Phase 2: Feedback on an Outline Tool

25 Apr - 13 May 2016
Go back to Integrated DRR - CCA Mainstreaming Framework

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

What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?

Based on your responses and a review of some existing mainstreaming tools, we have identified a number of components or specific entry points that need to be addressed to risk-inform the development agenda (Please refer to slide 10 on this presentation which provides an initial outline of key features).  

a)    What components/entry points do you think are most critical? 

b)    Have we missed any?

What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?

In addition to describing the key entry points or components for mainstreaming (i.e. what?), we are considering outlining concrete steps that could be taken (i.e. how?).  These steps need to be sufficiently generic to be applicable to different contexts, levels and sectors, but specific enough to help the user implement them.

a)    Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to be considered?

b)    How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts, levels and sectors? 

Files

Comments (59)

Discussion Moderator

Dear Participants,  Welcome to the 2nd Phase of the UNDP online-discussion to develop a practical tool to mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation into development! This phase, will continue for two weeks until 6 May 2016.The feed-back we received from over 50 countries during the 1st Phase of the e-discussion was extremely encouraging. Thank you all once more! We posted a short summary report of the first phase with key highlights emerging from your contributions.We have also started to scope out the key features of the new tool. Please refer to the presentation which provides an initial outline. We would in particular welcome your feed-back on the following questions:1)    What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?Based on your responses and a review of some existing mainstreaming tools, we have identified a number of components or specific entry points that need to be addressed to risk-inform the development agenda (see slide 10).  a)    What components/entry points do you think are most critical?  b)    Have we missed any?  2)    What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool? In addition to describing the key entry points or components for mainstreaming (i.e. what?), we are considering outlining concrete steps that could be taken (i.e. how?).  These steps need to be sufficiently generic to be applicable to different contexts, levels and sectors, but specific enough to help the user implement them.a)    Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to be considered? b)    How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts, levels and sectors?  We look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas, and hope that you will continue to share with us experiences to help shape the mainstreaming tool.Thank you for your participation!Angelika Planitz and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya

John

To cut through to the decision makers is extremly diffucult however factual information has to be given as you are very aware.Expected outcomes from the direction the earth is headed is more extreme weather.That means higher highs and lower lows which result in higher rainfall events high snow events earlier fire events if a cyclone or hurrican developes it is expected to be more severe.In the long term over 50 to 100 years the present trend shows that SLR is going to result in costs to countries that are going to stress the economy of low level inhabited areas.If you wish will give links to information, however i expect everyone is aware of the relevant information.The finding must be given to Governments however i honestly do not think any planing is going to be done due to 4 or 3 year election cycles.

John

We as in everyone has to act to stabilise the direction of society because it is not leading to a good outcome for future decendants.Move from a Carbon Economy before 2030-2050 then try to reverse the damage that has been caused to society.

annlily.uvero@yahoo.com

I might be bias, but working for an LGU for the 1st time, but here are my observations in supporting the crafting of a 10-year LCCAP to a city that is 2nd most vulnerable after Tacloban.  More on the operational point of view.1st,  For countries highly vulnerable, it should go beyond a mainstreaming approach but as a demand-driven development planning approach integrated in all sectors in order to be adoptive and resilient.   As our DRRMO and ENRO officer,  it does not stop as their concern which means for each LGU/Province - comprehensive physical framework plan that integrates CC adoptiveness.  The common understanding of CC is DRRM hence, should focus on the readiness and resiliency of all sectors including the post disaster rehabilitation (in case, the BIG ONE happens or EL nino happens, hence a long term development planning approach).2nd, there are so many tools in existence  where donors/INGO tools do not consider the country context, planning/budgeting framework and  existing reporting formats.  Capacity building should be incremental and not as a stand-alone approach, anchored in the gaps identified by the national strategy.  Or support the enhancement on the existing strategy.  I notice that training participation should include identified key vulnerable sectors unless the approach is sectoral.    I saw a plan/toolkit that does not link to the country's comprehensive national climate change action plan  One is so technical while the other uses an integrated development approach.  There is also a need to support the national government level (different NGAs) to have a coherent approach.  3rd, Specific tools, checklist, performance indicators, generic but is adoptable but separate the national and local context.  If it is highly vulnerable, it should address all urban/rural system and its interconnectedness not segmented.  From my consultations - a storm drainage has become a norm.  CLIMATE CHANGE is the NORM, it goes beyond mainstreaming.   4th, More technical guide on urban/rural planning, checklist and protocols on disaster preparedness at the village level (what are the best practice).  For example, if one prepares for signal no. 4, based from the various risk assessment conducted, what are the step-by-step protocol that one as a village level official or a volunteer, can look into.   A solution in  DRRM/CCA issues identified during  the Metro Naga Development Council Strategic plan last year.5th, More technology options that is low cost and no regrets - knowledge sharing not only within country but also within the region that is affordable.    As an example, anti-flood should be 3-in-1, also be use to capture rain water and be used an irrigation, et al.  The need to focus on both hard and soft engineering. 6th, Issues of Climate Change goes beyond an LGU or municaplity context.  It addresses the eco-system (ridge to reef planning) that is beyond the political boundaries of an LGUs.  Hence, a separate toolkit on inter-LGU collaboration on CC. 7th, funding opportunities on activities that goes beyond the LGU bounderies or requires an inter-LGU alliances. 

Dominic Tiatou JOHNS

Over the past two decades the international community has crafted several treaties aimed at addressing global environmental problems. Unfortunately, the systems in place are not adequate to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).There is a need for coordination and synergies amongst youth to enhance greater efficiency. The need for synergies in Climate Change cannot be overstressed in the face of accelerated biodiversity loss and steady temperature rise.Your components or entry points for mainstreaming are very much in place. However there are few things that I will appreciate that you could kindly keep in mind as bullet points under your entry point selected:At a Global level:

  • Consistency in International commitment for Youth awareness
  • Enhances better identification of gaps in addressing global issues among Youth groups
  • Reduction in duplication and more effective use of resources

At a National level:

  • Environmental awareness on the sustainable use of natural resources
  • The role of youths in environmental governance
  • Environment awareness on the important of climate change adoption

 Few things we are to consider as challenges that needs to be address under capacity development:

  • Coordination amongst Youth Groups
  • National mechanism to facilitate joint action for Youth Organizations
  • Weak Institutional Capacity
  • Low expertise in preparing project proposal  
John

I do hope this is going to be put together and sent to all particapating governments for their deliberations.However as i see the problem it is a gross lack of forsight within the present structure of western democracy where the future planning is not looked at in any detail what so ever.

Krishna Gautam

Nepal is still working to come out of the disastrous effects of the earthquake of 25 April 2025. Few leaassons were learnt in the rpocess and they could also guide us in the future.(a) Not involving older persons in systematic manner in releife and recosntruction  work leads to failures that could be avoided.(b) Social and cultural knowledge and tradional skill of Older people (60+) could have been used:1. to avoid unnecesary deaths and suffering to many in post emergency situation.2. to use local technology that are environment friendly, so sustainableIt is learnt that more numebr of older people are affected both in the event of disater and the post-disaster situation.Therefore, Nepal experience tells us to involve older people, systematically and as mandatory, in the process of bringing about disirable changes in societies. Most of the existing procedures and policies put older persons in shadow which has to be changed.

Ivan G. Somlai

What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?Apologies if I have missed any of this within the document!1. Culture: the only place this word is mentioned is in 'agriculture'.  Aside from the oft dismissed imperative for foreigners to learn about and heed local cultures, there very clearly are --at times considerable-- cultural differences within a country.  I have had highly qualified staff from urban areas stymied or puzzled by practices, attitudes and 'logic' of coworkers and clients or beneficiaries in rural communities. And of course vice versa! The point is that by foreseeing this, much advance preparation could be done that would reduce inefficiencies during critical intervention times.2. Certain improvements in management, coordination, or other aspects may require institutional changes. The latter, in turn, may require not only absorption of new knowledge and skills, but as well the means to implement: departmental reorganization, funding, planning, and other ab initio considerations. All of these are intertwined and one aspect cannot be considered in a vacuum.

Ivan G. Somlai

What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?Apologies if I have missed any of this within the document!1. Culture: the only place this word is mentioned is in 'agriculture'.  Aside from the oft dismissed imperative for foreigners to learn about and heed local cultures, there very clearly are --at times considerable-- cultural differences within a country.  I have had highly qualified staff from urban areas stymied or puzzled by practices, attitudes and 'logic' of coworkers and clients or beneficiaries in rural communities. And of course vice versa! The point is that by foreseeing this, much advance preparation could be done that would reduce inefficiencies during critical intervention times.2. Certain improvements in management, coordination, or other aspects may require institutional changes. The latter, in turn, may require not only absorption of new knowledge and skills, but as well the means to implement: departmental reorganization, funding, planning, and other ab initio considerations. All of these are intertwined and one aspect cannot be considered in a vacuum.

Jalil Ur Rehman

What components/entry points do you think are most critical? After reviwing the previous comments summary  I would suggest followings as the most critical components;

  • Legislation at national to Gross root level
  • Political will
  • Budget allocation
  • Capacity  development
  • Participarory Planning and implementation
  • Result Based Management
  • M&E

Have we missed any?While working on mainstreaming community participation is necessary as the general public is  the end users of all the good results. secondly the scientific research should be an integral part of maintreaming.

Akhteruzzaman Sano

Dear Angelika,  you may have the presentation from our the workshop at KL organized by IFRC and UNDP (You) on Law and DRR.  I am replying the same experiences as it a successful case in mainstreaming perspectives. 1)    What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?a)    What components/entry points do you think are most critical? - in my experience, the critical entry points of mainstreaming starts at household levels - where household members have their defined roles and responsibilities, ensures balanced particiation and their is accountability review mechanism. The same needs to practices community levels - with defined roles & responsbilities. The "DEFINED ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES"  open the opporunity for demonstratting accountability and transparency. The extent of success and failure come based on the defined roles & responsibilities. b)    Have we missed any? The  policy framework need to be supported by legal /institutional approach . It is always missing. Such missing makes the initiative as the "event" and reduce the chances to let it go as the "process".  2)    What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool? a)    Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to be considered? If the guidance is developed following the clear institutional policy  mandated by legal framework, the tools  ensure that there is no overlapping of any roles of the community or at institution levels.  Accountability and transparency cannot expect if the roles and responsbilites are not defined clearly, empowered accordingly and supported with adequate resources (all forms of resources). b)    How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts, levels and sectors? Once the policy supports the guidance and tools to address the issues then we can ensure the esteps are concrete. The guidances/manuals are developed following  by policy framework under the legal umbrella, then there will be no chance to miss something. In case something get lost, it will be discovered immidiately and updated, recognized by all parties ...

Santiago Roberto Bertoglia

ESTIMADOS MODERADORES Y COLEGAS:1)    ¿Cuáles son los componentes críticos y puntos de entrada específicos para la integración?Con base en sus respuestas y una revisión de algunos instrumentos de integración existentes, se han identificado una serie de componentes o puntos de entrada específicos que necesitan ser abordados a un riesgo de informar a la agenda de desarrollo ( véase diapositiva 10 ).  a)    ¿Qué componentes / puntos de entrada cree que son más críticos? b)    ¿Nos hemos perdido alguna?En respuesta a estas preguntas amables es importante recordar un Acuerdo https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/3EBEECA5-0EAC-4685-950F-1488CF56BE64/0/ICCASP3Res1_Spanish.pdf   También recordar http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/symbol=A/RES/70/1 y http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/2015/09/la-paz-y-la-justicia-son-pilares-del-desarrollo-sostenible/   Antes de tirar los esfuerzos a la basura. 2)    ¿Qué orientación se necesita para ayudar a los profesionales aplican la herramienta?Además de describir los principales puntos de entrada o componentes para la integración (es decir, qué ?), Estamos considerando esbozar medidas concretas que podrían adoptarse (es decir, cómo ?). Estos pasos deben ser lo suficientemente genérico para ser aplicable a diferentes contextos, niveles y sectores, pero lo suficientemente específica para ayudar al usuario a poner en práctica.a)    ¿Se siente que esa orientación es útil, y en caso afirmativo, ¿cuáles son los pasos clave que deben tenerse en cuenta?b)    ¿Cómo podemos garantizar que los pasos son de concreto, sin embargo, relevante a través de una amplia gama de contextos, niveles y sectores?En principio se encuentra elaborado un proyecto simple, posible de ser reproducido por otros actores activos de otros países o regionales. El siguiente proyecto puede ser útil para salir de los riesgos https://www.nexso.org/es-es/PerfilSol/sl/02ad87a8-2e85-472e-8d90-3db970… y ser utilizado como orientación adaptándolo de acuerdo al país o la región. Respetando la Constitución del país y todos los Derechos Humanos y Humanitarios Internacionales.

