how to coordinate government agencies to make sure DRR/CCA implementation is cross-sectorally and vertically coherent; • how to budget and review DRR/CCA activities
Discussion Moderator

Posted on Behalf of Balaji Singh,  Consultant, New Delhi, India Dear Members, Here are some points for your consideration about the expectations: Integrated Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Main-streaming Framework Expectation:* A well-developed framework for DRR CCA analysis for different Sectors, Regions, States and Districts* Any public or public-private funded projects need to present DRR CCA analysis as a part of project proposals / formulation documents, and incorporate mitigation measures for the identified risks, the projects should be able to demarcate / identify DRR, CCA budgets within the overall projects budgets* Evaluation of large public or public-private funded projects should apply DRR, CCA lens / criteria for evaluation at various levels / stages by the experts* DRR CCA analysis need to be carried at Block, District / Municipalities level and identified recommendations must be well informed to different stakeholders* Identify and establish a Network of organizations to study the Climate Change patterns and a framework for collecting observations and evidences need to be in place, data / information generated from this network should be shared extensively on public domains / forum* DRR CCA budgets should become a part of the annual budgets* There should a clear strategy for disseminating knowledge and understanding regarding the DRR and CCA* Risk as a concept need to be taught at various level

Discussion Moderator

Posted on behalf of Bibhuti Bhusan Gadanayak NDMA-UNDP, The Republic of Gambia, West Africa. Dear Members,I would like to share some of my practical experience how the DRR and CCA is being mainstreamed in West African countries, more specifically in The Gambia. In order to mainstream DRR and CCA we are implementing the programme MADRiD (Mainstreaming Adaptation and Disaster Reduction into Development). It is a multi-year initiative, initiated to increase high-level political commitment for integrating DRR and CCA into overall economic and social planning processes; and to promote the establishment of sustained human resources capacity development to successfully advocate for the integration of DRR and CCA into socio-economic development planning.Three cumulative Leadership Development Forums (LDFs) convened in 2012 were opportunities for structured dialogue and joint problem-solving with disaster managers, climate change authorities, development planners, law-makers, elected officials and technical partners. Participants identified challenges to advance climate and disaster resilient development and addressed training needs and capacity gaps. Through the MADRiD programme, participating country representatives were trained in a number of key conceptual and practical issues important for enhancing high-level DRR advocacy nationally, and developed action plans with commitments to follow-up in their home countries. Several countries have already included DRR mainstreaming and MADRiD follow-up activities in their 2013 work plans. In 2013, MADRiD activities was expanded to Africa through one Peer Learning Forum (PLF) and one Leadership Development Forum (LDF) was jointly designed and delivered by UNISDR, UNDP, WMO, MADRiD partner countries and host country. PLF was convened on 4-6 September 2013 in Nairobi, Kenya. This PLF brought together national and regional experts on DRR, climate change and development in Africa. It was be composed participants of who have professional knowledge and experience in disaster risk reduction, climate change, and disaster risk governance, integrated approaches to development, capacity development, training and education. This forum aims to improve network and exchange of information for mainstreaming and to enhance key MADRiD modules by reflecting national and regional sound experiences. The Regional Leadership Development Forum (RLDF) was convened during 7–10 October 2013 in Banjul, Gambia. The RLDF facilitated the mid to high level officers from sectoral Ministries (such as Planning, Finance, Education, Health, Agriculture, Lands or Environment), NDMA, National Training Institutes (NTI), Universities and National Hydro-meteorological agencies to gained greater political commitment, social demand for disaster and climate resilient development and develop country implementation plan through joint problem solving practice. GoalTo increase social demand and political commitment for integrating DRR and CCA into overall economic and social planning processes; and to promote the establishment of sustained human resources capacity development for implementation of integrated development planning in The Gambia. Expected Outcomes:1. Increased political commitment, social demand for disaster and climate resilient development.2. Consolidation of accessible technical resources for advancing DRR and CCA in development planning.3. Greater cooperation and coordination of efforts in MADRiD among countries and with partners.4. Strengthened national capacity development programmes including through training of trainers and support in tailoring training material to meet national needs. Participants Participants of the training program were Mid-high level officers from sectoral Ministries (such as Planning, Finance, Education, Health, Agriculture, Lands or Environment), NDMO, and National Training Institutes (NTI) or Universities and National Hydro-meteorological agencies having professional knowledge and experience in DRR, CC, disaster risk governance, integrated approaches to development, capacity development, training and education.Major areas covered are as follows:1. Framing on Disaster & Climate Resilient Development2. Mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development3. Climate Information Service4. Risk Governance for Disaster Resilient Development5. Mainstreaming DRR and CCA into Sectorial Development – Agriculture6. Advocacy for mainstreaming7. Way forwardAchievements: Workshops conducted  No. Participants    Duration National level 1 40 3 days Regional 1 38 3 days District level 2 69 3 days             

