Global Platform, the last slice

Yes, we’re finished! We ate the entire sandwich, to stay with Susan’s way of speaking. But: was it a sandwich worth buying and eating? Let me try to summarise briefly what we did today and see if it was...

It definitely was the second slice of bread of the sandwich today, although some taste of meat had stuck to it. Two long plenary sessions, with loads of declarations. Mind you, not all declarations were boring. At least the NGO network’s declaration in the morning (yes, we got a full three minutes!) kept up the spirit and reminded us what DRR is all about: the people that are now suffering from the effects of disasters. And also in the afternoon, some very useful statements were made on the very first draft of a chair’s summary of the meeting. Again stating that we need to include the local communities. And also that the statement needs to be more action oriented, stating targets and benchmarks that can be monitored and not be too much UN talk, which basically means not firmly committing to anything at all.

But again: was the sandwich worth eating? I think, definitely, that yes it was. The NGO’s have now a seat at the table, although we have been seated at an awkward corner. We’re in and that means that we can now work on being included more and more during the two years until the next Global Platform meeting and will be able to make our points, in an ever stronger and stronger manner.

I will not bother you with the draft chair’s summary of the meeting now. It will be presented on the website and we still have two weeks to comment on it. Please look it up and see for yourself. Please let us know what you think of it and let’s try to react in a concerted fashion.
The latter is also what the NGO Global Network decided to do, during the after-meeting. A steering group was formed and some first topics the NGO Network should work upon were mentioned. Again: I will not present any details at this moment, but rest assured that news from the Network will be coming to you during the next months.

What did I forget? Oh, yes. I attended a meeting which was called by the group of NGO’s and UN agencies working on the crossroads between DRR and Climate Change. We decided that the group should continue as a thematic platform within the ISDR system and that we should try and persuade the IPCC to come up with an additional report on DRR and Climate Change Adaptation. In the plenary, this was also mentioned and the chair said that, if they could, they would fit something in.

I hope you don’t mind me not giving very detailed information. I gather that all information will be available online shortly and it does not make sense for me to be typing it al up here. All the same: if anyone is interested in more specific information or has some question, please do not hesitate to drop me an e-mail and I will be happy to answer it or send any stuff I have.
It was a good experience to be participating at this Global Platform, and I think we all learned a lot. It was also nice to have this first (for me) experience in blogging. A bit frightening, but all the same nice to do.

Talk to the ECB3-ers on Monday. And cheers.

Paul Borsboom

Head of Programme

CARE Nederland

Read more...

The "meat in the sandwich" day

Today was the "meat in the sandwich" day. The first piece of plain bread was the high level dialog day which Paul spoke of in his blog post, and tomorrow is the review of what today brought. Today was really supposed to be the tasty stuff.

There were over 15 workshops and lunch sessions to chose from - many of the topics have already been mentioned on my first blog post - education, national platforms, mainstreaming, implementation of Hyogo, etc. The morning session I selected was entitled "ecosystems and environmental management for risk reduction" and in the afternoon I went to "incorporating disaster risk reduction into preparedness."

So here is the skinny from our panelists discussing ecosystems/environmental management:

Environmental managers are usually on the supply side of hazard information to Governments (even when Governments haven't even asked for it) - but they aren't really good at transferring this information into action - especially in communities. The action part is something NGOs are good at, especially at a community level. There is a call for more partnerships between environmental managers and NGOs to utilize the skills of environmental managers in disaster management. The environmental folks can help provide the scientific knowledge of hazards and work with our communities on the best way mitigate against these hazards.

One presenter argued that there are a lot of models for good DRR that all require science - short term planning can be focused on contingency planning but medium term planning should include environmental assessments and management plans, and in the longer term spatial and socio-economic planning is important. This provides the argument that DRR cannot be seen within the humanitarian sector.

In a presentation focused on the Caribbean, there were some good examples of ensuring that disaster management units were linked to the environmental agenda.

