Phase 3: Collecting feedback on a draft integrated framework

31 May - 10 Jun 2016
Go back to Integrated DRR - CCA Mainstreaming Framework

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

Preliminary Draft DRR and CCA Mainstreaming Tool

How useful and appropriate is the proposed guidance on DRR/CCA mainstreaming in the light of your experiences?

What aspects of the tool do you think will work well, which ones need further work?

Do you have any relevant case studies that you can share that illustrate the application of the various mainstreaming components/entry points?

Which case study format would you prefer, the text or the table version? (see Draft section 6)

Do you have any feedback on format for the tool and/or suggestions on how we roll-out and share the tool once it has been finalised?

Files

Comments (6)

Naomi Tobita

Hello, here is my feedback for the draft of mainstreaming tool

1) How useful and appropriate is the proposed guidance on DRR/CCA mainstreaming in the light of your experiences? What aspects of the tool do you think will work well, which ones need further work?

 

I found the items listed in Mainstreaming Principles regarding country ownership, flexibility, context specific, long-term, and embedding are well developed and will be useful for DRR/CCA mainstreaming. Mentioning transformational change in Mainstreaming Principles is also noteworthy to clarify “what we can get.” If I am allowed to ask further elaboration, it could be kinder for the readers deliberating the linkage between transformational change and (including risk-) governance issues via M&E matters in Knowledge Components. I had a feeling that the logic in the Guidance with respect to Assessment / Analysis and M&E compliance is the other way round. At least in the field of actual works with dirt and soil by volunteers, knowledge is the thing to be utilized fully for the next steps of policy implementation, not a stand-alone finished product for publishing in academic journals. When we record our activities in the forests of Yokohama, Japan, we use such M&E knowledge to plan for the next activity days and / or for the agenda of next coordination meetings among stakeholders. Since there are numerous civic organizations in our city engaging in environmental husbandry (; the city comprehends there are at least 3000), the tiny data collected by us become huge as a whole that can yield common themes. Some of them shall be suggested to the higher policy making bodies such as at the city council, or even at the national Diet. In this way, the M&E process spirals up to yield eventually Policy Standards, i.e., a typical programme / project cycle. Governance is in the end to lubricate the long-term (or perpetual), local and flexible DRR/CCA activities, and knowledge is a tool for it, I presume. Often, transformational change is acknowledged without a bang, but during yet another recording in a standardized form. If you can find a case study describing such example among UNDP clients, it would be nicer.

 

… Although it may not be so useful for the other economies, you would explicitly mention subnational governments, judiciary and farmers / agricultural business in the list of Stakeholders. I think budgeting and expenditure analysis could then include the items connected to them.

2) Do you have any relevant case studies that you can share that illustrate the application of the various mainstreaming components/entry points? Which case study format would you prefer, the text or the table version? (see Section 6)

 

I prefer the table version; it corresponds to Table 1, and can facilitate to track the argument.

 

3) Do you have any feedback on format for the tool and/or suggestions on how we roll-out and share the tool once it has been finalised?

 

If there is no big planned conference with respect to DRR/CCA mainstreaming, the easiest roll-out would be via RC at each field, I guess.

Jochen Luther (not verified)

On behalf of Dr Xu Tang, Director Weather and Disaster Risk Reduction Services (WDS) Department, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland

Dear colleagues, for phase 3 (specifically slide 10 of the file "Outline framework_25April2016.pptx"), I would like to reiterate my comments sent in the Word file attached:

  • On 4. (Audience): Under Government Agencies add “meteorology/hydrology, geology”, clarify whether disaster management = civil protection or whether disaster RISK management is meant, add regional and global organizations/stakeholders
  • On 5. (Scope): It would be helpful to define climate risk as opposed to disaster risk. Climate risk may be the risk of climate-related disasters, i.e. the probability of negative climate (change) impacts. Disaster risk is the risk of all disasters. Whereas “climate” is still a natural phenomenon, disasters are not. It therefore cannot be “Risk of Climate” and “Risk of Disasters” at the same time. An option for the scope could be “Disaster risks, including those posed or exacerbated by climate variability and change”. Similarly, natural hazards – including climate-related ones – stem from the environment. Therefore, the environment cannot be “another source of risk”. Maybe what is meant is the risk of environmental degradation, which could act as an underlying amplifier of risk.
  • Research, science and technology could be given more room in the “framework”. An additional point could be larger, joint projects and programmes, such as the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) and the Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) initiative.

