2014

REPORT

Capacity-building seminar on “Collaborative Approaches and Solutions

to Disasters Management Challenges for SIDS Municipalities in the

Context of Sustainable Development”

Report

Capacity-building seminar on “Collaborative Approaches

and Solutions to Disasters Management Challenges for SIDS

Municipalities in the Context of Sustainable Development”

Singapore, 10-12 November 2014

Table of Contents

Background…………………………………………………………………………………..1

Organisation of the Seminar………………………………………………………………2

Findings and Recommendations

DRR Institutional and Administrative Frameworks in SIDS

municipalities/local authorities including technology

transfer and capacity building…………………………………………………………...3

Environmental protection and strengthening the eco-system……………………..3

Multi Hazard Risk Assessment– Knowing SIDS Specific Risks………………………….4

Infrastructure protection, building regulations and land use planning……………4

Protection of vital facilities: education and health……………………………………5

Training, Education and Public Awareness………………………………………….….5

SIDS specific Financing and Resource Mobilization for DRR………………………...6

Partnerships for Effective Preparedness, Early Warning and

Response; Recovery and Rebuilding Communities……………………………….….6

Way Forward.............................................................................................................…...7

List of Participants…………………………………………………………………………....8

Background

he Capacity-building seminar on

“Collaborative Approaches and Solutions

to Disasters Management Challenges for

SIDS Municipalities in the Context of

Sustainable Development” was organized by

DESA/Division for Sustainable Development

(DSD), in cooperation with UN-OHRLLS and

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore

through the Singapore Cooperation Pro-

gramme. The meeting took place in Singa-

pore from 10 to 12 November 2014 to address

SIDS’ Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) manage-

ment as these countries are located amongst

the world’s most vulnerable regions, facing

intense and frequent natural and

environmental disasters inflicting significant

damage on islands’ infrastructure and

livelihoods. Moreover, the increasing impact

of disasters is having a disproportionately

high economic, social and environmental

cost on small island developing States where

according to UNISDR, six of the top ten

countries with the highest proportion of

annual average losses against their yearly

production of gross capital are SIDS.

Twenty years after the Earth Summit, the out-

come document of the Rio+20 Conference

highlighted the fact that not only the

sustainable development of the Small Island

Developing States (SIDS) but even their sur-

vival and viability are intimately linked to their

capacity to reduce risks and their vulnerabili-

ties and to enhance the resilience of their

communities and infrastructure to natural

and anthropogenic disasters, sea-level rise

and other impacts of climate change, not to

mention their capacity to limit environmental

degradation.

The Conference firmly placed disaster risk

reduction on the sustainable development

agenda and governments called for

“disaster risk reduction and building of

resilience to disasters to be addressed with a

renewed sense of urgency in the context of

sustainable development and poverty

eradication….” This will be further reinforced

in the upcoming 2015 Third World

Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in

Sendai, Japan.

More recently, in September 2014, at the

Third International Conference on Small

Island Developing States, held in Apia,

Samoa, it was recognized that sustainable

development will not be achieved without

sound, efficient disaster risk management in

particular for SIDS’ municipalities. Member

states also recognized that SIDS continue to

grapple with the effects of disasters and that

the complexity and daunting nature of

building resilience of municipalities and local

communities in SIDS require a deeper

collaboration among different stakeholders.

Local governments/public utilities facing

enormous resource challenges in building

resilience and protecting their communities

are increasingly looking towards collabora-

tion and partnerships as a means to build

resilient communities.

The seminar brought together representatives

from local and national SIDS governments,

IGOs, NGOs, civil society, academia, the

private sector, local communities, and the

UN system including the World Bank. The list

of participants is appended at the end of the

report.

The seminar sought to:

1. Further identify major challenges facing

municipalities and local authorities (includ-

ing lack of institutional, technical and

financial capacities and flood -protection

infrastructure) and look at ways and

means for strengthening the capacities of

local authorities/municipalities to build

resilience to natural disasters including

through sharing of lessons learned and

experience gained, having a better

T

understanding of institutional and policy

frameworks requirements, identifying gaps

in policies and practices but most

importantly finding viable and

implementable solutions.