Discussion Moderator

Posted on behalf of Dipan Shah, Society for Environment Protection (SEP), Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Dear All,We as an organization work in Environment and Housing sectors. In fact, promoting DRR issues in housing for decades and similarly, the Environmental wing is talking about climate change since long. We had multiple rounds of discussion at multiple occasions on which links to the topic of discussion. Just to share few quick points (and my apologies if, I am repeating since could not read all the responses till now at peace on the discussion topic) 1) We as a team will have to revisit DRR. In most cases DRR is related/associated with natural disaster. But, when we talk about DRR per se it shall include all disasters. Now by all disasters I mean lot of urban concerns as well industries (huge range of factors/disasters with reference to it including environmental) or issues like e-waste which have social and consumerism at base. 2) We do work in this sector and I guess entire fine print of it is yet to be articulated and written. If one talks about DRR with respect to natural disasters, we have tons of manuals/ information/expertise and set modes of resources to operational framework but if one ask the same set of information for environmental disasters then, the information is minimum/negligible. 3) In DRR, the Risk Reduction with respect to urban and environmental disasters gloomy. Range of slow disasters like e-waste or indiscriminate paving of surfaces to hard surfaces is increasing heat island effect and also no ground water replenishment with increase run off leading to new flooding zones. These are few phenomenon which are even difficult to get registered in disaster frameworks. Similarly, the whole framework around increased allergic cold cases due to toxic food and air are still looked in isolation by most. 4) Agricultural uncertainties and changes are required in cropping pattern with respect to climatic changes or climatic shift is indeed a deep sector for research. At present few of the individuals and organizations are working on it in isolation but yet the subject is not in focus. 5) Cleaner production (CP) as popularly known is one of the important tool in industry and have innovated ways and means for clean production. I have visited few of them, who have customized technologies to recycle water upto 5 times before they discard it to their ETP or CETP. All of this technologies are sensitive to the product in making and have to be customized with the actual process of production followed. We have hardly data base around it.  6) Climate change adaptation is a process, which will evolve, provided we have huge level of information to process. Unfortunately, in our present societal framework, Research is the last priority. We have been developing best of software’s and modelling tools to generate specific data, but, when one gets to the base of the tool in terms of the coefficient it uses to generate model many of them are international in nature or not based on sufficiently aggregated local co-efficient. Hence, working on information and regional focus laboratories will be very important to generate and document the same. DRR CCA is a multi- disciplinary affair and requires huge amount of information / knowledge management work. At this stage we believe the priority should be of the knowledge management (piloting/ researching), so as to have customized adoptable outputs for specific region/industry. If that is done, in itself will be a huge work.

Discussion Moderator

Posted on behalf of Ashwini Sathnur, UNDP, Bengaluru. Dear All, Please find my views to the three questions raised in the discussion. Question 1: Mainstreaming efforts lead to the implementation of the Inclusive Development ideology. It aims to achieve 100% participation which involves specially - abled, the disaster - struck persons, temporarily disabled persons and also the disaster - prone individuals. Climate change could impact the health of individuals along with the occurrences of the disasters - man made or natural. Due to the cause of one situation / crisis, multiple impacts could be observed i.e. both disaster risk and mainstreaming crisis. Hence this leads to creating solutions for both DRR and CCA, which are integrated into one framework. Question 2: Climate change and quantum neural network example application aims to provide a solution for both DRR [climate change] and CCA [human health]. When solar flares lead to imbalances in human health, ICT solutions enable the neurological simulated functioning - so that human responses are created and manifested in human beings, in response to stimuli. Question 3: Sustainable development via mobile hand held devices provide ICT applications which are user - friendly, practical and provides an implementable framework. By providing communication mechanisms to visually impair and hearing impaired persons via Accessibility, their participation measures in employment increases. This leads to higher productivity and inclusive work - culture. Thus leading to socio - economic progress of the society!