Pradeep Mahapatra

Thanks.These are my views;

  •  Evidence based actions on resilience at community leve
  • Deepening governance and strong policy Legislation at national to  local  level
  • Positive Political will
  • financing
  • Training, exposure ,Capacity  development
  • Propeople and Participarory Planning and execution
  • Adaptive action  Research & Result Based Management
Dr. Abdulghany Mohamed • from Canada

Dear Moderators and participants,Thanks for your contributions.I wish to suggest  the following:(a) that on Slide 4 (Audience) we also include inter-governmental bodies such regional organizations (e.g., East African Community, ASEAN, MERCOSUR), etc, regional development banks (e.g., African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.). It is crucial that the UNDP work with and support these and other regional organizations in mainstreaming the integration of DRR & CCA.(b) On Slide 7 (Components....) under "networks and partnerships" we consider that idea that the proposed framework would help enlist the support of regional and global organizations (e.g., regional UN Economic Commissions, the World Bank, etc) so as to "overcome silo approaches at the regional and global level" (cf. Slide 2). I believe that it would be a critical success factor if regional and global bodies support/complement UNDP efforts in the subject endeavour as it will help minimize the often conflicting/competitive demands/advice that national/local level policymakers and practitioners have to attend to/conted with/synthesize. Looking forward to your reactions and input.Cheers,Abdulghany Mohamed, Phd

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

27-04-2016 [Paris]Friends,CRITICAL COMPONENTSGreat day! We have moved to stage 2- Everybody feel happy with stage 1- If it Is the number that counts, Hopefully, we have even more followers (150 practitioners are not enough (?) (!) to cover the needs of 20% of risk zones in the world. I think, newcomers can join with new ideas, new designs and breakthrough projects. Don't you think so?1- Introduction:All what have been said is very relevant to making things happen in the real world, so that nobody feels cheated. Everybody can feel CCA or DRR is their owns. We should consider also, that the environment belongs to people, while the profit is the business owner interests. between these 2 kind of stakeholders, there should be a trade-off so everybody can win)2- Technology and project management The limited number of comments I read today, are great. Firstly, they are pointed out form the opening of session 2 (outline of tools) the importance of the society (and not economy or ecology).2.1. Case study:Example, of a technology, which I have developed during several years since 2005 (and which is still underestimated is the humanitarian drone. There are drones for all circumstances, but no drone  for humanitarian action. Drone in Humanitarian action, has several advantages- to save the life of humanitarian workers – combine 2 operations in one- for example the need to provide assistance when needed and the security and the police mission that UN is often sending in case of catastrophic events.  2.2. In principle, climate change is a global package of solutions and not piecemeal activities, where one adds in partial elements of the DRR or CCA activities, in a sum-up. For example, activities for male, activities for female, activities or children, activities, for old people, young people, pregnant women, disabled person...Etc. 2.3. Tooling questions:- The question is how do you leverage at the same time the class structure, which is based on cultural values of ancestors, the risk reduction strategies, and the tools. Particularly, when UNSECGEN ban Ki-moon rightly said climate change and post 2015 SDGs are the 2 different sides of the same reality. “Development that works for all”:...leaving no one behind, descent work for all.- One needs to tackle at the same time both elements of climate change and sustainable development. Depending of the priorities (either Post 2015 SDG or Climate change) the tool is likely to be different.- How do you select the right tool?- Who has the ownership for the selection?In some countries like Nepal, the social class structure is prone to be a traditional one, where often it is the male and the elderly people who have the power.3. Conclusion and recommendations3.1. Conclusion:Anyway, this simple case is showing that DRR and CCA is a complex issue and can be found in all UN member states with different degrees with settings and solving issues. Not paying attention to what the 1rst commentators on the stage 2 said is likely to jeopardize development and progress. Tools could be just a green wash and business as usual (!)We should look at the social aspect of CCA+ DRR and we look in sustainable development if we can integrate more or less elements of the economy (finance,...) or the ecology (water, soil, air…), so the project are people system and organization oriented.3.2. RecommendationsRecommendation 1: The process is practical based on technologies that are real tool for action for the grass root organization that are the users. A clear cut between operators and users of tools.Recommendation 2:Actually, my best vision of DRR and CCA goes in the direction of existing UN organization based on Risk sharing society and Integration. When 175 countries have signed CC outcome, one should think also to rejuvenate and reactivate UN organization like ICDO (International Civilian Defense Organization). In such a way, people, system and organization have a real value and a real shares in DRR and CCA (if you want transferring the ownership from board of organization to the grass root organizations is in principle, a resiliency process and a project management process.Have a nice reading any feed-backs are welcome for deeper understanding and thank you to moderators for the new challenges.Georges BIRD

Gayatri Mahar

Dear ModeratorsMy suggestions on mainstreaming issue are: What components/entry points do you think are most critical? 

  1. The most critical components suggested in the outline framework is leadership supported by relevant legislations and policies. 
  2. Mainstreaming needs to feed into fiscal policy and budgetary planning of national, state and local Govt. to effectively address the felt needs of the communities.
  3. Awareness-raising and capacity building of stakeholders to assess the loss and damage, mapping of hazards, socio-economic impacts and means of resilience building  
  4. Identifying appropriate CCA & DRR strategies at all level from national to local
  5. Institutional arrangement and capacity development of all stakeholders
  6. Integration between different sectors and stakeholders/leader

Have we missed any?Research and technology component should be thereWhat guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?Citing examples of existing good practices that have integrated DRR-CCA successfully can help practitioner apply the tool.Thanking you,Gayatri Mahar, IGSSS, New Delhi

Alessandro Scremin

Dear participantsI read all of your contributions, and I found them so useful and interesting. From all the information provided is clear that the DRR and CCA topic is very wide and difficult to face to. But it seems that all agree that participation al local (grass root) level is of vital importance together with Policy and legislation.My opinion is the same as the one of Mr GEORGES RADJOU and Akhteruzzaman Sano, I would only add that to make DRR and CCA framework works and correctly implemented within budget and policy issue, there is a need to make the tool replicable and "sustainable". With this I mean that even though the organisation or governess can allocate a budget to the implementation of DDR-CCA practices, there is also the need of make it sustainable in the time to come. So the involvement of local communities and local consortia granting them the possibility to earn from the application of these practices and maintaining them in the time to come, is a key facts. As example I can mention carbon markets (not so successfully but in any case on developing phase) or Ecosystem services. If governments support local communities in developing local actions that can improve livelihood and develop DRR-CCA plans, not only tool sustainability will be reached but also local communities resilience.so i think that key facts could be:

  • communities involvement, training, organisation
  • policy
  • rewarding logic

for sure the tool itself from my point of view has no future. The tool should be participative from Governments to local scale.Have a nice discussion and wish to hearring replies from you allregardsAlessandro

adigmauritanie@gmail.com

BonjourNotre Pays la Mauritanie s s’est engagé sur  la Stratégie de Croissance Accélérée et Prospérité Partagée (SCAPP) 2030 avec l’appui du PNUD. Cette stratégie en cours présentera  les politiques et les programmes macroéconomiques, structurels et sociaux de notre pays qui permettra de réduire la pauvreté et de promouvoir une croissance favorable aux pauvres. Il s’agit d’un document national  qui sera rédigé par notre  gouvernement à partir d’une analyse détaillée et approfondie de la pauvreté et des stratégies en faveur d’une croissance favorable aux pauvres s’inspirant de vastes consultations avec les principaux intervenants, dont la société civile et le secteur privé. Mais c’est une occasion d’or pour l’introduction dans cette stratégie d’un volet à propulser la gestion des risques de catastrophes au premier rang des préoccupations car il est généralement admis que l’exposition aux risques et aux chocs financiers liés notamment aux aléas naturels est l’une des dimensions fondamentales de la pauvreté.La croissance économique et la réduction de la pauvreté ne peuvent  à elles seules, permettre de réduire la vulnérabilité des pauvres aux aléas naturels sans qu’il soit nécessaire de recourir à une stratégie explicite d’atténuation des risques. Il n’est plus à démontrer que la vulnérabilité est non seulement une cause mais aussi un symptôme de la pauvreté, ce qui implique que les avantages de la réduction de la pauvreté pourraient être éphémères si l’on ne s’attaque pas au problème des risques de catastrophes et que le processus de développement peut avoir un impact négatif ou positif sur la vulnérabilité.D’où le constat qu’il  convient promptement  de trouver et de mettre en œuvre des solutions avantageuses pour la réduction de la pauvreté et de renforcement de la résistance aux risques de catastrophe.BNEIJARA

Himadri Maitra

Dear Members,Personally I feel that mainstreaming is a long term process. Invention of FIRE was a DRR process. It reduced the risk of life and helped develop livelihood processes at that time. Now it is mainstreamed in such a way that no one thinks it as a DRR process. But washing hand is not yet mainstreamed. Though it is essential for our hygiene, we have to sensitize people to get hand washed.1)    a) What components/entry points do you think are most critical? Institutions No doubt other components are critical but institution is most critical. Institution means governance and political institution. In a vast country like India, with its varied culture and language, leadership is localized. Vulnerable institutions aggravate other vulnerabilities. If good governance prevails and political institutions are sensitized other components will be mainstreamed easily.Political institutions define the political will that guides the policy. There are many examples of conflict between livelihood and MDRR interventions in a poor community. The policy to integrate DRR/CCA into poverty reduction strategy determines if alternative livelihood can be arranged to avoid conflict between livelihood and DRR/CCA.2)    What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?  Nodal  agencies  responsible for    development  planning  are  the most  appropriate  institution  to  develop  general  and  specific  guidelines  on  DRR/CCA,  as they  have  the  mandate  to  approve  development  schemes  and  allocate  funds  for  existing and  new  schemes.  The  guidelines  should  cover  both  the  ongoing  and  new  development schemes  across  sectors. Implementation of  the guidelines of  DRR/CCA  shall  require capacity  building  of  the  institutions  and  key  functionaries  at  all  levels  and  sectors  of governance.  Systematic  measures  shall  be  required  to  be  taken  for  streamlining governance  system  to make  them efficient,  accountable,  transparent  and  sensitive  to  the tasks of DRR/CCA. a)   Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need       to be considered?       Mainly guideline for standard procedure is essential. As DRR/CCA is multi-sector approach, this will help in avoiding sector to sector conflict and assure ownership.b)   How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of   contexts, levels and sectors? This is a result oriented process. A short term project may be taken in specific areas of some countries in which this steps will be applied under close monitoring. Then a modified, if necessary, version may be replicated.Regards,Himadri

Saripalli Suryanarayana • from India

The impending or possible disaster outlined or envisized is increase in heat,reduction in rain and consequently the problems with water.What we call in general terms the weathering phenomena of soils and rocks exposed to rain and heat also can have an effect in dry spells,when the are either below or above the silts layers,which some times can also be black cotton soils.Silts and these soils are dangerous and they reflect the sunshine back,either deflected or absorbed.So are we also considering a possible disaster earth quake of moderate intensity where it rains more or it do not at all rain,or at places where the aquifers run underneath.

Saripalli Suryanarayana • from India

I have written a novel NIRVANA 2020,which is free and pasted on my page, scribd.com/doc/284539534/9202020 ….. NIRVANA 2020. Shining climate with water vapor our future.The link is added it is based on climate assumptions.In that food habits changes based on productivity of saline water trees is also given in one chapter.While the novel may not be a sucess it is free for all.

Discussion Moderator

Dear Participants,Thank you for taking the time to review the presentation and commenting on it. We really do appreciate your efforts in helping us make this tool as practical as can be.With regards to the first question (what to mainstream?), it seems that we are on the right track by identifying the following key components or entry points for mainstreaming: a) leadership; b) advocacy; c) capacity development; d) legislation and policies; e) institutions; f) knowledge and communications; g) networks and partnerships; h) stakeholders; g) planning, budgeting and programming; h) monitoring, evaluation and reporting.Many of you highlighted what you consider are the most critical elements from this list: namely leadership, institutions, relevant legislation and policies, sustainable financing, fiscal and budgetary planning, and capacity development. Some of you identified additional components that you feel should be considered including: political will (related to knowledge), awareness raising (related to communication), defined roles and responsibilities (related to institutions), scientific research (related to knowledge) and technology, and collaboration (related to partnerships). Others of you identified key stakeholders that need to be considered including the media, communities, households, the elderly, and inter-governmental organisations. One participant emphasised the importance of considering inter-relationships between components rather than treating them as separate entities. A view we fully support. The entry points should in fact be understood as such, given their interdependence helps us gain traction in the other components listed.If you have concrete success stories or case studies to illustrate the use of these entry points, please do share them. Similarly, are you aware of any models that could be helpful for visualizing or illustrating these components?Concerning the second question (how to provide useful guidance?), we also had some useful feedback. Many of you were keen to stress consideration of participatory or demand driven planning from the grassroots level. Some participants mentioned the need for a generic but adaptable approach to take into account different contexts, cultural differences, country specific planning frameworks, and the requirements of national/local and urban/rural government practitioners. In terms of tools, one participant noted the importance of generic checklists and performance indicators adaptable to specific context. Similarly, another practitioner highlighted the importance of including examples of good practices to help practitioners apply the tool.For the remaining days of this phase of the e-discussion, it would help us if you could share more concrete ideas on how the tool could best provide guidance.  What process, steps or specific activities are needed to guide practitioners?  A review of the literature and comments from Phase 1 has identified a number of key steps including: a) establish a baseline; b) identify entry points; c) ensure buy-in; d) develop an action plan; e) review progress; and f) adjust.   From your experience, are these the right steps?  What are the gaps? How much detail is needed? Again, thank you very much for your inputs. Please do not forget to update your profiles, so we know who you are.We look forward to continuing the discussion!Kind regards,Angelika and Pradeep

Saripalli Suryanarayana • from India

This time around and From now on for some years,the Disaster patterns will not be in the lines of computer models which can be predictable.The reasons are planetary including the melting of Arctic ice,a slight inclination of axis,in line many planets,whose wind is giving us the gravity[as per the LIGO or[Laser inner gravitational wave ].These and many unassumed and researched issues are modernising the life systems.