2. Promote peer learning through South-

South and North-South knowledge

exchange on experiences and good

practices related to DRR, climate change

and sustainable development and agree

on areas where cooperation is most

needed such as reliable data collection

for risk analysis and monitoring;

vulnerability assessments, knowledge

exchange in integrated community

development programmes. In practice,

such collaboration or partnerships should

create win-win solutions for SIDS

municipalities/local authorities and all

stakeholders including the private sector—

if duly supported by appropriate policy

frameworks.

Organization of the seminar

he three-day capacity-building seminar

included lectures delivered by experts,

presentations by participants and group

discussions.

The seminar was divided into the following

twelve sessions with sessions 10 to 12

focussing on Singapore’s experiences:

1. DRR Institutional and Administrative

Frameworks in SIDS municipalities/local

authorities including technology transfer

and capacity building(Exploring SIDS-

specific Best Practice, Lessons Learned

and Closing Gaps in building resilience)

2. Environmental Protection and Strengthen-

ing of Ecosystems (Addressing the im-

portance of environmental protection

and ecosystem services (including man-

groves, coral reefs etc) as a natural de-

fence against natural hazards)

3. Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment – Knowing

SIDS Specific Risks (Including Visualizing

Resilience: Using Mapping Tools to Plan for

Hazards – including Climate Change. This

session will also explore SIDS specific

natural disasters and draw on specific

lessons (including shortcomings) and best

practice)

4. Infrastructure Protection, Building Regula-

tions and Land Use Planning (Investing

and maintaining critical infrastructure

such as transport, hospitals, shelters,

electricity, water, telecommunications

etc. that ensures resilience and minimises

risk)

5. Protection of Vital Facilities: Education

and Health. (Focusing on the resilience of

facilities that provide essential social ser-

vices during and in the aftermath of a

disaster)

6. Training, Education and Public Awareness

(Innovative community based Public

Awareness Strategies; exploring Social

Media, Gamification, Mapping and other

creative strategies for effective outreach)

7. SIDS specific Financing and Resource

Mobilization for DRR (Focussing on

creative sources of financing for resilience

that are accessible to SIDS and exploring

the costs of building resilience in SIDS)

8. Partnerships for Effective Preparedness,

Early Warning and Response (Addressing

the types of partnerships required for

effective preparedness and early warning

response including discussions on

technology (ICTs))

9. Recovery and Rebuilding Communities

(Addressing priority areas for recovery

and rebuilding communities including

integrating disaster risk reduction criteria

as a cross-cutting measure and the im-

T

portance of community-based owner-

driven reconstruction)

10. Overview of Crisis Communications

11. Media Management in a Crisis

12. Case Study: Presentation of the SARS Crisis

At the beginning of each session (except for

the last three sessions entirely organized by

our partners from the Singapore Cooperation

Programme) 3-4 speakers were invited to

make a presentation (presentations were

discussed and cleared by DESA beforehand).

Each session was followed by an open floor

discussion.

At the conclusion of the seminar, meeting

participants reviewed the key messages and

recommendations of the three days. The

following findings and recommendations

were discussed and endorsed by all

participants.

Findings and Recommendations

DRR Institutional and Administrative Frame-

works in SIDS municipalities/local authorities

including technology transfer and capacity

building:

1. There is a positive trend of moving from

national to local and community based

DRR strategies and approaches.

2. Not all SIDS have municipal struc-

tures/systems to effectively interface with

communities. This generates new

challenges including the need of linking

them to national strategies. There is

equally a need for increasing decentrali-

zation of risk governance, greater

capacity development at local levels.

3. There is a need for mapping and

clarifying roles and responsibilities of

different levels of government – including

clarifying local responsibilities for land use

planning and implementation.

4. It is necessary to mobilize resources at lo-

cal levels (including by the private sector

and civil society), and to establish

appropriate financing as well as incentive

mechanisms, especially for private sector

partners.

5. Overall for DRR, there is a need for evi-

dence based research, greater coordina-

tion of international and regional

organizations actions at country level

while at the same time insuring that pov-

erty alleviation is addressed with a special

focus on poor people with special needs.