As I mentioned before, the most critical entry points for WMO and the NMHSs of its Members are “Legislation/policies” and “Institutions” (National Strategic Plans for strengthening and modernizing the NMHSs which will automatically contribute to DRR and CCA). In terms of networks and partnerships at all levels and across sectors, United Nations agencies, donors, financial institutions, and other development actors need to consult, and be assisted by, those agencies that have the scientific, technical and service expertise to deliver specialised products and services in a collaborative, integrated approach (such as realized by the GFCS, initiatives such as IN-MHEWS and CREWS, etc.). This horizontal cooperation needs to take place on the global, regional and national levels, through a) regular political and expert consultation processes, b) partnerships and networks, and c) through the establishment of joint expert teams to assist specific projects and activities by individual organizations and stakeholders (vertical approach). Such integrated coordination mechanisms for DRR, CCA and development actors need to take on a long-term approach that treats disaster risk and climate change impacts as factors internal to development, rather than external.​

Dr Xu Tang, WMO

Jochen Luther (not verified)

On behalf of Dr Xu Tang, Director Weather and Disaster Risk Reduction Services (WDS) Department, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of Sanjoy K Bandyopadhyay

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am attaching a document developed by UNISDR-GETI that may have useful examples for mainstreaming DRR & CCA in development planning for your perusal:

Guidance on Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning and Policy

Compilation of best practices and cases

(draft copy attached)

with best regards,

--

Sanjoy K Bandyopadhyay Principal Scientist & Ex-Consortium PI, Climate Change Adaptation (World Bank-GEF) CESCRA, Indian Agricultural Research Institute PUSA, New Delhi-110012

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of Rob Wheeler, Global Ecovillage Network

My comments below address the second part of the Draft document beginning on Page 21 under the Knowledge Sub-Component. It follows on my earlier comments and suggestions for Phase 3 on the Draft Document submitted on June 8. I/we suggest additional text which is provided in quotes in bold following the existing text for the Draft document:

Awareness and Education

In many disaster prone countries, general awareness of climate and disaster risk may exist, but awareness in many countries on how these risks interact with development processes is still low. “In addition, there is often a lack of understanding as to the extent to which risk prevention can actually and beneficially limit, reduce or even eliminate the impact of natural disasters and related events. It is thus essential that a determined effort be made to provide education and increase the level of local knowledge and understanding of the role that risk and disaster prevention can play in removing threats to human life and well-being.”

Research, local knowledge (and communication?).

Here we agree that it is indeed essential that communication be included along with research and local knowledge to ensure that adequate action is taken both to prevent and in response to risks, climate change and “natural” disasters.

It should also be stated that, “policy options should be based on what can work in local communities and local peoples should be fully included in participatory planning and implementation processes to lessen risk, address prevention and engage in restorative practices - thus basing these on the local circumstances and situation and be informed by and taking account of both downstream as well as upstream causes and impacts.”

“For example, 90% of waste water still flows back into the watershed untreated in the developing world, thus creating a hazard that is only and often dramatically increased when there are floods,

droughts, unforeseen tidal events, etc. This is a risk that must be

addressed and rectified both as a risk prevention measure and in response to natural disasters . Investment in biological waste processes can be much cheaper than conventional systems and can provide buffer zones and other means to ensure that the waste do not adversely effect human populations, settlements, and agricultural activities, etc.”