Saripalli Suryanarayana • from India

The above no way means we shall not be prepared.It means that whatever preparation we make need to be modified,diverted to new areas in a very short time.That also means modular and yet which is responsive is the criteria.

Abdulahi Halake

Contributing to quetion two; as an organization i.e National drought management Authority, the approach we use is livilihood analysis and common livelihood support for building resilience. Kenya is now in third year of implementing devolved government, partcipation/citizen involvement is one of the challenge most county governments are facing. Approprite guidance should provide flexibilty depending on the culture and context being handled. The bottom should be who is to participate? , and method of particpation should be clear so as to produce meaningfull participation which is empowering but not for formality. 

Francis Matheka

Thanks Halakhe for pointing out one of the key challenges of working with sub-national authorities. The point you raise means that the proposed key step (c) ensuring buy-in has to be undertaken successfully. In the Kenya case this poses a challenge in cascading the framework downwards due to the "protectively" independent nature of county governments. Maybe in such a case it better to start the buy-in process with the lower levels of Government.

Abdulahi Halake

Thanks Matheka; Step C.  (buy-in) as you pointed requires some insight. To manage the 'ego' of protective leaders early. If the entry process is achieved well. Buy-in or leverage by either the county or national government can argument sustaiability of efforts. In addition, developing a busines model CCA and inovative risk transfer which will bring private sector on board is also positive. 

Tapona Manjolo

   Below are some points for consideration on the questions for discussion:What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?

  • All entry points that have been proposed are critical however the country context and level of advancement on DRR and CCA agenda would determine which ones are even more relevant to focus on.  Thus the framework should be flexible enough to provide guidance on possible combination of entry points that would assist in achieving intended outcome of a country. In the case of Malawi for example proposed critical entry points would be Leadership, Advocacy, Networks and partnerships, Capacity building and Budgeting. There are a lot of policy and legal frameworks but the challenge is enforcement. A lot of plans have been developed but resulting in limited, short lived tangible results that are on a small scale due to fragmentation/ poor coordination, limited or no budget allocation from government including the need to devolve governance structures/ functions, yet all these are key if progress is to be made.
  • Impact of DRR and CCA key entry point for mainstreaming: Effective DRR and CCA achieve 2 critical results common to both approaches i.e. reduction of vulnerability and enhancing adaptive of households and local communities. This is a very important focus that should be incorporated to highlight that all that is done under DRR and CCA be it capacity building, policy and legislative changes etc. should result in reducing vulnerability while enhancing adaptive capacity.
  • Managing ownership issues: Within the draft guiding principles there is one that focus on promoting government ownership and working from “within” development. Successful and impactful DRR and CCA happens around households and local communities and this is where the focus must be. Given lessons from Hyogo Framework of Action there is a huge challenge where government on one hand and households/local communities on the other both do not take adequate responsibility for proactively managing disaster and climate risks. Household and local communities do less leaving much of the task to government yet the main role of government must be to just create an enabling environment so that DRR and CCA should take place. Therefore the tool or guideline should not focus of on promoting government ownership but community ownership. Government accountability should be around creating an enabling framework that enables it and other players (private sectors, NGOs etc.) to support households and communities to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive.
  • Clarity of scope and use of the guideline or tool: This is where among other things it can be clarified that the tool should not be seen as a prescriptive guide to DRR and CCA, rather helpful guide for facilitating DRR and CCA processes. Many tools have often confused practitioners or users by being considered the sort of final and ultimate reference material for the thematic area of work. Given that DRR and CCA work is still evolving and will continue to benefit from stakeholder experiences, technology improvements and deepening all our understanding an elaboration should be incorporated.

Have we missed any?

  • Implementation is not featuring as an entry point yet it is possible to mainstream at implementation stage particularly at community level where the difference between DRR and CCA becomes less obvious. Unless implementation is implicit in the programming, planning or monitoring component.
  • There is need to review the proposed list to minimize repetition for example how different is stakeholders from networks and partnerships?
  • Localization of the SDGs can also be an entry point for consideration now that most countries are considering how the SDGs can be factored into national development plan. It may fit best under the planning, programming and budgeting but I think it’s a unique entry point critical to national planning

Jessie Henshaw

Thanks to the moderators and everyone.   As a professional scientist, architect & systems designer I’m quite familiar with how various kinds of organizations work.  I hope this can help the group think what kind of help it really needs to ask for.    It seems clear you are not asking for enough help and cannot do this on your own.    The apparent mandate for this discussion has been presented using social networking to produce a consensus global plan for coordinating DRR and CCA responses.    To be perfectly honest, like many UN plans, the intent may be laudatory but as a "plan" it is also very misguided.  This kind of informal community doesn't have the technical or organizational resources.   The true scope of *real and present dangers* now facing the earth comes from our own relentless growing global human pressures on human and natural ecologies.   That makes it a level of complex threats and urgency way beyond the capacities of social networks to appreciate or respond to.    What is needed is a highly professional effort to combine bottom-up and top-down organizations, to work together.  The common threat of growing systemic human pressures on a fragile world is what the threat of climate change came from, but all along with *all* the other new kinds of disaster threats facing us too.   In that way climate change is "just one symptom", along with all the other emerging and increasingly interacting economic, ecological and governance threats to our future.   So, only a professional organization with high level science, business, research, planning, communication and coordination abilities, and agenda, could do the DRR mainstreaming job so important to us.   The precedent for such an organization is the IPCC, but expanded to expose the various other real systemic threats we increasingly face.  Only that kind of organization could offer the resources needed and coordination for the national, civil society, business & professional organization efforts discussed here, allowing them to work on local coordinated actions.   That kind of organization is also needed to develop the use of 'bigdata" to make the emerging threats we face transparent and assess what contributes to them, helping us "learn how to measure" as we “learn what to respond to”.   That kind of organization is also needed to spin off new working groups, to spearhead responses to emerging risks as they are recognized, coordinating scientific, business, insurance, financial, civil society and government policy organizations at a high enough level.    Otherwise every new great emerging crisis will keep appearing to “fall through the cracks” when small enough to ignore, and as we have seen happening for decades.   That reaction has assured we would not face them until they became largely unmanageable!    For example, I'm far from the only scientist who predicted form very good reason that massive population dislocations, as we are now seeing, would be an unavoidable natural consequence managing a growth economy to press ever harder on the limits of the earth.  It’s predictable from the sharp reduction in ecological and cultural resilience that would and has resulted.   The proof of that kind of assertion is in checking out the details.   People pushing issues between the cracks don't do that, though.   It's just one of many emerging threats to the SDG's that world governments have not seen coming and so are failing to respond to.  A knew kind of organization first needs a "new brand", like most any new "start-up".   It needs a visionary mandate, a little seed money and a "catchy name".   It might be called the IDCC, International Disaster Climate Change, just to follow the precedent, and talk about “disaster climate” as the problem.

Moortaza JIWANJI • PRRP Programme Manager at UNDP

Dear Angelika, Thanks again for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.  Here are some reflections based mainly on UNDP’s work in the Pacific through the Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP): What are the critical component and specific entry points for mainstreaming?The current list of entry-points for mainstreaming looks very promising.  In our experience across four countries in the Pacific this pretty much covers the length and breadth of what is required.  Just a few points worth considering in terms of the use of these entry-points: 1) These are interdependent and some influence others.  The entry-points can also work in a dynamic way with one leading to success in another.  For example, starting with a good champion first has proved quite successful in the Pacific with this leadership coming from unexpected places such as local government in Fiji; national planning in conjunction with the technical Ministry of CC & DRM in Solomon Islands. 2) The list of entry-points are a mixed bag of conduits for mainstreaming  and include advocacy to make the case for mainstreaming, targets for mainstreaming (e.g. national or community development plans) and critical ingredients for mainstreaming e.g. knowledge.  In the Pacific we are testing this mainstreaming approach through the lens of governance i.e. by strengthening nine ‘building blocks’ for good (risk) governance as the basis sustained mainstreaming and risk informed development.   The building blocks relate to the people (e.g. capacity, knowledge, leadership), mechanisms (e.g. policy, institutional arrangements, finance) and processes (e.g. planning, programming, M & E) of development.  As you can see these resonate very clearly with the current set of components and is proving to be a useful way of operationalising the concept of mainstreaming. 3) Entry-points must be seen in terms of development policy and practice to ensure risk in embedded into development rather than an “add-on” or parallel process. Changes in the process of development itself can be seen as an ‘entry-point’ for mainstreaming.  Simply put, one can take an opportunistic approach to effective mainstreaming when there is already an environment of change about to occur.  A good example of this is in Fiji at the local government level – where the Western Division is leading the way in Fiji bottom-up (or community-led) development planning, which provides an important entry for risk informing this process and linking it to the planning and budgeting process at national level. How to provide useful guidance?Really appreciate the feedback and direction this is going in, and we definitely support the idea of more generic and adaptable approaches that can be adapted to different contexts and entry-points.  One learning point that we have experienced (in Solomon Islands at national level planning and Fiji for local level planning) is that guidance to mainstreaming works better when spoken in the language of development planning.  In other words, the guidance could be written in a way that can be embedded in overall guidance and approaches for development planning (or basic project cycle management).  This way one can embed the concept of ‘risk-informing’ development from within the process rather than as an additional set of criteria or guidance.  This approach has worked particularly well when governance systems for development planning are being transformed themselves e.g. for more ‘bottom-up’ or programmatic approaches to development.  This provides a very useful opportunity to connect guidance on mainstream as part of the change process instead of being an add-on.  A great example of this is in Solomon Islands where the Government has embarked on reforming development planning, switching to medium term development planning and away from projectised year-on-year planning.  This came with a new set of criteria and guidelines for sectors within which we were able to integrate risk to climate change and disasters within these guidelines. What process, steps or specific activities are needed to guide practitioners?The proposed steps definitely make sense and are a logical way to proceed.  One success factor that is emerging in the Pacific is to do with ‘timing’.  It is of course important to take a structured approach to mainstreaming, but observing the political economy and timing can make or break interventions for mainstreaming.  In all four countries our approach to mainstreaming is not only defined by context but also by timing e.g. in Fiji and Tonga it is all about the timing and leadership of local government who are trying to influence a more integrated and bottom-up approach to development – which provided the perfect timing and opportunity for mainstreaming risk. This is why our starting point is context analysis to identify the political/governance, economic and social context for mainstreaming. Further, we have found that preparing a baseline of the nine risk governance building blocks, provides a useful basis for measuring and identifying progress with risk governance strengthening, risk informed development and ultimately more resilient development. Hope this is useful. 

Jessie Henshaw

I think my list below is very incomplete, but would give you an idea of the true scope of work for a global DRR-CCA institutie working a bit like the IPCC I suggested.   We need to recognize that human activity has created a whole new kind of "disaster risk climate".   It's seems not to be recognized largely due to it not yet being seen as a whole, and of course as it clearly exposes "externality" costs of GDP people try to ignore.   It doesn't take much to ignore them too!!   Most of the impacts of economies are themselves spread around the world, and our statistical records are organized nationally.   So the "picture of the whole" you'd get with a World SDG approach isn't recognized.1. Our human caused “disaster risk climate” directly caused by growing human activity, resulting in economic, cultural and ecological catastrophe. Our growing productivity and wealth churn the earth to produce our goods, directly responsible for causing our world disaster climate. Having faith that growing wealth for some would benefit all, as it clearly began to do the opposite 40 years ago… became a culture of denial, with results seen around the world.   2. Effort to address growing disaster risks were called "prevention" but were ALWAYS actually a tolerance for EVER GROWING SEVERITY, causing societies to operate as if our rapidly growing impacts on the earth were having no real effect, A RISING DISASTER RISK DENIAL  THE NATURAL DISASTER CLIMATE - HUMAN COSTS RISING AT UNSUSTAINABLE RATESDisaster risks for which human responses are increasingly ineffective and costly Disaster risks made more extreme by human activity and energy use: • Avalanche, Cold & Heat Waves, Cyclones, Drought,  • Epidemic & Pandemic, Flood, Infestations, Invasive species,  • Storm Surge, Tornado, Wildfire Disaster risks unaffected by human activity, with increasing human vulnerability • Earthquake, Tsunami, Volcano The HUMAN DISASTER CLIMATE – HUMAN COSTS RISING AT UNSUSTAINABLE RATES  Disaster risks largely growing globally in proportion to global energy consumptionGrowing intensity of disruptive economic competition  • resulting ever growing social inequity  • less productive peoples are unable to keep up, break down • investment in uncompetitive groups wasted • governments increasingly stressed and unable to respond to crises • populations indebted for their own educations unable to respond to their own disasters. Development in unsafe places• creating more frequent failures of disaster response.Spread of invasive species  • destructive mussels infestation, disease spreading insects & microbes • resistant bacteria and viruses, distressed species suffering pandemics Habitat loss, causing global biodiversity collapse • song birds mostly gone, world coral reef ecology collapsing,  • oceans being depleted and food chains becoming unstable  • geological scale global species extinction under way • estuary pollution, degrading natural biodiversity nurseries Societal economic failures • repeated grand financial system failures  • global destruction of valuable human and economic capital development • spread of permanently distressed populations with little to do • general denial that these are direct results of how the wealthy used their wealth Pollution & lifestyle disasters  • climate change, and the disaster of needing to change all our ways of living • ocean pollution with chemicals, trash, noise, absorbed CO2, • fed a chemical diet likely causing diseases like diabetes and others • living in a 'chemical soup' likely causing "rare" diseases like autism Traditional society disruption • populations displaced by invasive use of industrial technology • language and culture loss, breakdown in social fabrics Resource degradation or depletion • water polluted or depleted, risking dependent societal collapses  • soil loss, rare element depletion,  Governance failure and general denial of our human caused disaster climate  • failure to account for these and other clearly costly global impacts of economic development • radically rising costs of inaction and interference with other urgent needs • problematic government financing that expects the future to pay for all the negligence of the past...