Environmental protection and strengthening

the eco-system:

1. There is an urgent need for ecosystem

based protection solutions, soft where

possible (protective landscapes), hard

only where necessary. These include sand

suppletions, mangrove restoration etc.

Multifunctional solutions are preferred,

which can help obtain financing (multi

stakeholder approach). It is recognised

that most situations will require mixed solu-

tions including soft and hard responses.

Multi-functional solutions should combine

“safety, sustainability and beauty”

2. There is a need for other eco-system

based adaptation solutions such as

reforestation.

3. Disasters and climate risk solutions should

be seen in a more holistic context includ-

ing within on-going development pro-

cesses. In this context, there is a need to

develop more resilient communities and

economically stable communities. To

facilitate such communities, sustainable fi-

nancing mechanisms need to be intro-

duced.

4. There is a need to take action based on

what is known about the value of existing

ecosystem services. Action may be

supported by PES (Payment for ecosystem

services) solutions. These models should

be scaled up and adapted to different

contexts.

5. Ecosystems play key roles in the reduction

of disaster risks. Protecting conserving and

sustaining the ecological resources is

essential for SIDS.

6. Particular attention needs to be paid to

those eco-systems that support economic

activity and how they may be affected

by climate change and other hazards.

Multi Hazard Risk Assessment– Knowing SIDS

Specific Risks:

1. There is a recognition of the important

role of existing regional centres for data

collection, modelling and analysis to

understand the disaster risk, which is quite

complex in SIDS context. However, there is

also a need for greater focus on capacity

development at the country level. More

financial and technical support for risk

assessment is a reality but sustainability of

projects is only possible if they are part of

national programmes. This requires build-

ing national capacities and not only relies

solely on regional data and analysis cen-

tres.

2. There is urgent need for a greater integra-

tion of strategies for risk reduction and CC

planning schemes. This has started in sev-

eral SIDS regions.

3. To be able to improve the in-country

capacities for risk assessment, it is im-

portant to move towards more open

source software, easy to use tools and

techniques so that these analysis become

more affordable for SIDS.

4. There is a need to further recognise the

importance of traditional knowledge in

the conduct of risk assessment.

5. There are successful models of learning

through south-south cooperation, for

example understanding the climate risk

and monsoon forum for risk communica-

tion in Asia.

6. Implementation of the risk assessment can

be improved not only for floods but also

for droughts by establishing minimum

base line risk information.

7. SIDS need to make greater use of GIS and

statistics to support multi-hazard risk

assessment in a cost effective way.

Infrastructure protection, building regulations

and land use planning:

1. There is a need for a mix of hard and soft

measures. The decisions on “which and

where” need to be site specific. This will

include ecosystem based solutions and

where possible appropriate technologies

2. There is a need for adapted designs given

the challenges of climate change and cli-

mate variability

3. Actions are usually taken after disasters to

resolve short term problems but they need

to be decided with a long term vision.

This can also obtain financing.

4. There needs to be lessons in relation to

appropriate siting for infrastructure (i. e.

sand public services). This would also set

the basis for more evidence based

approaches to planning.

5. Land use regulatory systems need to be

updated and improved but they need to

allow for site specific solutions – local ordi-

nances - since solutions may need to be

designed and implemented at

neighbourhood level.

6. There is a need to update, legislate, moni-

tor and enforce building codes and

standards.

7. The need for urban mutability needs to be

better defined and explored. There is no

need to always replace what was there

before a disaster.

8. There are some examples of good prac-

tices in land use legal and institutional

developments such is the case in the Sey-

chelles where the planning committee

have representation form Environmental

experts and DRR officers.

9. Insurance should be explored as a poten-

tial incentive for driving development

practices.

Protection of vital facilities: education and

health:

1. There is a need for greater understanding

of the dual role of public buildings such as

schools and community centres for disas-

ter relief. This requires that these facilities

are disaster resilient and equipped with

emergency utilities and possibly aug-

mented facilities functioning specifically

for periods of calamity. Schools need to

be returned to their normal functions as

soon as possible.