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

15-04-2016 [Paris]Friends,For our last meeting today and for the concerned phasing about identification of experiences and expectations, I went through today post with my own understanding of DRR + CCA to select 2 topics, which is recurrent in 2 or more topics. These are the problems of education and management. Also, thanks to one or more friends that I read there comments today. These are not anonymous persons, but people I used to met on different occasions at UN venues for DRR.Please, if you have some time to spend on my comment, go to the 2 documents (pdf).The first one as I said it related to management.In the text of Sendai (successor of Hyogo framework for actions), it is about words to actions. I wondered firstly, what was an action. I came with my own definition of an action, which is leading to what I am making every day about management. And the better it is is if your business is focus on environmental management. This managerial definition is also found in the Sendai document in a list of articles, what need to be made (and I should add, what need not to be made, and what you can made other do for you or your community. However, there are some unclear. As we all know, we are all part of the transformation agenda, UN has made the framework, and we are attempting to implement it with actions. For example, if you go to the definition of an action in the Business dictionary, actions is practically a serious matter and it is linked to tribunal and courts. In such way, I reviewed some cases (for human rights) or a managerial on the wildfire, which occurred recently in the state of Alaska (USA). No parties (government or civil society are agreed. The other cases of DRR and CCA are linked to human rights and multinational business. We know, -I assumed- that climate justice and Post 2015 cannot be achieved without human rights. DRR + Climate activity can be found in Post 2015 SDG 11 with the smart, inclusive, safe, sustainable cities.About Education; educating children, it is fine. Also, educating adults. Is it fine? I think the matter of education or training is critical and crucial in showing how DRR and CCA are complex solution issues because these are linked to the principle of actions I was referring in a previous post and Training has to go to actions through these principles. it is not a straightforward matter, because of the uncertainties and also the level of discrimination which is out coming when you input DRR+ CCA and moving forward the ambition or the agreed goals (are they constraints) or process with the necessary new skills to materialize the transformation process and the World We want for all.  Also, the important is between the stakeholders themselves. it is related to power structure and the social roles and statusesConclusion, when looking at fulfilling the ambition or the other side of the same reality of development, which is Post 2015 SDG. Keep the goal high.Thank you for reading the article and best for the following process.GeorgesBIRD  

kristen.hayes@undp.org hayes

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment.  My comments are based on my experiences as a gender and social inclusion/ protection advisor working for the Pacific Risk Resilient Programme (PRRP), where we are supporting government decision makers mainstream climate, disaster and environmental risk into development planning and budgeting.  Our starting point is a risk governance perspective, where we are hoping to put in place a number of core risk governance building blocks relating to the people, mechanisms and processes of development as a basis for embedding risk into development.  Drawing from our experience, I would like to contribute a couple of additional considerations within the current discussion:Firstly, the proposed mainstreaming approach requires an increased understanding of the nexus between gender and social realities and CCDRM. Climate Change and Disasters have different impacts on different members of society, with certain groups known to be more severely impacted. Furthermore, Climate change and disasters not only exacerbate pre-existing inequalities and social issues (such as gender-based-violence and land-related conflicts), but also create new layers of vulnerability (such as those associated with displacement, urbanisation and human mobility). Ideally the proposed mainstreaming framework would actively consider gender and social dimensions of risk as well as the pre-existing social/protection issues that emerge post-disaster.Secondly, when we talk about GSI, it is important to note that this not only women’s participation, but more effort needs to made to address the risks and priorities of other social groups.The reality is that there are some people who are unlikely to directly participate in decision-making and therefore a need base CCDRM initiatives on gender and social analysis and to actively account for those who do not participate.Whilst it is important that the proposed framework articulate the need to ensure the direct participation of “vulnerable” groups in decision-making wherever possible, as well as promoting gender equality, this will not account for the many other gender and social factors underlying those most at risk from climate change and disasters.  Ideally, an integrated CCA and DRR framework would provide guidance on how to ensure risk-integration measures are responsive to these complex factors.

Steven Goldfinch • DRM Specialist at UNDP

In Uganda, recent national strategies reflect a commitment to an integrated approach at the policy level. However, when it comes to implementing this intent, interventions have largely been separate reflecting the institutional structures and corresponding mandates in place. An integrated national framework will need to go beyond a strategy that speaks to the business case for DRR and CCA mainstreaming. It will need to provide guidance on its practical application within existing (separate) institutional arrangements. As such, ownership of the strategy needs to be carefully considered. The role of national planning authorities, ministries of finance and development, and alike should be considered (not a new thought, but largely unrealized). The framework needs to support policy-makers across government, rather than focusing on DRR and CCA practitioners in the ministries or disaster management and/or environment/climate change. On current experiences, the ICRMP initiative in Uganda has resulted in a number of useful tools for sub-national governments and communities supporting an integrated approach to decision-making. This includes a Training Manual in Climate Risk Management, a Community Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation Planning & Implementation Guidebook and the integration of climate and disaster risks in district hazard, risk and vulnerability profiles. Efforts are now focused on supporting district-level planning units fully uterlise the profiles in their planning and budgeting processes. At the national level, the initiative is supporting the integration of climate risk into a Strategic Partnerships Investment Framework for Resilience. This work is going.  