Jihye Choi

Dear moderators and participantsI’d like to first thank for your work on the platform to discuss various perspectives and share experiences. Inputs from the participants in the first phase were invaluable. I agree on the key findings highlighted in your summary report, and although you covered almost all aspects/components of entry points of mainstreaming, I’d like to hereby point out some that I think are the most critical as well as some points missing (or rather add-on the existing points), by sharing experience of Rep. of Korea in establishing National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change. 1) Critical components/entry points

  • National legal and policy frameworks are of importance that provide the stakeholders/responsibility-holders with the rationale, incentive and guidance to the steps/actions to take. One condition that needs to follow is multi-stakeholder discussions and institutional linkages and coordination.
  • One of the realistic and feasible approach to strengthen legislation and policies in terms of integrated DRR-CCA is to take incremental steps:
  • a) Build on the existing framework (assumedly DRM legislation and policies in many countries, and NAPs also exist or are in development process) by ensuring that the individual legislation or policies recognize risks from both disaster AND climate change and ensuring [promoting] the development of mechanisms in the country that the two areas of practice can collaborate;
  • b) Promote interactions and strengthen interlinkages among sectors (not only DRR-CCA but also other relevant sectors) through joint meetings, high-level policy forums, and other coordination. It could inform and give foundations to mainstream an integrated DRR-CCA approach into development plans.

For example, in Republic of Korea, the disaster management Act and accordingly National Disaster Management Plan (in varied forms) have been in existence for more than 20 years. As the country had had adverse impacts from natural hazards especially floods, the funding streams for DRM were solid and responsibilities among the authorities were clearly divided. When the global and national recognition on climate change has arisen, the government started to look at the climate change impacts and (with special attention to mitigation and green growth) enacted legal framework ‘Low Carbon Green Growth Act’, calling for development of national master plan for climate change adaptation (as rolling plans) so that collaboration at sector level can be achieved through hard pipeline. The first National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change was established in 2009 and was enacted in the period of 2010-2015. The second phase of the NAP was established last year and will be enacted between 2016-2020. Under the NAP, local governments are required to establish local adaptation plans.I was involved in the preparation of the second phase of the Plan, and during the stakeholders meetings, many pointed out as a challenge to develop/implement an integrative and comprehensive policy disparate funding streams and a culture of working in ‘silo.’ It led to the point that required is a clear definition on the roles and responsibilities outlined in the Plan to bring more accountability. The stakeholders (governments, academia, scientists, NGOs in different sectors) also emphasized incentives for stronger motivation to take actions that should be included in the legal framework.The conceptual approach embedded in the NAP to the integration of DRR and CCA (although it does not explicitly mention [enunciate clearly]) is that DRR is one of sectors that adaptation addresses, while acknowledging the wide range of knowledge, skills and tools that DRR authorities have built up. DRR is underlined in one of four policy pillars* – ensuring safety & security against risks – that also includes protecting vulnerable population to varied risks (disaster, climate and human-induced); management/maintenance of vulnerable region and facilities (infrastructure); strengthening public health services against climate-related diseases. Many activities are related to insertion of adaptation concerns (taking a climate-lens) in the stages of other sectoral plans. Each output and activity in the Plan is assigned explicitly to the responsible authorities, and the responsibilities for activities regarding DRR reside in collaboration of DM authority (i.e. Ministry of Public Safety and Security; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) and CCA authority (i.e. Ministry of Environment).*The Plan has four policy pillars and one foundation for implementation. The policy pillars include: 1) scientific risk management; 2) ensuring safety & security against risks; 3) promoting industrial [private sector’s] capacity to adapt; 4) sustainable management of natural resources. In the meantime, the foundation for implementation refers to mechanisms to enhance/encourage local governments, private sector (and other stakeholders) to raise awareness of CC and incorporate CC considerations into their actions. 2) Entry points missing and Add-ons of the components:

  1. (Missing) National commitments to global frameworks including SFA, INDCs, National Communications to UNFCCC, NAPs, SDGs, aligned with the national existing legislations
  2. (Missing) Sectoral level approach i.e. insertion of CCA and DRR concerns into sectoral development plans
  3. (Add-on) Legislation providing local governments and communities with the rationale/incentive to progress DRR/CCA planning and mainstreaming process and enforce them
  4. (Add-on) Capacity development of staffs (those responsible for DDR and CCA) to enhance understanding of the needs and capacities of the other and jointly develop their technical and leadership capacities
  5. (Add-on) Knowledge & communication:
  • Scientific knowledge sharing: climate change projection; down-scale information; tools/training on how to interpret climate science (because of the varied uses/scales of information of the two fields)
  • Regularly updatable climate/disaster risk information – by taking stock of the available information on hazards (historical weather and climate data and analyses of extreme conditions – usually available from meteorological agencies, and experts can be consulted on the availability of CC projections that are downscaled for national use), exposure, vulnerabilities and risk assessments
  • Knowledge & info sharing platform (i.e. policy forums where stakeholders are invited) to exchange norms, concepts, etc.

  3)      How to provide useful guidance:Some participants already mentioned the need for a generic but adaptable approach. In order to provide useful guidance that can be tailored to specific country/local context, it is important to provide examples of good practices of entry points or tools to help practitioners apply them in their contexts – including sectoral approaches in mainstreaming DRR-CCA that already exist in many countries. In this sense, I agree with the key steps identified (i.e. establish a baseline; identify entry points; ensure stakeholder buy-in; develop an action plan; review progress; and adjust). My only suggestion is that an action plan needs to show a clear policy flow (legislation – policy – plan – strategy & programming) and a snapshot of governance structure where roles and responsibilities can be clearly defined among stakeholders. This could strengthen institutional linkages and coordination both vertically (i.e. national/local/communities) and horizontally (i.e. sectors), as well as bring more accountability.  Hope this is useful!Best regards,Jihye Choi

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of P. C. Joshi, Department of Anthropology,  University of Delhi, Delhi Dear Moderator,My comments are as under:What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming? The most critical component for mainstreaming DRR and CCA would be the community, the actual theatre for most of the activities. Being at the receiving end of all the adverse consequences of climate change and disaster events, the community is ultimately required to be made more resilient and adaptive to the changes.  The community therefore needs to be made the unit for all the positive action pertaining to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. For example, the lowest community level organization is called Gram Sabha in India, Village Council in Pakistan, Barangay in Philippines, Dusun in Indonesia and Commune in Vietnam.  Since, the effects of climate change and disaster events are eventually felt at the level of community, the mitigating actions should logically emanate from there.  What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool? The approach towards community involvement in principle should be participatory, democratic, decentralized and bottom-up which alone will ensure that it is going to be effective, relevant and sustainable. It should further adhere to a mix of indigenous and external scientific-technical skills and knowledge for it to be durable and locally relevant.  Therefore, rather than coming up with a new idea or technology, howsoever great it may be, an ethnographically informed assessment of the ground situation and existing knowledge and technologies should be the starting point which would truly built upon the long term experience and wisdom of the lay people. Harnessing of the community level knowledge, innovations and enthusiasm should therefore become the driving force for our action.  Regards, P. C. JoshiDepartment of Anthropology,University of Delhi, Delhi.

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on Behalf of Moortaza Jiwanji and Manoa Malani, UNDP Fiji I would like to submit a concrete example from Fiji of how we are working to operationalise some of the entry-points that you have laid out in the presentation.  This is based on experiences of working in partnership with local government through the UNDP Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP): Leadership: The Commissioner for the Western division in Fiji, Mr. Manasa Tagicakibau, is pioneering a ‘risk informed’ approach to development and planning at sub national level.  PRRP is using the ‘from within’ approach to mainstream risk into the existing Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF) process.  The Commissioner’s long term goal is to apply this framework to integrated development in a risk-informed way. This example illustrates the importance of strong leadership and commitment to support mainstreaming into existing development planning processes; that is connected from national through to community levels but weaves in risk as an integral element. Advocacy: The main advocacy message is ‘not to address DRR-CCA in silos’. The proposed approach by Commissioner Western will showcase to stakeholders a proposed integrated way of providing risk informed decisions in good times as well as disaster times.  We are working with him and his team to strengthen the building blocks of – people, mechanisms and processes – to help see this integrated approach through. His approach in the Western Division is now being adopted in the Northern division later this year.  Their aspiration is that this approach is then taken even at the national level. We are finding that advocacy is an essential ingredient to promote more sustained change in how development and risk are approached – not as separate parallel processes, but together – in other words “risk informed development.” Capacity: The Commissioners in the North and the West now have full-time Government staff dedicated to DRR and CCA within their teams. Through these posts we will be collaborating with local government to integrate (weave in) DRR CCA within various development sectors, provincial, district and community level plans as well as their Annual Divisional Business Plan. We are finding that by having permanent capacity for risk within government development at all levels, that government can be responsive to new opportunities, changing needs (before, during and after disasters) and provide “in-house” and support for more resilient approaches, Partnerships: local government is working in close partnership with UNDP and an INGO partner (Live and Learn Environmental Education) to jointly test approaches to mainstreaming risk into the sub-national development planning process.  Our experience is showing that civil society have an important role to play in risk informed development given their intimate understanding of local needs and priorities.  We are also brokering partnerships between the local government and private sector (for example seedbanks), and these are showing to support resilience during disaster times (e.g. Cyclone Winston). Vinaka Vakalevu,Moortaza Jiwanji and Manoa Malani

Alan Ferguson

Re - the UNDP DDR-CCA frameworkIf the framework is to be useful it needs to target some specific, operational barriers that limit more effective collaboration. There are at least four key issues:1. Spatial - disaster response measurs are often negated by larger watershed or other external forces beyond the farm or site boundaries. This is a continual problem, especially with FAO and other UN focus on individual farmers; attempts to assist site recovery are subsequently lost to the next flood because they only address a symptom and not the upstream source of the problem. 2. Temporal - 'build back better' requires longer term capacity development and specific milestones toward a climate resilient development outcome. Changing institutions and practices takes time and effort but UNDP projects have too narrow a scope and don't seem be prepared to push for a longer term programmatic framework within which individual projects can contribute. Yes, there is a lot of country planning on climate but much of it does not seem to be very outcome driven or problem oriented to provide a framework for multiple donors. Project end results are often left hanging on questions about uncertain sustainability and scale up opportunities. UNDP is tryping to provide some kind of programmatic approach in Cambodia and Nepal. This needs to be part of the DRR-CCA frame. 3. Coordination - there are too many silos including between donors. Functional partnerships focussed on relief-recovery-adaptation spectrum are needed, including the flexibility and temerity to cross institutional boundaries; not enough push from UNDP to insist on inter-agency collaboration; too many projects are controlled directly by one agency and they are reluctant to share budgets or control with others. Hard to find much innovation at the DRR-CCA interface because of this one project-one agency approach. The smaller NGO projects have more flexibility to assist in disaster preparedness with timely support on short notice; not possible for large UN/GEF projects. 4. Livelihoods - DRR and CCA programmes without livelihood development nneded to attract commitments appear to have a lot more difficulty to generate local ownership and to sustain and scale up results. Most of the livelihood components are secondary add-ons rather than central to the recovery/adaptation investments. Relief work sometimes overshadows the development work. I hope the framework can bring some substantive direction and advice to the evolving country level programmatic approaches that will address some of these operational issues. It is hard to find much real evidence of results from the previous attempts at CC mainstreaming frameworks. Hope this effort is more resulst-oriented. Best of luck. Alan Ferguson             .    

Titus KUUYUOR • Programme Specialist at UNDP

1) What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?a) What components/entry points do you think are most critical? From the MADRiD programme which has been conducted across a number of countries in Africa, the following five areas below have been identified as entry points for mainstreaming DRR and CCA.  These have certainly been viewed by planning directors in Mozambique to be the essential components in building community resilience to disasters as well as strengthening their adaptation to climate change.   