Lastly, there was a very convincing presentation from Sri Lanka that showed just how natural and artificial strategies can be used for mitigation efforts in coastal zones. The most interesting on the natural side were the preservation and encouragement of mangroves, sand dunes, and coastal vegetation.

The afternoon session had more panelists than I can remember, but probably the most practical good practice was an example was from the Red Cross in Jamaica. In a nutshell, the Red Cross and a few partners including the Government of Jamaica signed an MOU to support a few high risk villages to wind/storms. They worked with these communities to create response plans including evacuation routes, put together response teams with training in first aid and search and rescue, and some basic equipment. It just so happens that literally days after the training, there was news that Hurricane Ivan was going to touch down in 72 hours. Within hours of hearing the news, the newly formed response teams activated their newly formed disaster plans, and put their early warning system to use, warning all the villagers to go to the shelters. On the same day the shelters were opened, and they were successful in getting a complete evacuation of these communities, ensuring the safety of all.

The other exciting moment of this session is when our colleagues from Tearfund and an ECHO panelist had a bit of a back and forth about the percentage of money given to preparedness. While ECHO was encouraged to do more, it is pretty evident to everyone that they are the leading donor in this area and they were encouraged to do more advocacy for DRR with other donors, particularly on the development side.

Our NGO colleagues scattered amidst all the workshops today so it will be great to come together in plenary tomorrow to get a taste of the other learning that went on from the various events. Provided of course, the other half of the sandwich is a fresh baguette instead of the rather stale bread we had on Tuesday.

We'll continue to keep you posted!

Susan Romanski

Read more...

Second day at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction

With excuse for the late posting of this blog and with thanks to the Technical Assistance provided by Susan, herewith my experiences from the day of yesterday:

Today was our second day – but the First day of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction Platform. The day started late (10:00), but to compensate for that, we went on until almost 20:00 h.

What did the day bring? There was an official opening session, with a video message from Mr. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and some opening remarks. It is very curious to find yourself in a huge meeting room – housing over a thousand persons – with representatives of some 120 governments, plus I don’t know how many UN agencies, NGOs and other organizations. A real circus worthy of the UN. All delegations (also of NGOs) had a spot reserved for them. It felt a bit awkward to be sitting there in a global meeting and being representing CARE International. Somehow, it makes you feel small in such a big meeting.

The next part on the agenda was the most boring part of the day. All delegations that felt like it (it must have been more than sixty) could make a statement of maximum 3 minutes. This was regulated by a traffic light. However, most of the delegations were so busy in reading from their papers that they were not aware of the traffic light and even a blinking “red” would not stop them from going about whatever they were intending to bring to the (mostly half asleep) public. Not surprisingly, when we got to 13:00 h and lunch break was there, we still had about 46 delegations to go. I feel happy that they get their say in a parallel meeting tomorrow – probably the only one listening to them will be themselves. So much for the UN system. I think I prefer our nicely disorganized NGO meetings.

Didn’t we do anything sensible at all today? Yes, of course we did. There were the side meetings at lunchtime, where I got to attend the session on “Catastrophic Risk Financing Tools and Products’. There, I learned about insurance and re-insurance systems that can reduce disaster risk in an economic sense at national level. Very interesting, although I doubt the direct interest for us as NGOs.

The afternoon brought us a “High level dialogue”, as it was called. Panelists (surely very “high level”) from around the globe gave us their insights on various aspects of DRR, in combination with Climate Change or otherwise, and the public (same plenary as in the morning session) could react, ask questions, etc. Not surprisingly, some delegation members took the opportunity to redo their morning speech. Others really asked question or made some sensible remarks. Anyway, at 18:15h the chair thought it was enough for the day.