Anohar John • Director at TFINS_SDS

My understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development is that it is very sucessful in National and International Level but it is different in local levels, i dont see it really happen that way everywhere. The issues which are loacl by nature shows various differences which give way to different sorts of actions than we do everywhere. My experiences with existing mainstreaming frameworks, guidelines or toolkits for DRR and/or CCA is that  it never reaches to the grass root levels and actions on desired levels are not attained due to the same.My expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework is to frame guidelines and actions to be intiated that to make sure that it reaches to the grass roots and greater participation is included from community and other oragnisations and individuals that ever.

Jessie Henshaw

I don't see people responding to how "mainstreaming" DRR and CCA efforts would requrire addressing the direct conflicts of interest between many of the separate parts.  I keep pointing it out from various views, our lack of an inclusive accounting of the impacts we need to respond to, how a growing economy in a world of shrinking government budgets puts all responses to the growing scale and complexity of impacts we need to respond to in conflict.   So to unify the effort it seems we need to recognize the **common interests** for making responses effective, not picking favorites but resolving the needs of the whole .    I recognize, of course, that why people are not discussing that is partly because it's an unfamiliar approach, and so generally not what people have thought of before, making it not immedicaely obvious what to discuss.   We've all faced budgetary conflicts before, though, and the need to either cut or unify plans somehow.   Maybe people could bring up examples that might apply here.   Sometimes faced with inadequate resources in a crisis a "triage" apporach is used to prioritize the responses to make.  We might just forget lost causes like the coral reef ecosystems, for example, giving the excuse that "we're at war" and stopping acidification to a level of ocean food chain collapse is more important.  Both are large scale long term threats, but the reefs might eventually grow back, after all, and if ocean food chains collapse that effect might be more long lasting.   Don't we need to look at the budgetary and social ranking of all these kinds of tradeoffs, and put real numbers to them, to not be flying blind in trying to find a unified a response?

Joshva Raja John

It is essential for me to think about decentralizing the cities around the world. We need a complete and new ways to think about officialdom centralizing around the cities. Nowadays much of the work can be done via networking and net; also commuting can be made easy through transports that are accessible.  In such cases spreading the work, residence, offices and so decentralizing cities and buildings become essential to prevent both climate change and so the disasters. Even if we build another satellite cities we have to make plans so that either in flood situations or in the time of earth quakes the planning works well in a way that people can escape the disasters. What we need only a few minutes escapes from the disasters. Even the Early warning communication systems should also be in place so that people can avoid their lives being lost.

Discussion Moderator

Posted on Behalf of Maria Gemma Dalena, Disaster Risk Reduction Technical Advisor, UNDP Rwanda Understanding IntegrationWhat is your understanding of a framework that facilitates integrated approaches to mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development?  An integrated framework for mainstreaming DRR and CCA in development means having to view, approach, implement [and monitor, evaluate] and achieve development in a holistic frame – where you look at DRR and CCA side-by-side from a common lens. This lens should then be able to zoom in and out into the specificities, nuances, similarities and differences of DRR and CCA.  It should be a framework which is a by-product of the harmonization, consolidation and integration of existing DRR and CCA mainstreaming frameworks which guide these two streams separately at the moment.  In Rwanda, both DRR and CCA are well integrated in the Second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013-2018 (EDPRS2). However, both have been mainstreamed independent of the other and are being implemented, monitored and reported separately as dictated by the existing/separate institutional arrangements and mechanisms.  While the existing mechanisms are inter-agency and multi-sectorial in composition, the DRR and CCA mechanisms are led by separate and independent mandated agencies (Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs and Ministry of Natural Resources respectively) hence the direction and orientation are inclined towards the mandate of the lead institutions.  The framework should therefore espouse more elaborately and explicitly the primordial role and leadership of a higher entity i.e. national planning [and finance] ministry.  This should be accompanied strategically with developing DRR and CCA cadres and champions across government and not only limited to the primarily mandated institutions. On a particular note, Rwanda has developed a National Risk Atlas – a comprehensive risk assessment.  It is an important milestone in Rwanda which enabled the analysis of exposure and vulnerability information disaggregated by gender, age and levels of poverty. The risk information generated by the assessment has now been used to make risk-informed development decisions. It also informs DRR mainstreaming across sectors.   One downside of this risk atlas in Rwanda is its limitations in terms of using CC lenses and tools in the analysis. This limitation is due mainly to the inadequate integrated disasters and CC risk assessment tool for use and application at national context.  What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework? -        In terms of benefits, an integrated DRR-CCA mainstreaming framework would provide a more holistic and integrated approach. It will afford a broader spectrum in the analysis and understanding of exposure, vulnerability and risks. Therefore could inform a holistic, practical and integrated solutions where interventions and/or actions reinforces the other and vice versa.  It will also allow optimization and best use of resources and investments.  It could also consolidate, strengthen and broaden technical capacities and human resources and expertise way beyond the ‘traditional’ DRR and CCA practitioners.-        On hindsight, one particular drawback could be the isolation or non-inclusion of other hazards and disasters such as geological and industrial disasters and epidemics. While DRR and CCA synchronically intertwines in addressing hydro-meteorological hazards, disasters and extreme weather events. It may not be able look at other disasters.  Hence, there is a need to ensure that the integrated framework should have a special lens to look at those outside the domains of hydro-meteorological hazards and extreme events.  User Expectations and NeedsWhat are your expectations for an integrated DRR and CCA mainstreaming framework?How can it overcome existing mainstreaming challenges?-        It should start from amongst the champions and experts of both DRR and CCA – both these expertise/communities should overcome the tendency and practice of ‘outdoing each other’… both should first and foremost realize, internalize, agree to the fact that DRR and CCA should be part of an integrated framework.  Because if the experts of both communities, will only continue (and start) outdoing, competing each other --- mainstreaming in development in an integrated approach will never work out. Both streams will continue to take its own path and track, often in utter disregard of the other or often result to a very subtle, shallow, narrow and piecemeal mainstreaming results.