  • Policy Sphere
  • Organisation Sphere
  • Advocacy and Knowledge Sphere
  • Implementation Sphere
  • Citizen Sphere

While these five areas have further been split into a number of key components to tease out what they entail, it is crucial we recognise that these are generic and therefore will need to reflect regional/national and local conditions when disseminating.  The DRR and CCA practitioners need to distinguish that the approach is not an acid test.  For instance, under the Citizen Sphere, communities could have their own policies in developing and executing programmes (e.g. building markets, infrastructure, etc.) which have nothing to do with the government policies in relation to these developments.  Community programmes may not even be on paper but are well understood by those who have a stake within the community.  DRR and CCA mainstreaming should start from the conception of any development programme.  For instance, during the construction of a school, proper site selection that is risk-informed is the first step in determining parameters that will ensure safety of the school.  Though a school may be built to standard in terms of associated hazards, maintenance is fundamental to guarantee it safety. What is crucial is strengthen government capacity at all levels including community leaders on the subject of DRR and CCA mainstreaming.  Once the concept is understood, government and leaders will adapt their own strategies for the consideration of DRR and CCA not only in planning processes but also ensure these measure are implemented.    b) Have we missed any?  Policy Sphere: This sphere will need to include community commitment and leadership if development programmes are to be resilient.  Participants throughout the workshops in Mozambique on this theme lamented the lack of inclusion of community leadership and ownership on the subject matter.  After all, political commitment alone cannot lead to adaptation and disaster risk reduction at the community level if community leadership is absent. Political commitment does not necessary reflect in practical actions such as in budgetary allocation for DRR/CCA at all levels which is more evident at local level.  Community leadership is what derives the process in sustaining development programmes. Additionally, the issue of early warning - scientific and indigenous knowledge - for early action should be highlighted.  The two will need to be triangulated for an effective informed decision making at all levels. Again, it is important that leaders and communities are trained to understand the early warning messages and actions to be taken thereof.  2) What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?To succeed, we would need sector specific tools to guide the process. In addition to the tools, concrete examples on each sector in relation to how DRR and CCA can be mainstreamed into programming should foster the process. In our discussions with staff on the subject in Mozambique, it became clear that there is a need to have concrete examples that can guide the process. The guidance should be supported with indicators (e.g. indicators from the SDGs and at the national level could be helpful in this case) that can track planning of programmes and implementation. 

  1. a.       Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to be considered?

The guidance could be useful only when understood by the users. Steps:

  • With a draft zero on the guidance prepared by a consultant, circulate the draft to selected countries (developing countries) across the globe.  Gather feedback to review the draft; 
  • Organise a workshop to further discuss the revised draft;
  • Circulate draft from the workshop for further comments;
  • Finalise the draft from feedback. Define roadmap on dissemination.

 

  1. b.      How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts, levels and sectors?

The ToR for the consultant to conduct this activity and steps should be widely discussed at the HQ, Regional and National level including all those who have a stake before finalisation.  Additionally, bringing together professionals of relevant sectors from diverse countries and having them working with the consultant should suffice in ensuring that the steps are widely applied regardless of the context, level and sector.

Jessie Henshaw

I've been wondering why I had difficulty understanding many of the comments, eventually finding that I have a fundamentally differerent perception of the DRR-CCA problem.   So I've been reading the comments without the shared understandings of the subject others had.   Likewise, my comments were based on a common understanding others were aparently not familiar with, and the conversation missing some fundamental differences on what "mainstreaming" actually involves.I found a definition of "mainstreaming" in the PEI Handbook document, p xiv, that can help clarify I think:"Mainstreaming Opportunities and Challenges: Mainstreaming means engaging directly with ministries of finance and planning—the parts of government that determine public expenditures and the fiscal policy that incentivizes private sector investment. Many environmental and climate problems arise from what economists call “policy and market failures,” which leave the environment undervalued and underpriced so that the costs of environmental damages are not included in mainstream economic decision-making. In overcoming such failures, successful mainstreaming offers potentially huge pay-offs and opportunities."The implied objective is then to "normalize" government responses to the climate change and disaster risk challenges we face, within the customary functions of government.  I've been commenting that something more than that is needed.My several posts have concerned the practical difficulty of mainstreaming DRR-CCA challenges when the real scope of what we face, by all indications, is boundlessly growing.  Mainstreaming ever-growing disaster risks is quite impossible.  It would only be increasingly intrusive and disruptive for the conventional processes of governance, as they has been so far.So any practical effort to normalize world government responses requires a more comprehensive understanding of how and why disaster risks continue to grow unsustainably. It's simply not possible to "mainstream" a pattern of ever growing intrusions and distractions for normal workings of government. That's what governments have been facing and by all counts will continue to face until we better understand the problem. The economies of the world were designed to be ever more expansive and invasive themselves, so becoming distracted by their growing disruptions is very normal, and will continue until the responders to those distractions learn some of the practical laws of nature.  That calls for "the cure" to involve a wide examination of the basic facts of life, particularly regarding how growth systems resolve their natural conflicts. It's a very necessary task that is also tremendously overdue.Since the real scope of the DRR-CAA problem is itself unsustainable, the first principle for mainstreaming responses to it is to acknowledge the necessity of changing the scope of the problem.  That, of course, involves first understanding the scope of the problem.  That's why I've been asserting that a comprehensive scientific assessment of causes and downstream effects is necessary.I've been wondering why so many comments seem to be very vague.   It has seemed I was hearing discussion of shared understandings of the subject, but that I was simply unaware of and so I couldn't understand.   Likewise, it might have been that the discussion was missing some fundamental understanding about what "mainstreaming" actually involves.I found a definition of "mainstreaming" in the PEI Handbook document, p xiv, that can help clarify I think:"Mainstreaming Opportunities and Challenges: Mainstreaming means engaging directly with ministries of finance and planning—the parts of government that determine public expenditures and the fiscal policy that incentivizes private sector investment. Many environmental and climate problems arise from what economists call “policy and market failures,” which leave the environment undervalued and underpriced so that the costs of environmental damages are not included in mainstream economic decision-making. In overcoming such failures, successful mainstreaming offers potentially huge pay-offs and opportunities."The implied objective is then to "normalize" the responses to climate change and disaster risk challenges, within the customary functions of government. I've been commenting that something more is needed.My several posts have concerned the practical difficulty of mainstreaming, given the real scope of the DRR-CCA challenges we face by all indications are boundlessly growing. Mainstreaming ever-growing disaster risks is quite impossible. It would only be increasingly intrusive and disruptive for the conventional processes of governance, **as they has been so far**. So any practical effort to coordinate world government responses requires a more comprehensive understanding of how and why disaster risks continue to grow unsustainably. It's simply not possible to "mainstream" a pattern of ever growing intrusions and distractions for normal workings of government. That's what governments have been facing and by all counts will continue to face until we better understand the problem. The economies of the world were designed to be ever more expansive and invasive themselves, so the distraction of their growing disruptions will continue until the responders learn some of the practical laws of nature. That calls for the 'cure' to involve a wide examination of the basic facts of life, particularly regarding how growth systems resolve their natural conflicts. It's very necessary and tremendously overdue.Since the real scope of the DRR-CAA problem is itself unsustainable, the first principle for mainstreaming responses to it is to acknowledge the necessity of changing the scope of the problem.  That, of course, involves first understanding the scope of the problem.  That's why I've been asserting that a comprehensive scientific assessment of causes and downstream effects is necessary.

Christian Blondin

What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming? Within the suggested components or entry points to develop a practical tool to mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation  into development,  WMO considers that it is critical for National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) as key government agents in this area, to be directly involved in mainstreaming , through the development of their own National Strategic Plans for strengthening and modernizing the NMHS.  An efficient and effective  hydrometerological service is a core contribution to supporting DRR and CCA mainstreaming, as well as sustainable development. Such strategic plans should be derived from and consistent with broad national planning objectives with relevant areas including inter alia emergency management, aviation, agriculture and water resources.  These plans should also be consistent with, and specify linkages to, regional and global plans/policies in relevant areas of weather, climate and hydrological services,  as appropriate, as well as compliant with WMO standards. Supportive development partnerships will be fundamental to the role of the NMHS in mainstreaming. This is of relevance throughout the process, from consolidating partner coordination  and investments for supporting hydrometeorological modernization programmmes, to the development, use and exchange of indicators for monitoring the same.  Long-term perspectives for hydromet investments and by extension DRR and CCA mainstreaming , should incorporate a time horizon for design and execution that is consistent with current international frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Stakeholder engagement should include relevant national, regional and global partners.  

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

06-05-2016 [Paris] Friends,Thank you regarding my participation in the 2nd stage of the process- online tools. As usual, I think the participants are high calibers and experts or knowledgeable persons about the future of DRR and CCA. It is not the case for our website readers that need to dig and learn. I was happy to get insights in other works it is was less than an exchange and more about proactive feed-backs on the kind of future was want and transforming the UN objectives. My thinking -also feeling in the time scale, we cannot say everything about CCA and DRR. It is a huge topic. We need more time. Before ending with all the participants this 2nd round, I want to present my new tool- which is the map or mapping activities. It is a serious topic. Mapping like  eating is part of our existence and some we are making it in an unconscious way. For example, when you want to take a decision to make shopping at the end of the week. You need to realize you are planning or mapping your shopping activities - even if you do not think about the goals (strategy, activities and tasks). it made automatically. If not you would not be able to buy food at the grocery or the supermarket at the end of the week.So, mapping like planning use Principle, methods and tools. It is aiming at reducing the gap between the internal organization and the organization environment. In such a way, you can reach your goal with a level of certainty; I have  browsed in the document attached (Microsoft power and a Pd f where I compare the Compass with the GPS and in the journey to the a final destination. Where the organization is set, where it is coming from, and where it is heading. It is not high-output management, but a way to use in a cost effective manner map for CCA and DRR.Enjoy reading and again thanks to our colleagues at UNDP and Climate change for the hard task to moderate the exchanges.Georges RadjouBIRD 

Saripalli Suryanarayana • from India

As a ,citizen i agree with your points,spatial development,age entry of citizens and development parameters and finally the risk around is to be incorporated to save systematically the age group citizens.

Jessie Henshaw

Georges, You seem to be making quite specific map making an use recommendations, based on experience, but in such a general way it's unclear what experience or applications you might be referring to.  So I think you should be more explicit, given that most people reading it won't know about your actual work.  Two general suggestions come to mind, though.There’s no doubt having regional maps of disaster risks (multiple kinds) and community resilience and response capacities (multiple kinds) would be a big help for government preparedness.   You don't seem to be thinking of using what is now called 'bigdata' for that purpose, though.  That would involve collecting readily available data from any or all sources, and then learning to read it to discover cultural and ecological changes, for better understanding the environment.   Examples will clarify what I mean.    For example it might be useful for general civil defense to monitor the sale of emergency goods in local markets, as an indicator of social attention to either their preparedness for or their worries about approaching threats.  That kind of data might be had for free, simply by getting businesses to report it to a central repository, and then either examined by a trained or untrained cultural geographer, to understand what's happening.  It might also be used to "train" artificial intelligence algorithms for machine learning too.  Google does a lot of that, following from having noticed that watching what search terms were being used was a wonderful indicator of localized epidemic outbreaks.  That's a kind of mapping that might lead to a regional collaboration of tech-savvy geographers might take a long way, perhaps mainstream for a regional planning group.  They would then have refined questions for asking active community leaders about.  That would to help both the high tech and low tech community understandings communicate, to be joined in more holistic regional responses.   That kind of partnership can being very simply and informally, too.  Just one person with creative ideas of what available data to collect and ways to interpret it, for "reading the pulse" of communities or regions in a new way, can prove how valuable it is to combine local and institutional understandings of things.  Once some important change in recognized it can help target resources for more costly scientific study and data collection, for example, as well as let local communities really understand how their local world needs to adapt and explain to others what’s needed to facilitate it. The other suggestion I'd have is a caution.  In the text you seem to say that mapping can relieve strains by letting communities more efficiently allocate resources.  No doubt that's true, except that “efficiency” doesn’t actually create any resources, but more often just temporarily relieves a bottleneck as regional competition for an inadequate resource grows… so often enough making the problem worse in the end.   So DRR planners need to look sharply for that kind of “bind” that short term solutions can make.  Often one finds a community will have relied on increasing resource use, not thinking to be alert to signs of it running out, or becoming used by new competitors, etc.  There seem to be particularly frequent cases of governments funding social services with disappearing resources too… a terrible thing to have happen.  You see that commonly with the sale or use of extractive resources, like oil or forests, etc, a use of income that easily creates unrooted populations quite unable to care for themselves, becoming highly distressed and dependent on aid.  It's one of the most disaster prone things a populist government can do, of course.   It’s yet another thing highlighting the need for real "systems learning" and “systems awareness” in the communities to avoid, and fashion prompt responses for when discovered.   