“Similarly, it has been found that the straightening and diking of rivers with levees can not only result in the loss of both valuable farm land and soil productivity but can also result in increased threats during storm and other climate events, loss of adequate recharge of local water tables, increasing levels of salt water intrusion, and other such problems. Restoring of the natural environment can again restore small and large water cycles, increase the level and extent of access to water throughout the year, avoid large masses of water discharge and flooding during extreme weather events, etc.”

“Inappropriate storage of hazardous chemicals can also cause major problems at times of extreme or unexpected weather events causing unwanted exposure and extreme health risks, pollution of already threatened agricultural lands, etc. These are all threats that can be foreseen and actions taken that would be better for the people in local communities anyway but certainly increasingly due to the impact of climate change, global warming and increasing threat and severity of natural disasters.”

Storm Cunningham is an author, consultant, keynote speaker and trainer who recently wrote the acclaimed book, The Restorative Economy. His first book on regenerative growth was the first to document the "hidden", multi-trillion-dollar economic sector that is revitalizing our communities, our nations, and our natural resources. Mr. Cunningham makes the case that due to extent to which humanity has already

consumed or is using most of our natural resources including land,

water, forests, soil, and most industrial and building materials, we are rapidly moving from an era of new development featuring the construction of new projects to an era of restorative development - wherein we refurbish, restore or renew existing projects, infrastructure and the natural environment, etc.

It is thus essential that as this process continues we plan accordingly to eliminate risk - as per the precautionary principle - while making the most of our limited resources and creating wealth, resiliency, and well- being through regenerative activities. See: www.restorationeconomy.com (See the ToC, Preface, and Introduction) and www.stormcunningham.com

Assessment and analysis

Following the existing paragraph we suggest adding, “There is a great need to study, analyze, and pay attention to what can be done, in a most cost effective manner, to eliminate risk by moving people from risk prone areas, creating natural buffer areas, restoring the natural environment, stabilizing climate through restoring the natural water cycles and other natural processes, creating resilient communities, etc.”

Policies, Strategies and Planning: development planning is guided by annual, medium and long term policy cycles and articulated in policy documents and implementation strategies or plans. Integrating risk into these policy cycles and documents provides a strong foundation for action.

We then suggest adding something like, “which must be based on the understanding of root causes and of what has so greatly increased our levels of risk around the world including disruption of the natural environment, elimination of buffer zones, settlement in

highly unstable areas, lack or destruction of resilient elements - as

are often found in nature and in indigenous cultures and practices, such as regenerative capacities, flexible rather than rigid building materials and structures, nature based materials that can fairly rapidly be replaced, composted and/or recycled, etc.”

“These policies, strategies and planning processes must be based upon the Rio Declaration and principles, particularly Principle 10 and also the Precautionary Principle.”

Resource mobilisation.

Funding is a major challenge to implementation. Mobilisation involves identifying resources from public and private funding (national, regional and international) for the implementation of risk informed legislation, policies, projects and programmes. A clear understanding of the economic impact of disasters on development goals (and if necessary the cost-benefit ratio for DRR/CCA investments) may be required for stakeholders to make concrete financial commitments (UNDP, 2010).

We then suggest adding, “One of the funding mechanisms that ought to be considered and given priority would be Land Value Capture and Taxation, which is one of the primary recommendations for local authorities and communities within both the Vancouver Founding Agreement for UN-Habitat as well as the HabitatII Outcome Agreement from Istanbul. Land Value Taxation captures the unearned profits that accrue due to the increase in land value as cities and communities develop. Land Value often amounts to as much as 1/3rd of GDP and can provide a major source of funding for infrastructure development and public services, etc.”

“The additional revenue can also be used to fund risk prevention strategies and provide a powerful incentive and revenue stream for restoring the natural environment, moving people from risk prone

areas to more appropriate locales, providing more green and open

space, etc. As such improvements are made in local communities land values tend to rise even faster in the surrounding area and with this tax policy can then be captured in order to continue with the resilient and restorative re-development projects.”