For us, NGO people, it wasn’t, though. We needed to finish yesterday’s unfinished business. The largest part of the meeting was set aside for determining what key messages we want to bring to the different tables tomorrow, in order to have as much impact on the results of the meeting as possible. I must say that an hour or so of good-old NGO discussion makes quite a change from that UN talk. And results we got too! We came up with some four statements, which I cannot reproduce here because they are a bit vague to me still. We’ll get them on paper tomorrow morning, in time to be able to do our advocacy work.

Interesting day. The future will reveal if it was good enough as a lead into the next two days.

Paul Borsboom

Read more...

Global Platform for DRR kicks off for NGOs with a preparatory meeting June 4, 2007

I walked up to the conference center today by taking the scenic route today past Lake Geneva. It is a beautiful sunny day in Geneva and it was good for me to walk because I tend to feel stuffy and grow impatient in big conference halls. I must also admit that I don't think Geneva is particularly NGO friendly due to its exorbitant costs, but I am glad that this first session on the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction has actually invited NGOs - it is, in fact, what they call a "multi-stakeholder" conference.

That is the first take-away. NGOs are being encouraged to speak out actively - at least during the breakout sessions which will take place later this week. Today was essentially a way to get six issues out on the table which will be repeated over the next few days (and have NGOs think about them beforehand). Although a position paper has already been agreed upon by the NGOs, today's meeting emphasized six key themes:

1. Making Disaster Risk Reduction a National Priority;
2. Reducing Risk in Health Facilities and the health sector;
3. Education for DRR and Safer schools in communities at risk;
4. Environmental management for risk reduction;
5. Strengthening DRR through Preparedness; and
6. Mainstreaming Gender in DRR.

The group I attended, 'Making Disaster Risk Reduction a National Priority', was led by the only ECB agency presenting, a CARE representative from their Madagascar program. After a presentation by CARE on things that have worked in Madagascar, our group noted all the ideal things one should do to make DRR a national priority such as: integrating it with on-going development programs, ensuring that there is a national level steering committee, advocating for funding within government sectors, linking the communities with national policy, and providing more awareness to Governments and particular ministries. On the latter point of awareness raising with Governments, the question was raised "how do we do this?" Aside from the usual conferences and academic discussions, I felt like I was well placed to add some practical ECB experience.

I talked about how in the pilot projects, we had invited Government officials to visit our projects, and all the training and learning events had actively included Government officials, sometimes even as trainers. I discussed how they are active members of several of the initiatives and will continue to be - as this inclusion and active participation is providing awareness and knowledge about these issues which may not be evident elsewhere. I mentioned the efforts of the Guatemala team to create a HIC-like information site with Government involvement before an emergency so that there is better coordination and information sharing. These examples helped provide some practical ways to move forward on what we would like to see happen.

So basically we agreed that consortia like ECB can be more powerful than individual efforts when trying to influence governments, and that we should join forces to raise awareness. During idea sharing, it was clear that there was confusion about the networks that are available for information sharing and action on DRR. This gave the InterAction and BOND DRR working groups a chance to emphasize that these groups exist and that we invite more participation.

With the preparatory session over, I walked back down the hill by the lake with my co-facilitator of the InterAction DRR group. We commented about the day's discussions and enjoyed the walk in the sun.

Susan Romanski

Read more...

Learning and Other Noble Motives

In my previous blog entry I mentioned that staff seemed fairly content with the response to the Jogya earthquake. But don’t get me wrong, contentedness does not mean apathy. In fact, it seems the learning machinery has been put into motion, the agencies already having done some reviews or evaluations and everyone still eager to know “what could we do better next time?” I have to confess that I don’t have much of a point of reference other than hearsay, but I wasn’t expecting such enthusiasm.  I’ve heard a lot about evaluations being executed dutifully and without zest, only as a concession to those unavoidable donor requirements. And then again, after an exhausting emergency response where the most valiant efforts still fell short, why would anyone look forward to an evaluation any more than they would forward to a visit to the dentist?