GEORGES RADJOU (not verified)

Friends,My 2nd topic for the 2nd stage of the online consultation for CCA and DRR is about Age pyramid. It has been underestimated. Possibly, this age pyramid should be the fist stage of all CCA and DRR activities. The activities are for people, by people and with them -which is the formula for democratic institutions-, but also in terms of project management based on People, Systems and organizations. Risk based organizations should carry and important enough amount of analyzes es on the age pyramid. A good understanding for the age pyramid can reduce all future risk, while minimizing the costs. Pyramid age is a tool for anticipating future uncertainty and allocating the resources.Example of France, after world war 2, the investment ended after the 30 golden years. We thought that there was enough investment in infrastructure because of over calibration of items for development in road, telecommunication, urbanism, transport, health service and so on. In such a way, it has happen that our expectation did not materialized. The expected critical mass for the initial infrastructures did not materialize, in such a way we are feeling a bit the pain today, But the underinvestment of the 21rst century in France is not critical, because if you look at the age pyramid, people from the baby boom are not going to leave for ever, in such a way, there will be massive loss in the population, which can represent a danger for the economy, but is is also, an opportunity as young people today could replace to elderly people from the pappy or mammy boom with ease (no future investment or whatever ever just based on the numerical activity of the critical mass of population dynamic after world war 2.By analogy, Population dynamic play in a similar role with  cohorts in a school system. When looking at differential development and success factors. Policy makers and technical staffs of the education system ill pave the road for success of schoolchildren (the expected good result from the examination board or teachers) by not creating additional weaknesses that the inherent difference between individual that can be perceived as a risk in some school system (with specific program, project....), but in fact it is the opposite it is an opportunity, if masters are willing to cooperate, build bridges in the learning of curriculum activities and  build partnership. Flexible solution in the Age pyramid is always best than creating irrelevance to the promotion of individuals. Reducing the gap in learning are not going to create barres to learning of weak pupils. W know the learning processes can vary from the individuals and one need to match these differences with different learning strategies. Thus all children can learn and be successful at school. They can find a descent work and no one is left behind.  The process of economic success or failure is also based on the technical and policy makers and how workers strategies can integrate the population dynamic. Thank you again for moderation and participant thoughts.Georges Radjou

malcolm.dalesa@undp.org Dalesa

What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?The various elements of climate change and disaster risk reduction mainstreaming are critical in ensuring the roll out of more resilient development processes. The nine risk governance building blocks (grouped into three governance components of development -  people, mechanisms and processes) by which the Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP) is adhering to has provided useful learnings particularly for risk informing sub-national development planning within Vanuatu’s context. Our approach to mainstreaming focuses on strengthening risk governance in relation to the following building blocks or entry points: a) development actors – leadership, capacity, knowledge and communication, partnerships and coordination networks); ii) development mechanisms – institutional arrangements, legal and policy frameworks, financial resources and arrangements; and iii) development processes– development processes, tools, products and projects.For example from a situational analysis, Risk Governance Analysis (RGA) exercise in 2014, the need for more effective sub-national development planning was underlined. The RGA provided the ideal opportunity to formulate a framework whereby integration of risk can be considered a critical element of the development process rather than being perceived as a simple tokenistic add on. Additionally whilst highlighting entry points for mainstreaming work within the Department of Local Authorities (DLA), the contextual analysis had also provided the advocacy platform for leadership and ownership within the DLA. This is especially the case at the director and executive level, particularly the Director General and Minister for Internal Affairs whom have championed the case for risk integration mainstreaming at the sub-national level. Moreover the provision of dedicated capacities or change agents i.e. posts, within the sub-national level (DLA) and national level (Department of Strategic Planning, Policy and Aid Coordination - DSPPAC) to facilitate mainstreaming as per the development planning framework, has initiated momentum for a more systematic risk informed local development planning process.The various risk governance building blocks in effect while being dynamically inter-related, are also vital ingredients that reciprocate each other particularly when mainstreaming occurs at the local level. Leadership, change agents and advocating the case for risk mainstreaming have therefore been very much the critical components in advancing risk informed and resilient development for Vanuatu’s case. What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?Triggering risk integration from a more development centric viewpoint will to a great extent support mainstreaming hence the utility of guidance. Equally important is the notion of building capacity and equipping development practitioners with the necessary tools for risk mainstreaming. In formulating the risk informed Vanuatu sub-national development planning guidelines for example, it was also necessary to pilot and train local council officials so that they can implement the guideline. While piloting proved essential for capacity building, feedback from the piloting exercises highlighted the need to have a simple framework. Accordingly it was necessary to strike a balance that embeds the core risk integration components that will complement the broader development language and practice.In essence it will be vital to allow the space for testing which not only helps to build capacity of actors but also act to contextualize applicability of the tool.Mainstreaming essentially needs to be perceived as dynamic and nonlinear. Although it is fundamental to take a structured approach, where opportunity arises then it needs to be effectively tapped on. Timing, leadership and government or national priorities are correspondingly significant elements.  For Vanuatu, the current push for strengthened decentralization within the present government’s 100 day priorities has elevated local development planning work within the political and development agency circles. In that regard, Vanuatu’s Prime Minister and Minister for Internal Affairs have pushed policy directives that stress the need for more resources to be allocated to provincial authorities. This aims to facilitate for enhanced development delivery functions at the local levels. The formulation therefore of a sub-national development guidelines has been perceived as a positive step in enhancing risk governance and mainstreaming for risk informed development.Consequently, accompanying the application of such a tool is the necessity to weave into or ride on strategic government led opportunities which will elevate the relevance of a mainstreaming tool across the broad spectrum of development contexts, levels and sectors.

Francis Matheka

What process, steps or specific activities are needed to guide practitioners?  The key steps identified in phase 1 will provide a good starting point for practioners. In my experience the buy-in step provides a considerable challenge and should actually be the first step in the process. Getting clear buy-in from key stakeholders, especially government, will provide the anchor needed to sustain the process. In the case of Kenya the process is led by the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) though the product is expected to be used across various sectors. This presents a challenge as the NDMA has to receive wider buy-in from the other sectors especially sub-national authotities at a later stage. At this point I am sharing the work-in-progress in developing a framework for Kenya. This is still being developed and we shall utilize the suggestion from this e-dialogue as we move forward.

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of Nagendra Biyani, Deputy Secretary Disaster Management, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, IndiaDear Moderator, Some of the key entry points for the mainstreaming are:

  • Leadership : At all levels, especially in the Local Governance
  • Capacity Building: Where perceptions can be oriented towards mainstreaming
  • Legislation/Policies: The Government of India, Government Order to use 10% of centrally sponsored schemes for DRR, gives scope  mainstreaming DRR into development planning
  • Institutions:  To play key role in bring techniques, technology which could help in mainstreaming DRR CCA (Research, Technology)
  • Budgeting:  A very critical component. Proper provisions are to be made in the budget. The finance department to be oriented on DR CCA, so that they would ensure that the plans that are submitted to finance department approval has integrated DRR CCA in its planning document. Orientation could also help in allocating needed funds for DRR CCA.

You could also add Guidelines/ Codes in the entry point of Legislation, etc. ( Since National Flagship Program Guidelines are very critical entry points for Mainstreaming and same with the case of various engineering codes).Concrete steps are very much needed under each step and delineation of the same will defiantly help the Practitioners. Regards,Nagendra Biyani,Deputy Secretary, Disaster Management,Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, India.

Francis Matheka

On key steps d) develop an action plan; e) review progress; and f) adjust: there will be need for clarity/separation between the process of developing the framework and its actual implementation. In Kenya I noticed quite a bit of confusion while we were trying to create a roadmap for  developing a framework (equivalent to step d in this case). Some of the wording and actions used were for implementation of the framework rather than the process of developing the framework. The same applies for the proposed key steps (e) review progress, and (f) adjust since the terms apply to both the process of development of the framework and its actual implementation. From the Kenya case we used the following steps for developing the framework:

  1. Review current existing documents; (lead Adaptation Consortium)
  2.  Interviews with various stakeholders before the national consultation. (lead Adaptation Consortium)
  3.  Drafting the initial framework  (lead Adaptation Consortium)
  4.  Consultative forum (lead NDMA for buy-in and input)
  5.  Drafting workshop (lead Adaptation Consortium)
  6.  Final draft (lead Adaptation Consortium)
  7. Writeshop to fine tune the draft (lead NDMA)
  8. Validation workshop for final consultative forum to validate contents (Lead NDMA)
  9. Launching of the Framework, Dissemination, Advocacy?

We have currently reached step 7 whose output is the draft (work-in-progress) I shared in previous post. Not sure if the writeshop proceedings are of interest for this discussion but am attaching a copy below.

Francis Matheka

Few comments on "What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?":a) Leadership - this one is really critical for the mainstreaming efforts to bear real fruits. It the Kenya case it appears that leadership is a major constraint as the different stakeholders have no clear authority over each other. The proposed framework should make suggestions as to who should take leadership based on best practice or case studies.On d) Legislation and policies: in the proposed framework there should be some guidance on how to work with/mainstream into existing legislation. This is especially important since various forms of legislation, national and sub-national, already exist.  For example in Kenya there is already a climate change policy while a DRM bill is in the process of legislation - the question therefore is, at what point do the two converge? On (g) planning, budgeting and programming: The proposed guideline should put great emphasis on this component. That will help national and sub-national governments take into account DRR-CCA during normal resource allocation proceses. If we can achieve this then we shall have achieved our overall objectives.Overall I think the proposed key components are all useful and should go into the document.

Sipuru Rove

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock \"""

Adi Galokepoto

1. What are the critical component and specific entry points for mainstreaming?A number of the entry-points are already being tested in Solomon Islands over the last two years.  This has come from working through different levels of governance namely at national planning (with Ministry of Planning, Aid Coordination-MDPAC), sector level (Ministries of Education and Agriculture) and at sub-national level.  Here are some learning points that have emerged from these experiences: 

  • The components are interdependent: working through the planning Ministry (MDPAC) acting as the central hub for development planning and budgeting has helped in mainstreaming to all sectors. Effective leadership, not only from MDPAC, but also other line Ministry has helped to progress mainstreaming approaches.  This has also helped the establishment of in-house capacity to then integrate risk into development planning, budgeting and programming;

 

  • Mainstreaming is non-linear: the art of mainstreaming CCDRM across sectors cannot only exist in one fixed way, rather mainstreaming encompasses different ways and, methods and techniques to mainstream horizontally and vertically. For instance in Solomon Islands, approaches to mainstreaming work in different ways through multiple entry-points.  Some approaches are being applied through individuals and building their capacity (e.g. a new CCDRM line function within the Ministry of Agriculture); and others through institutional coordination mechanisms e.g. the resilient development working group (via MDPAC) to bring multiple sectors and partners together to discuss CCDRM and prepare an Action Plan for mainstreaming;

 

  • Entry-points must be seen in terms of the development process: mainstreaming should not be regarded as an ‘add on’ function but leading key officers and top management to understand that it is a development issue. A good example of this Temotu province, with the support of PRRP now has a dedicated CCDRM government post that works ‘from within’ to inform the sub-national and community development planning process. This post will support CCDRM mainstreaming into both development and recovery activities.

 2. How to provide useful guidance?In Solomon Islands the government, in partnership with the PRRP programme, has taken an ‘emergent design’ approach to mainstreaming.  This implies a non-linear approach to mainstreaming which is mainly determined by opportunities that present themselves within the development process.  Two key steps have emerged from this experience as important to the process: 

  • Understanding the political economy: understanding and analyzing the political economy and social context of the country are critical for timing and positioning of mainstreaming processes.  For instance, MDPAC was about to change the approach to development planning to a more programmatic medium term approach – this provided a good opportunity to mainstream risk;

 

  • Preparing a risk governance baseline: we prepared a baseline identifying the status of core components or building blocks of governance (e.g. risk leadership, capacity, knowledge, institutional arrangements, partnerships, networks, finance, processes & products) at the start of the programme and have used this to map progress over the years; 

 

  • Sharing of learning continuously: effective mainstreaming does not happen overnight and there is no clear formula for each given context.  Therefore, regular feedback on the progress of mainstreaming through each entry points is important to shape and mould the approach that can be adaptive by sectors. For example, within the Ministry of Agriculture, the PRRP supported position focal point always involves key heads of division to participate in small discussions surrounding small project appraisals process (incorporating risk) and communication materials for communities who are affected by the recent El Nino and past cyclones. Increasingly it is evident that CCDRM is becoming part of all key agriculture sector dialogue, policies, processes, tools and products and in time will be an integral part of implemented policies, projects etc.; but this will take time.

 

Adi Galokepoto

1. What are the critical component and specific entry points for mainstreaming?A number of the entry-points are already being tested in Solomon Islands over the last two years.  This has come from working through different levels of governance namely at national planning (with Ministry of Planning, Aid Coordination-MDPAC), sector level (Ministries of Education and Agriculture) and at sub-national level.  Here are some learning points that have emerged from these experiences: 

  • The components are interdependent: working through the planning Ministry (MDPAC) acting as the central hub for development planning and budgeting has helped in mainstreaming to all sectors. Effective leadership, not only from MDPAC, but also other line Ministry has helped to progress mainstreaming approaches.  This has also helped the establishment of in-house capacity to then integrate risk into development planning, budgeting and programming;

 

  • Mainstreaming is non-linear: the art of mainstreaming CCDRM across sectors cannot only exist in one fixed way, rather mainstreaming encompasses different ways and, methods and techniques to mainstream horizontally and vertically. For instance in Solomon Islands, approaches to mainstreaming work in different ways through multiple entry-points.  Some approaches are being applied through individuals and building their capacity (e.g. a new CCDRM line function within the Ministry of Agriculture); and others through institutional coordination mechanisms e.g. the resilient development working group (via MDPAC) to bring multiple sectors and partners together to discuss CCDRM and prepare an Action Plan for mainstreaming;

 

  • Entry-points must be seen in terms of the development process: mainstreaming should not be regarded as an ‘add on’ function but leading key officers and top management to understand that it is a development issue. A good example of this Temotu province, with the support of PRRP now has a dedicated CCDRM government post that works ‘from within’ to inform the sub-national and community development planning process. This post will support CCDRM mainstreaming into both development and recovery activities.