2. There is a need to promote sustainable

health centres equipped with water,

renewable power and communications

so they remain functional during and after

a disaster.

3. Some of these facilities may be built in

disaster prone areas and this requires that

there is mapping of these facilities and

their characteristics so as to be able to

analyse the potential effects under differ-

ent scenarios (of intensity of earth quakes,

for example) and emergency evacuation

plans to safer facilities. It is important that

private facilities/institutions be for-

mally/officially engaged to network and

augment emergency services both pre

and post disaster periods.

4. Information about the state of facilities

and on the situation during real time

emergencies need to be based on stake-

holder engagement however this requires

investments in maintaining sustainable

networks.

Training, Education and Public Awareness:

1. DRR related messages need to be simple,

targeted and coordinated. The same

message should be given by all agencies

to avoid confusion. The use of simple

graphics proved to be very useful.

2. It is important to know who has the man-

date to communicate, to whom and

what is to be achieved ( need

communication plans)

3. Importance of engaging the media can-

not be underestimated: the media are

key players in delivering messages.

4. Communities must have confidence

in/trust the message and the messenger

(use of celebrities is a good practice)

5. Climate change messages need to

acknowledge DRM as a means for mitiga-

tion

6. Mapping underpins all areas of DRM and

should be made available to the public

7. Prevention, preparedness and mitigation

are key to minimize risk. However a

coordinated response is vital.

8. It is important not to rely on one

communication tool only (i.e. SMS is more

useful for region specific or slow set

events. Cellular broadcast works for ur-

gent national messages. Radio can be

useful.

9. The use of traditional knowledge in

communication is highly recommended

SIDS specific Financing and Resource

Mobilization for DRR:

1. Existing funding is fragmented and needs

to be consolidated. In some cases coun-

tries need to use funds more effectively

and efficiently. Countries need to

develop frameworks to obtain and

expend funds with the support of the

international community and regional

agencies.

2. Development partners should respond to

SIDS DRR priorities.

3. Countries have to build their own reputa-

tion and good financial procurement sys-

tems to access funds.

4. Organisations such as the WB are moving

also to more integrated approaches in

their work in slums, providing economic

opportunities for dwellers make them also

more resilient to disasters.

5. Explore use of debt forgiveness for climate

adaptation and risk reduction.

6. There are some issues in relation to the

Risk pooling approach. There is a need to

further explore whether risk pooling is

diverting investments in countries.

7. SIDS also need to inform and influence

global policies for DRR. Stronger coordina-

tion and collaboration amongst SIDS is

needed to influence global policies.

8. There is a need to establish partnerships

with non-traditional donors.

9. There is a need for stronger coordination

between development partners and re-

gional organisations.

10. Access to international funding needs to

be facilitated for SIDS vulnerabilities and

limited capacity.

11. Local resource mobilization needs to be

better facilitated including involvement of

the private sector.

12. There is a strong need to build capacity of

local authorities to access funds. Local

resource mobilization needs to be better

facilitated including involvement of the

private sector.

13. There is a strong need to build capacity of

local authorities to access funds.

Partnerships for Effective Preparedness, Early

Warning and Response; Recovery and

Rebuilding Communities:

1. Information role and responsibilities need

to be clarified ahead of a period of disas-

ter

2. Early warning systems at country level

need to be consistent and interoperable

with existing international, regional and lo-

cal systems.

3. Partnerships can provide leverage and

access to wider networks

4. Informed and timely decision making

based on preparedness is key to survival

5. There is a need to understand the situa-

tions of those at risk and work to ensure

that they are better prepared

6. Ensure that the social, emotional and cul-

tural needs of displaced persons are

considered in the recovery and

reconstruction process- “Happy return”

versus an “early return “

7. The neighborhood community concept is

important not only for “happy return” but

also for preparedness.

8. There is a need to have social structures in

place before DRR is carried out

9. Community capacity needs to be

strengthened as sustainability of an

intervention is a function of community

cohesiveness.

Way forward

1. UNDESA jointly with UNESCAP and

relevant regional organizations to

develop SIDS inter-regional initiative under

the UN development account project.