Capacity: capacity development refers to the process of creating and building capacities and their subsequent use, management and retention. UNDP defines capacity development as a process through which individual organisations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development over time. It is the ”how” of making development work better (UNDP, 2008). To be effective, capacity development needs to move beyond traditional training approaches and support more sustained changes in behaviour.

Capacity development for DRR and CCA is likely to take a number of different forms - depending on the receipient. For example, new or existing focal points for resilient development (within core planning/ finance ministries, key line ministries, and subnational government) will need ongoing capacity development. Whereas to support implementation of a risk informed regulatory framework, key professionals (e.g. engineers, masons and builders) will need training, certification or technical guidance to correctly apply these codes and regulations. Community capacities will also need to be enhanced to ensure that identification of community development priorities (as part of bottom up planning ) includes identification of possible disaster and climate change risk and ways to manage these.

After this please add, “A specific focus is needed to engage local communities and civil society practitioners in disaster preparedness, responses and risk prevention and to prepare them to contribute to implementation in an appropriate, effective and successful manner. Many will need training and capacity development in regards to implementing regenerative and†restorative practices, in creating

resilient ecosystems, and in natural and green building practices,

climate friendly agriculture, agro-forestry, etc."

Programmes and Projects. The focus must be on risk informing the project and programme cycle as well as the results frameworks and related budgets, project proposal forms [to be finalized].

Strengthening this component and promoting engagement of a range of actors will support implementation of risk informed development regulations, policies, plans, programmes and projects. Only with the participation and representation of citizens will a mainstreaming Action Plan have a sustainable and long-term impact. For example, local governments can regulate land use and building construction, but private companies and NGOs often deliver key services and are responsible for large infrastructure projects, whilst households contribute labour and assets to housing and other low-tech construction projects (ODI, 2012). Despite best intentions of relevant authorities, efforts to be more inclusive of civil society and private sector actors, and to seek better representation of communities, women and vulnerable groups, have often proven insufficient to ensure their sustained engagement in decision-making processes and in the implementation of DRR/CCA interventions.

Strengthening this component and supporting wider stakeholder involvement will ensure broader ownership and sustainability of the mainstreaming process. Putting all the components of this mainstreaming tool into place therefore requires collective action through co-operation, consultation and negotiation at different levels (local, national and international) and between a variety of relevant actors (different government authorities, legislators, academia, private sector, civil society and communities). The participation and accountability of communities will be of critical importance to ensure that all efforts have actual impact in reducing vulnerabilities on the ground.

Here we suggest adding, ”Financing for stakeholder engagement is essential - we cannot expect civil society to do the same things for free or as volunteers as government employees and companies get paid for. Many civil society actors are experts in their field with hands on experience that is urgently needed. Resources must be provided to take advantage of this expertise and to ensure that good programs and initiatives can be adequately and fully scaled up, replicated, and rolled out both on a national basis and around the world.”

Finally on the bottom of Page 29, rather than saying that governments have the primary responsibility for implementing measures to reduce risk the document should say that “governments have the primary responsibility for coordination, oversight and to ensure that implementation plans and measures are put in place to reduce risk. Implementation should be the responsibility of and be carried out by all stakeholders.”

I would like to suggest a number of resources and information from the Global Ecovillage Network that could be used in the development of a Case Study or two. Unfortunately, it is already late on Friday evening and I am exhausted after a full week of teaching so that I have the funds needed so I can continue to represent GEN at the United Nations and work on development projects, etc.

I have already gathered much of this information, most of which is available on a special section of the GEN website that I helped put together for the Paris Climate Summit or COP21. See: www.http:// ecovillage.org/node/5998

It includes sections on Disaster Prevention and Responses; Reforestation; Restoring Natural Water Cycles; Carbon Farming and Soil and Plant Sequestration; Green/Climate Friendly Building Practices;etc. all of which could be included in such a case study(s). I would be glad to provide you with specific information and suggestions if you are interested in considering this.