 

Here are a few theories to explain why Save UK, CARE, WV and CRS in Jogya may feel differently:

 

• Staff here really do want to know what do better for future responses, if not here in Jogya then for others missions (all four agencies would have left Jogya by June 2008).
• A joint evaluation promises a new type of learning, with its more panoramic view of causes and context, and its unveiling of other agencies’ best practices and “what-not-to-dos.”
• Adhong, the steering committee member at CRS, and his colleagues have been very persuasive in touting the benefits of the evaluation and getting the others to join, and our ECB2 colleagues at headquarters have done their fair share of lobbying.  

Staff here have also clearly stated that prior knowledge of ECB has made them more amenable to the evaluation – along with the general acceptance that better coordination is needed in the future.

 

Whatever brought them to this round table, there are many eyes on this evaluation – and thus much reason to hope this joint venture will persuade the skeptics and affirm the believers.

 

Malaika

 

Read more...

Things Gone Right: The Jogya joint evaluation

This time, staff are happy. With all the criticism emergency responses get, one would think that while being questioned by the evaluator, staff would have plenty to wince at as they remembered things gone wrong. But as they reflect on what their agencies did in the days and months following the Java earthquake, there seems to be a marked level of contentment that they did much good with relative effectiveness during this response.

 

At least this is the impression I’ve gotten while accompanying lead evaluator Pauline Wilson on her agency visits to the four agencies being evaluated—Catholic Relief Service, World Vision, Save the Children UK, CARE (For those of you that are wondering, Pauline is well and thriving in her not-quite-ECB role!). We’ve been working five days now, the evaluation team thus far consisting of Pauline, and Ryan Russell, a CRS Regional Technical Advisor, along with six note takers, facilitators and interpreters hired to help with the evaluation. I am tagging along to do my own research on joint evaluations (here I’ll make a shameless plug for the upcoming What We Know About Joint Evaluations booklet) but am lending a hand to the evaluation team here and there.

 

Accompanied by Yenni Suryani from CRS and myself, Pauline interviewed staff at the CRS, WV, and Save offices in Jakarta (CARE was not to be reached) as well as UNDP (the interview with UNOCHA didn’t work out) and then we continued with interviews of agency staff here in Jogya, along with government interviews.

 

A shared story has begun to emerge from these discussions. At the end of May, agencies and local people waited expectantly in the shadow of the awakening Mount Merapi, the government already having evacuated people to at least 5 km away from the volcano. Merapi stayed quiet but the devastating earthquake hit on May 27, causing over 5,700 deaths and leaving over 350,000 homeless. If the agencies receive high marks for preparedness for the Jogya earthquake, it will be in part because of Merapi.

 

But so far, it seems the local government and UN have also given them fairly positive reviews as well for coordination, evidenced by their participation at cluster meetings and contribution of good information, and I assume their general willingness to work with others. Many staff have also credited the baptism by fire that was Aceh for teaching them lessons that they have obviously applied here in Jogya and the affected districts of Bantul and Klaten.

 

And what about those other stakeholders? The people at the receiving end of the household kits, and shelters, child friendly spaces, training, etc? Pauline et al visited a village yesterday where CARE has been working and held three focus group discussions – for men, women, and children– did some random interviews, and talked to the village leader. By the time we got to the field, I was curious to meet these resilient people that we had heard so much about. “Gotong Royong,” a term used to describe Javanese solidarity and good-neighborly helpfulness, was mentioned over and over again in interviews with staff and greatly credited for the effectiveness of the response and speed of the recovery process.

 

Indeed, everyone was polite and helpful, and Pauline and co. are worried now about how to elicit critical information in the face of such tact. It does seem, however, that there was overall appreciation for the work CARE did in this village (mainly a watsan project with an emphasis on behavior change).  

 

With Pauline and her team being very capable and steering committee member Adhong and his staff at CRS, the lead agency, as engaged as they are, I am sure they will be able to solicit the needed suggestions for improvement from the communities. And as for positive feedback, well that’s always welcome.

 

Malaika Wright

Read more...