 2. How to provide useful guidance?In Solomon Islands the government, in partnership with the PRRP programme, has taken an ‘emergent design’ approach to mainstreaming.  This implies a non-linear approach to mainstreaming which is mainly determined by opportunities that present themselves within the development process.  Two key steps have emerged from this experience as important to the process: 

  • Understanding the political economy: understanding and analyzing the political economy and social context of the country are critical for timing and positioning of mainstreaming processes.  For instance, MDPAC was about to change the approach to development planning to a more programmatic medium term approach – this provided a good opportunity to mainstream risk;

 

  • Preparing a risk governance baseline: we prepared a baseline identifying the status of core components or building blocks of governance (e.g. risk leadership, capacity, knowledge, institutional arrangements, partnerships, networks, finance, processes & products) at the start of the programme and have used this to map progress over the years; 

 

  • Sharing of learning continuously: effective mainstreaming does not happen overnight and there is no clear formula for each given context.  Therefore, regular feedback on the progress of mainstreaming through each entry points is important to shape and mould the approach that can be adaptive by sectors. For example, within the Ministry of Agriculture, the PRRP supported position focal point always involves key heads of division to participate in small discussions surrounding small project appraisals process (incorporating risk) and communication materials for communities who are affected by the recent El Nino and past cyclones. Increasingly it is evident that CCDRM is becoming part of all key agriculture sector dialogue, policies, processes, tools and products and in time will be an integral part of implemented policies, projects etc.; but this will take time.

 

Keita SUGIMOTO • Mine Action Specialist at UNDP

Dear colleages:Thank you so much for this opportunity to participate in this dicussion. I have provided comments below each questiion. What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?a)    What components/entry points do you think are most critical? In our case in Angola, the most critical entry point for DRRand CCA mainstreaming is the policy development support that we UNDP providesat strategic level, because policy and/or strategy established at the nationallevel will subsequently guide the course of action taken by relevant sectorsand actors at all levels.In 2015, for instance, we assisted Angolan government indeveloping the National Strategy for Prevention and DRR in alignment with bothNational Development Plan 2013-2017 and Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030.This national strategy indeed orients actions to mainstream DRR and CCA intodevelopment planning by relevant sectors and local administrations, andfacilitates all the other technical support that may be provided by UNDP and otherpartners to help operationalize DRR and CCA mainstreaming in the country. Next year,we plan to assist the government to develop the new National Development Planthat will be in alignment with Sendai Framework, as well as SDG and Climateagreement to ensure that the National Development Plan, which is the mostfundamental national strategic plan, will orient DRR and CCA action for theupcoming programming period. When the National Development Plan adopts a fewrelevant result indicators related to DRR and CCA, the Planning Ministry will closelymonitor progress made under those DRR and CCA related result indictors, while theFinance Ministry allocates necessary resources.b)    Have we missed any?Overall components listed in the presentation seems to becomprehensive. I have made some comments to a few components below:Capacity development:training module that can be rolled out nationwide to equip civil servants withbasic knowledge on DRR/CCA and local development planning. In our case, weadopt module developed by ILO/UNISDR.Knowledge & communication:availability of risk information is fundamental to DRR/CCAmainstreaming and risk-informed development. Recording of risk information and informationexchange between sectors should be assisted with well-developed informationmanagement tool and protocols. Damage and loss information is also critical.Networks andpartnerships:including SS & Tri and for coordinated Africa regional action and learningPlanning, budgeting, programming:operationalization of Sendai Framework and the Yaoundé Declaration at country level should be assisted.Monitoring, evaluation, reporting:Sendai reporting is critical. What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool? a)    Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to beconsidered?Our planned programme includes sectorial risk managementsupport. In this support, we plan to include the development of commonmethodology for sectorial DRM planning, elaboration of “business continuity”guidelines for sectors and public service providers, and elaboration of DRMplans for priority sectors. Priority will be given to the Ministries havingcoordinating roles in the thematic groups established under the National DRR Strategicplan, namely: Planning and Territorial Development, Science and Technology,Finance, Environment, Education and Urban Planning and Housing. Thus we would appreciateguidance showing how to and steps to develop DRM plans for priority sectorsmentioned above, starting with use of risk information.b)    How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts,levels and sectors?This seems like a tough question to answer. Certainlyutilization of past disaster loss/damage data and other risk information willbe the starting point of all sectorial planning. It would be wise to study varioussectorial DRM plans currently implemented in different countries to learnlessons and best practices from their experiences to answer this question.It is critical to develop this tool in view of what othersister agencies like UNISDR is doing in the same area of work to avoidduplicating efforts and ensure complementarity. As noted by the member statesoften, we as UN should ensure coordinated approach in supporting our hostgovernment, i.e. providing tools, methodology etc.

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

What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming DRR and CCA? (a)          What components/entry points do you think are most critical? In the context of DPR Korea, following are the critical components•             Ownership must be at the subnational level – it could be county (district) or Ri (village): At the central level, there was a strong emphasis on mainstreaming of DRR in development. Although there are national policies, it is important to translate these into actions at sub-national level i.e. County and Ri level. This can only be achieved when the awareness at the community level is enhanced. This can be done through targeted advocacy material by using the existing communication means. County level institutions, especially those at the ri-level will play a significant role when it comes to DRR and adaptation related activities.•             Knowledge & communication: a simplified cost/benefit analysis tools will certainly help assess the impact of adaptation measures in the context of DPR Korea. Similarly, when it comes to risk mitigation strategies, there shall be a proper assessment of hazard/risk and weigh in all the available mitigation options. Such assessments will help to identify cost-effective measures.•             South-South Cooperation: Strengthening the Resilience of Communities through Community- Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) project has an activity to promote south-south cooperation with other countries implementing CBDRM. This will include enhancing capacities of technical CBDRM officials both at the central and community level through collaboration with relevant government agencies in China and (possibly) Mongolia. Identified modalities for cooperation include thematic workshops, short and medium term professional exchange programmes, joint research and knowledge management.(b)          Have we missed any?•             Perhaps there should be a strong emphasis on networks and partnerships especially South-South Cooperation. Although the tools for mainstreaming DRR and adaptation are well tested through existing programmes and projects of UNDP, there shall be a lessons-learnt-document that could help better understand the applicability of these tools and methods. What guidance is needed to help practitioners apply the tool?  (a)          Do you feel that such guidance is useful, and if yes, what are the key steps that need to be considered? We fully acknowledge that the steps shall be broad enough to include all the available tools and methods at a given step. These must be sufficiently generic to be applicable to different contexts, levels and sectors. There are four key steps as far as DRR and adaptation mainstreaming.•             Step 1: Risk knowledge. It is important to understand the hazards and vulnerabilities. It is essential to have such data and maps available to the sub-national level, i.e. to the scale of a village. What are the tools and methods that exist to systematically collect data and undertake risk assessments?•             Step 2: Hazard monitoring and forecasting: What are the parameters to be monitored, how such monitored data is forecasted to generate timely information. What are the tools to assess the existing capacities, needs at the national level (both technical assistance and investments), forecasting tools and identifying sectors to which this information is catered?•             Step 3: Communication of risk information and its dissemination: What are the tools that exist for information dissemination and communication? Is this information sufficiency tailored to the end-users targeted? What are the tools to ensure information is clear and understandable?•             Step 4: Response to risk information: There are a number of standard operating practice (SOP) tools that were field tested and streamlined. In many instances, it is essential to build the capacities at national and community level. How to identify the needs, both technical assistance and investments required to establish such infrastructure at local level i.e. community level. (b)          How can we ensure the steps are concrete, yet relevant across a wide spectrum of contexts, levels and sectors? The above mentioned four key broad steps that we could think are applicable in the context of DPR Korea.

Mohamedahmed Khalifa Mohamed

Sustainable finance, most important factor

Priyo SAYOKO • Programme Specialist at UNDP

What are the critical components and specific entry points for mainstreaming?In Indonesia the opportunities to mainstream DRR-CCA implementation has been provided with existence of policies as the legal basis for all parties to make efforts in disaster risk reduction and addressing the impact of climate change progressively. The main challenge is at the operational level where disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation are undertaken sectoral and partial approach. As result these efforts become less synergistic, ineffective and inefficient. Being aware of this condition the Government of Indonesia, through the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) collaborate to develop a framework to converge DRR- CCA as an effort to support mainstreaming DRR-CCA into development sectors. The process of drafting the DRR-CCA convergence framework has been on-going for the last two years and involve DDR-CCA stakeholders i.e. ministries / agencies, academia, NGOs, and DRR-CCA practitioners through a series of discussions and workshops. Based on the existing challenges and opportunities, stakeholders have agreed that there are 5 main elements, namely; 1) Policy, 2) Institutional, 3) Funding, 4) Management (Planning, Implementation and Monitoring-Evaluation), and 5) Risk Assessment Methodology, that needs to be analyzed and incorporated into the convergence framework.  

  1. 1.      Policies

 Based on the studies that have been conducted by the NDMA, Policy Studies Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction (2012), there are at least 24 laws regulating disaster risk management and climate change risks. The content / substance of climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) are stipulated either implicitly or explicitly in the laws, and it has become an operational basis for disaster risk management (DRR & CCA) in the form of technical policies, programs and funding during the past 10 years. However, the results of the analysis of a number of legislations shows that overlapping roles and gaps in program intervention are persist. Substantively, disaster risk management and climate change still stands alone whereas both have issues that closely related yet are not reflected in the operational programs and action plans respectively. The root cause is the lack of relevance of the policies/regulations in DRR with policies / regulations in CCA (connectedness) therefore the harmonization of policy / legislation becomes important things to do. In addition, a common perception about the value of strategic and tactical substances of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction and its integration at the level of policy makers is still lacking. This has implication to the waste of resources and overlaps in field implementation or practices of CCA and DRR. Furthermore in many cases, DRR and CCA also despises to each other at the level of priority or importance due to the partial understanding of the policy that concurrent with the pressure to implement program for annual budget delivery. Building common perception be at the policy level is the crucial point to encourage and it should be supported with an umbrella policy that is instructive governing the roles and tasks of ministries / agencies related to disaster risk management and climate change.  

  1. 2.      Institutional

 Institutional perspective need to be assessed in building DRR-CCA convergence framework, especially in the aspect of coordination and its organizing capacity. Coordination mechanism is the most important aspect in achieving efficiency and effectiveness to reduce the damaging effects of disasters and climate change.

  • Efficiency is understood as the use of cost or budget that exist in various sectors with a variety of policies, programs and activities optimally.
  • Effectiveness is interpreted to measure the extent to which policies, programs and activities implemented, is able to increase the capacity of its resources to increase the resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate disasters.

 Coordination in general have been carried out within the institutional structure of government both horizontally and vertically, but challenges related to DRR – CCA convergence coordination in government have different characteristics. At the local government (LG) level, in terms of program planning and implementation, coordination challenges are minimum as coordination between LG Units can certainly take place under the direction of Governor or through the Local Development Planning Unit. At the national level, the challenge becomes greater as the coordination between line ministries or agencies of DRR and CCA need to involve the National Development Planning Agencies, MoEF, NDMA and a number of technical ministries. The coordinating role of DRR-CCA undertaken by the Governor at local government level, might not works at the national level. The President and the Coordinating Minister might not directly and deeply involved in the technical process thus coordination role needs to be designated to one of the ministries and this will be part of the future action plan for DRR-CCA convergence framework One of the challenges associated with institutional is the availability and transparency of information to the public. Information related to climate and non-climate (information on the social, economic, environmental, and governance, etc) are influential to the vulnerability of the region. Indonesia already have Law on Public Information, but the problem is more on how to fill and provide information that is understandable and timely when needed. Within the framework of the convergence API PRB, transparent governance of information is indispensable, both for the planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. Seeing the two main issues on the institutional aspects related to DRR-CCA convergence framework are being drafted will attempt to provide recommendations on how to establish a coordination mechanism at the level of national and sub-national and mechanisms to implement the availability and transparency of information to the public.  

  1. 3.    Funding

 Ministries and agencies plan programs and activities based on the functions and objectives to be achieved. Often the function and objective of the different ministerial departments / institutions are achieved by one form of program or activity. For example, programs related to the recovery and utilization of mangrove can be found on the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. With the same form of program or activity, the objective could be vary; ranging from the improvement of the economic society of processing non-timber products from the mangrove ecosystem, damage prevention and environmental restoration, and restore function of the mangrove forest. This repetition is also found on social assistance and infrastructure are managed across ministries. Most development programs and activities could be linked with disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Synergies between sectors is important considering resilience is contributed by different activities and funding. Even within the government institution itself, this contribution needs to be analyzed by assessing the duties and functions of each line ministries (at national level) or local government unit, which despite the different programs and activities, it still has the potential to lead to the achievement of the same goals related to disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. Within the context of DRR-CCA convergence framework, funding is directed to finance convergence program or activities and it could be done through sectoral or inter- government level (national and local) partnership framework. The following efforts should be taken into account on order to optimize funding utilization for this partnership framework: 

  1. Sustainable and community capacity building based approach.

The strategic step is to ensure that utilization funding from government and public or private funds, undertaken by government and non-government institutions is managed in principle to promote sustainable approach and emphasized community capacity building. Disregarding this principle could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of funding utilization from various development initiatives to achieve the goals and objectives of program or activity. In contrast, omission of this principle could potentially increase the vulnerability of social communities 

  1. Integrating (DRR-CCA Convergence) in development planning scheme.

Development planning process, including long-term, strategic and annual development planning, consist of development efforts at national, regional and village as the lowest level. Therefore, intervention of DRR-CCA convergence needs to encompass all aspects of planning long-term development (Long Term Development Plan), medium term development planning (Medium Term Development Plan), and annual planning (Government Work Plan at the national and local) 

  1. Undertake program budgeting by incorporating the program content in relevant nomenclature program / activities that already exist, or through programs and activities that are considered necessary for budgeted.