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

20-04-2016 [PARIS]Friends I was thinking that part 1 was over and we were moving forward a new stage. Then, today I received a new post. I am happy, people in the team work can find sometimes to share expereince and expectation around the world and deliver on the website. Most country cases are astuces as I could read. But, In 1958, worse tsunami on earth occurred in Alaska Bay after a landslide. (Today, satellites are still able to witness the disappearing of the forest along the coatal bay which has been flattened by the tsunami. The landslide after an earhtquake made a big splash in the bay water and a Giant wave of 50 meters high was formed and travel from the mountain slope to the open sea. There was a couple on a boat fishing that day, they survived the catastrophic event, but there boat was swept away from the bay to the open see, as the swimmer on fun board- you can travel far, it you know how to stay balanced on the swimming board); Possibly they were and lucky too. TODAY, ECUADOR AFECTED BY AN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE 7.8 Richter Scale, AND RISK ZONESI am giving a personal feed-back on the integration and scale of the mega event. For example after Kuamamoto strikes earlier some days ago in Japan and to discover that Japan was a risk zone (20%-25% of earth surface are risk zones). Usually, you can expected the day after a new Earthquake to strike Kuamamoto with less magnitude- It did not happen or far below on the opposite on the Pacific plate, which is playing like a roller coast, at sea. It was Ecuador this time in Northern South America. Quito the capital city is the highest located city has not been affected. As the Quake arose close to the coast. However, the earth is actually linked with the Pacific plate - I assumed and other cities close to the coastal line has been hit.From Alaska to Terra del Fuego and through central America, there is an inevitable (100% certain) risk line made of mountain, in such a way living there is a risk and an opportunity to transform with disasters . Possibly, a new paradigm beyond DRR and CCA with innovative thinking, breakthrough projects and new organizational design (rejecting the business as usual, which has limited scope in space and time). For example, best illustration is given by worse arid zone on earth. The Atacamaca hot desert between Chile and Peru is supposed to be the training center for future exploration to the moon. We are already on the moon on earth in the Andes, ... or the range of mountain line running along the pacific plates. The moon is the twin sister of the earth. Or likely to be be...bearing this in mind. Disaster risk reduction and climate change activities are breaking through. If no innovation, actually, what can work well is using technologies to sense the mega event.Thank you for helping to comment. GEORGES BIRD

Discussion Moderator

Dear Participants,We would like to thank you for your tremendous engagement (responses were received from over 50 countries!) and meaningful contributions to the first phase of the e-discussion on developing a practical framework for mainstreaming DRR and CCA into development.  Please find attached a summary report, which shares some of the key findings and case studies received to-date. Should you be interested in a more detailed analysis of the responses we received, please feel free to contact us.Please also share any additional country case studies that explore the challenges and successes that you have experienced.  We are particularly interested in collecting more DRR/CCA mainstreaming experience that address gender and social inclusion.  We thank you for your participation and encourage you to join us once more on the 25th April when the dialogue continues.Kind regards,Angelika and Pradeep