Here is the start of what I have written for an additional case study which could be entitled: “Mainstreaming Community Based Responses for Climate Change Adaptation, Mitigation and Disaster Risk Reduction”

As weather patterns change and risk of floods and natural disasters increase, it has been found that it can be highly advantageous to reduce or eliminate the risks through restoring the natural environment, creating climate and ecosystem resiliency, returning to natural and green building practices, removing threats through regenerative practices, re-establishing natural buffer zones, and developing water retention landscapes, etc. This case study examines the ways that such things can be done on the local level through engaging communities in the restoration, risk reduction and development processes.”

Thank you for your considerations,

Rob Wheeler 

rob.wheeler@ecovillage.org 

Teamworks System Administration

Posted on behalf of Dr. B.F. Battistoli 

---

1. Overview             After reviewing the draft of “Risk Informed Development: A Tool for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into Development,” it appears that the Tool as presently constructed does not include a component that directly addresses the process of communication to at-risk populations. Without such a component, the results on the ground are unlikely to change appreciably.             In my research at Fairleigh Dickinson University, an ECOSOC organization, with the assistance of Steven R. Brechin of Rutgers University, I have developed CART – a Community Allocation of Resources Toolkit - that enables rapid and effective deployment of risk communication assets by responsible agencies and organizations to communities at-risk from extreme climate events.             CART addresses the communication needs outlined in the Tool, under areas of intervention within the Knowledge component:            

Many countries however, lack the infrastructure or technical capacities to provide high quality risk information and practitioners have had to draw upon global climate projections or risk data that is poorly matched with policy, planning and management timeframes, compounded by uncertainty and is not sufficiently sector specific, policy-relevant or actionable (USAID, 2014). Effective communication is essential to ensure climate change and disaster information is useable in different contexts (WMO, Kenya) and is accessible, tailored, user friendly, relevant and actionable (pp. 21-22).

  1. CART Description

            CART provides a bridge between academic risk communication research and the practical real-time needs of the people and organizations responsible for creating and disseminating risk message campaigns when facing extreme events. It follows the risk communication research of Dr. Battistoli (see “Evaluating Elements of Trust: Risk Communication in Post-Katrina New Orleans, Public Understanding of Science, 2016, 25/4, pp. 480-489). Using the well-established methodology of survey research, and building upon the success of previous risk communication studies, CART provides an area and population-specific toolkit that can be distributed to related agencies and organizations involved in risk communication that is portable, adaptable, rapidly deployable, easy to use, and supplies data that is readily analyzed with commonly available software.             Operationally, the CART is developed in a target area with at-risk populations through a preliminary survey of representatives of agencies and organizations responsible for risk communication, as well as with those responsible for disseminating that information, including media outlets and community, religious and social organizations. The results are then plugged into a 24-question telephone survey instrument (landlines and cell phones) specifically designed for the target demographic area, in which the public preferences in risk message sources (e.g., television, radio, print, Internet, social media, organizational, interpersonal) are determined. The community survey data is used to develop a recommended percentage-based list of allocation of risk communication message campaign assets in the target community.   

 3. Summary             The CART utilizes a 24-question telephone survey shell that is readily adaptable to the specific characteristics of a target area – it is essentially “plug and play.” It is designed to allow for the rapid and effective deployment of scarce risk communication message campaign assets.             Effective deployment of risk communication messaging assets creates more contact and connection between message creator and recipient, between risk communication professionals and the members of the communities they serve. This can only serve to increase public trust in these vitally important agencies and organizations.  It can improve lives, make them safer, and, in the best of circumstances, save them.

 

Dr. B.F. Battistoli  Assistant Professor of Journalism Fairleigh Dickinson University