Convergence effort could be done through the implementation of performance-based budgeting system. As such the DRR-CCA convergence activities could be taken into account when formulating performance-based indicators of a program, including its activities and budgets, at output, outcome or impact levels. 

  1. Determining the priority target groups and program locations.

Prioritizing the program location to areas prone to disasters related to climate change. It is also important to ensure that funding is oriented to address the needs of those most vulnerable, such as children, the disabled, the elderly and also support capacity building in DRR-CCA equally to women and men.  4. Management The component of management for DRR-CCA convergence herein include planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, which is a process to ensure the implementation of policies, programs or projects in accordance with the target and the convergence plan itself. Often the results of an activity, project or program has the potential to generate other needs to fill the gap or to achieve greater goals. 

  1. Plan

The discourse of planning document should be understood and agreed upon as a continuous process (iteration) to adjust with the development / political dynamics, socio-economic and physical changes in the environment as well as knowledge development. Therefore, when encounter a challenging situation / condition, such as limited availability and correctness of information, it should be addressed wisely and placed as factor needs to be improved.In the planning stage, the existence of vulnerability and risk assessment activities on climate in a region is very important. These activities will produce the analysis and disaster and climate risk maps in which provides baseline for the formulation of   strategies for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction to improve resilience and reduce vulnerabilities. 2 major factors to encourage the convergence of API-PRB at this stage are to ensure the development and utilization of Climate Risk Map in development planning and to ensure planning is built based on principles of 1) participation, 2) anticipate, prevent and reduce the impact, 3) cost effectiveness, 4) gender perspective, 5) recognition to local knowledge and knowledge development, 6) involving multi and transdisciplinary science and 7) addressing to the needs of each region. 

  1. Implementation

At this stage of the implementation is focused on non-structural and structural activities. Non-structural activity encompasses capacity building, preparation of a variety of policy instruments and legislation as well as the training of human resources/institutions/ organizations. While structural activity encompasses physical development and infrastructure that reflect the agreed selection in planning documents.The next step to be considered is the clarity of work mechanism, detailed and priorities and measurable outcomes. Clarity is defined as results of agreed stance consistently followed by agency or sector. It could manifest itself when the duties and functions of each sector is understood with the spirit of program integration. The clarity also includes who has the capacity to make decisions and its scientific capacity. As such there should be no reason for each sector to create a program that is contradictory to the spirit of climate-related disaster risk reduction. On contrary, obscurity will only create potential operational obstacles in field implementation.The following are some opportunities and challenges in terms of implementation of DRR-CCA convergence that worth to be considered: 

  1. Opportunity to build a common target of DRR-CCA outcome, which is later in its implementation will require the connectivity with national development planning document as well as to support the achievement of SDGs.
  2. Opportunity to avoid overlapping functions and programs thus efficiency of budget and resource both at national and regional level could be materialized.
  3. Opportunity to foster national and local development.
  4. Challenges to synchronize planning from sector and government levels to implement DRR-CCA convergence.
  5. Challenges associated with awareness and commitment on the division of authority and functions in terms of implementation at national level between ministries and local levels.

 

  1. Monitoring and Evaluation

In monitoring, attention should be given to the activity and its process, progress of activities, outcomes/results obtained as well as aspects of management and resources to support the implementation of the activities. This comprehensive monitoring purposes to anticipate the challenges or obstacles during a series of activities carried out.Evaluation as an inherent activity in monitoring that is intended to assess the extent of input provided is in accordance with the output and results obtained. Efficiency and effectiveness are the objective of DRR-CCA convergence thus both should become the main indicators to be evaluated. Monitoring and evaluation requires objective conditions before the intervention of the program / project is done. These objective conditions are the baseline to observe changes that occur before and after program / project intervention. Thus, in the context of the evaluation and monitoring, indicators should be relevant with the characteristics and reflect the resilience of an area to disaster.  

  1. 5.        Risk Assessment Methodology

 Risk assessment, whether used to assess climate change and disaster risk reduction issues, ultimately aims to provide public protection and safety from the risks that may occurred. In terms of provision, both studies have in common i.e. as a basis for policy making and operational plan or actions for the public welfare.Yet Interpretation on the application of risk assessment for both issues often different e.g. base on location, the study of climate change issue is projected over or a large unit of area (administrative or ecosystem-based), whereas in disaster management is projected over locus or area exposed that might cross government administrative boundaries or partial in the smallest government administrative area (village). The differences of the two, more dominating than the similarities that exist. More over the actors often generating ideas and opinions that mutually weaken each other. Finding weaknesses of the methods used and at the same time considers superiority to either party. Likewise, at stage of assessment process, application of methods, components or indicators, data and information as well as the approach cannot be separated from the discretion to look for weaknesses. Not on the contrary to get a common ground and mutually reinforcing.Assessment method is simply a medium or tool, not the main purpose of disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation. As scientific products, both conducted by experts with academic backgrounds as well as those done by the people themselves, the methods, approaches, and other technical matters very likely be different. Such differences should be part of the wealth of science itself that needs to be appreciated for continuous improvement. At this stage there are two main considerations to for the methodology i.e. 1) to undertake integrated disaster risk assessment (DRR and CCA), 2) to improve the vulnerability and climate risk assessment, and 3) to develop a model for climate related risk assessment methodology.

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of Sarat Das, Revenue Department (Disaster Management), Government of Tripura. Agartala. Dear All,Inputs on outline toolCritical Components / entry points:

  1. For mainstreaming of DRR-CCA in development, there is a need of functional and dedicated setup at State and District level. As per the Disaster Management Act-2005, the Disaster Management set-up such as State and District Disaster Management Authorities have been set-up. But these are not fully functional due to lack of dedicated manpower and funding provision. Hence, the framework should indicate the provision of dedicated manpower and funding pattern for the disaster management setup for the local governments.
  2. For sustainable efforts on any development activities, there is a need of active consent and involvement of local planning and finance departments of the local government. Hence, the framework should focus on involvement of local planning and finance departments for mainstreaming of DRR-CCA into development.
  3. Government of India has taken an innovative initiative towards allocating 10% of Central Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) as Flexi-Funds for DRR. But the initiative is not being considered due to lack of specific directives and guidelines for each CSS. Hence, the Government India may develop scheme wise directives for the State Governments and take up regular follow up actions for their implementations.
  4. Training and Capacity Building of the Government key functionaries (bureaucrats and policy makers) is the important requirement for mainstreaming DRR-CCA in development. The framework should focus on thematic training programmes for the functionaries at regular intervals.
  5. Legalizing disaster safety concerns in development is also an important component to ensure the mainstreaming of DRR-CCA. The framework should emphasize the mandatory consideration of disaster safety norms and tools during designing and inception of any development projects/ programmes.
  6. The framework should focus on behavioral changes of communities and key functionaries towards mainstreaming of DRR-CCA in developments. Integrating disaster mitigation in daily activities may change the behavior towards DRR and leads towards mainstreaming with suo-moto actions. Continuous awareness generation, regular practicing disaster mitigation and preparedness activities, exploring traditional coping mechanism and dissemination etc., are some of the actions which may need to be considered.
  7. Integration of DRR-CCA curriculum in education system may develop the foundation of understanding the concept and mainstreaming in the education environment. The framework should focus on incorporation of relevant DRR-CCA subjects in academic and technical education curriculums in an appropriate manner.
  8. Safety audits is an opportunity towards mainstreaming DRR-CCA in development. Provision of safety audits on DRR-CCA in various development activities should be considered by the concerned authorities. Safety audit may be considered as an integral part of the monitoring and appraisal of the development programmes.
  9. Appropriate user friendly mobile and IT enabled applications on DRR-CCA may be embedded with the general users and key stakeholders towards getting early warnings, news, views, reports, updates, best practices, events etc. The applications should suit to the students, working folks, academicians and varied occupations.
  10. Need based DRR-CCA research and development activities should be an important component in the framework. Various allied academic, technical and research institutions should work on R&D and application of the best suited products for human development. 
  11. Appropriate financing towards DRR-CCA may be a vital component towards implementation of various activities and lead to sustainable. There are various need based development programmes for reducing disaster risks are not being taken up due to lack of finance. Sometimes, the investment from the local Government is not possible due to other direct development priorities and political commitments. Hence, the framework should focus on scope of financing for taking up DRR-CCA actions which may lead the mainstreaming.

 Regards,Sarat Das,Revenue Department (Disaster Management),Government of Tripura. Agartala.

Ruben D. Vargas

I have not seen in the documentation references to ISO standards on risk management (31000, 31010, 22301) which, though are apparently to be used by the private sector, could provide very useful elements for this discussion. In particular, the definition of risk as "the effect of uncertainlty on the objectives" (an effect is a deviation from the expected- positive and/or negative). Following this approach, there is no need to talk about the integration of DRR and CCA  but instead of comprehensive risk management, which cover both and more. See moe comments in the attachment

Abdul Qadir RAFIQ • Project Manager at UNDP

Greetings from UNDP-Somalia!First of all thanks to the moderators in starting this debate and for a persistent follow-up to ensure that we do take time to respond to these very important questions.Having worked in a fragile state environment for the last four years, my comments too relate to the states coming out of conflicts. In my view, there are two important entry points to mainstream DRR-CCA in such states:1. To ensure the Compact (New Deal frameworks) that are agreed by the international community do emphasis on mainstreaming DRR-CCA right from the very start of Compacts implementation. Peacebuilding and State Building Goals, particularly, goal dealing with building economic foundations, should include priority actions on DRR-CCA. The case to be made is to avoid any further economic losses that may happen as a result of natural disasters and in the process contribute towards overall resilience building of the community and institutions against climatic events.  2. Second entry point is to focus on building foundational capacity of local, sub-national and national institutions to understand the consequences of inaction or lack preparedness to deal with disasters and have all basic facilities (equipment, offices, outreach support) to respond to disasters. In normal situations, these institutions should also have capacities to plan and implement programmes for adaptation to climate change. I think a Capacity Development Initiative for fragile and LDCs on similar lines to UNDP/GEF's National Capacity Assessment for meeting obligations of three Rio conventions can be very effective to build foundational capacities on DRR-CCA. On second part of the discussion on guidance - I think  it would be good to have a clear understanding amongst practitioners on application of the  tool in post-conflict situations. There should also be specific messaging for the Country Offices management to advocate with external partners to mainstream DRR-CCA in the Compacts. The tool should also come up with the potential financing windows that can take DRR-CCA "concepts" to actual implementation.     

Discussion Moderator

Dear Participants,Thank you very much for your incredibly rich contributions to this second phase of the e-discussions.  With your help; and drawing upon recent mainstreaming experience, we now have a strong understanding of the core components and sub-components or entry points for mainstreaming (Question 1).  Your feedback has been instrumental in identifying the key issues that need to be covered in relation to each sub-component. Of note, is your emphasis on making the components relevant to the local level, for example local leadership and ownership, local knowledge, local enforcement of policies, and localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. This also resonates with your repeated emphasis of “participation,” participatory planning; and harnessing community involvement as a driving force for mainstreaming action.  Similarly, a number of you stressed the importance of mainstreaming in relation to the fiscal policy and budgetary planning of national, state and local governments.  We will therefore ensure that sufficient guidance is provided in the tool on financial allocation, resource mobilization, and expenditure tracking for DRR/CCA mainstreaming.Practitioners usefully confirmed the interdependency of the components, how strengthening these entry points was a long term, non-linear process; how timing was crucial; and how these components should be approached from “within” the development process rather than as an “add-on” to development policy and practice.  One practitioner from Fiji further identified that these components are a mix of conduits for mainstreaming (e.g. advocacy), targets for mainstreaming (e.g. development plans) and ingredients for mainstreaming (e.g. knowledge).The components resonated with two existing tools that are being used:  the DRR Mainstreaming Framework (UNDP, 2010) mentioned by a practitioner from Mozambique, which identifies the components as a web of different spheres or entry points.  Similarly, practitioners and government counterparts in the Pacific identified alignment of the components with the Risk Governance Building Blocks that are being strengthening as a route to risk informed and more resilient development in the Pacific (UNDP PRRP).In relation to steps for mainstreaming (Question 2) there was general consensus that concrete guidance on steps is very much needed and a number of practitioners highlighted the importance of sector specific tools, checklists and performance indicators. Practitioners further noted that the guidance should not be too prescriptive, but generic, adaptable, results oriented and conducive to different context within a country, but supportive of standardisation of procedures and shared learning across sectors.  Finally, it was repeatedly emphasised, that the tool should be supported by concrete examples demonstrating best practice for strengthening the different mainstreaming components and applying the proposed mainstreaming steps.We are now working to digest the wealth of feedback that you have shared and are hoping to share a draft tool for the next consultation phase, scheduled to begin on 25 May – 02 June.  Again, thank you very much for your inputs.We look forward to continuing the discussion!Kind regardsAngelika and Pradeep