2. Formalisation of cooperation by the three

SIDS regions by December 2016 (including

to promote peer learning through South-

South and North-South knowledge ex-

change on experiences and good prac-

tices related to DRR, climate change and

sustainable development).

3. UN-OHRLLS to continue to advocate

strongly on the importance of DRR for SIDS

including on building resilience of

communities and as a means of securing

livelihoods of SIDS communities. UN-

OHRLLS will work with all partners to raise

awareness on DRR issues for SIDS including

at the upcoming 2015 Third World

Conference on DRR in Sendai Japan.

Name

Country

Designation

Organisation

1 Mr Alvah Guishard Antigua G.I.S.

Specialist

National Office of Disaster

Services

2 Mr Stephen Russell Bahamas Director Cabinet & Disaster

Management (NEMA)

3 Ms Kerry Hinds Barbados Deputy

Director

Department of

Emergency Management

4 Dr Jose Rubiera Torres Cuba Director National Forecast Center

of the Institute of

Meteorology

5 Ms Alumeci Tuisawau Fiji Director of

Education

Ministry of Education

6 Mr Horace Glaze Jamaica Deputy

Director

General

Office of Disaster

Preparedness and

Emergency Management

7 Ms Mariyam Rifga Maldives Environment

Analyst

Environmental Protection

Agency

8 Ms Eunice Akiwo Palau Director Palau Bureau of Domestic

Affairs

9 Ms Velda Octave-Joseph Saint Lucia Director NEMO

10 Mr Cecilio Sacramento Sao Tome &

Principe

Deputy

Director

Council for the Prevention

and Response to Disasters

11 Mr James Chang-Tave Seychelles Director Development Control

12 Mr Tarakabu Tofinga Kiribati Senior Lands

Planning

Officer

Lands Management

Division,

Ministry of Environment,

Land and Agriculture

13 Dr Stephen Ramroop Trinidad

&Tobago

Chief

Executive

Officer

Office of Disaster

Preparedness and

Emergency Management

14 Dr Ronald Jackson Barbados Executive

Director

Carribean Disaster

Emergency Management

Agency

15 Ms Diane McFadzien Samoa Adaptation

Advisor

Secretariat of the Pacific

Regional Environment

Programme

16 Ms Mereoni Ketewai Fiji Assistant Risk

Mapping

Officer

Secretariat of the Pacific

Community, Applied

Geosciences and

Technology Division

(SOPAC)

17 Ms Frances Reupena Samoa Environment

Sector

Coordinator

Ministry of Natural

Resources and

Environment

18 Ms Venetia Bellers Mauritius Adviser Prime Minister's Office

19 Ms Divina Sabino Seychelles Manager Division of Risk and

Disaster Management,

Ministry of Environment

and Energy

United

Nations

20 Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya Under-

Secretary-

General

and High

Representat

ive

United Nations Office of

the High Representative

for the Least Developed

Countries, Landlocked

Developing Countries and

Small Island Developing

States

21 Ms Kenza Kaouakib-Robinson Senior

Sustainable

Developme-

nt Officer

United Nations

Department of Economic

and Social Affairs

(UNDESA)

22 Mr Jong Soo Yoon Head of

Office

UN Office for Sustainable

Development UNDESA

23 Ms Josefina Maestu Coordinator United Nations Office to

Support the International

Decade for Action

24 Mr Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Chief Disaster Risk Deduction

Division UN Economic and

Social Commission for AP

25 Mr Hans Damien Sass Associate

Programme

Officer

(UNOHRLLS)

World Bank

26 Mr Iwan Gunawan DRM Adviser World Bank

Private

Sector

27 Mr Bert Smolders Netherlands Shelter

Programme

Manager

ARCADIS

Civil Society

28 Dr Vasantha Chase Saint Lucia Consultant Community Leader

29 Mr Hideaki Oda Japan Co-Chair of

High Level

Expert Panel

on Water &

Sanitation

30 Mr Hiroshi Kawamura Japan President DAISY Consortium

Academia

31 Dr David Smith Coordinator Institute for Sustainable

Development, University

of The West Indies

32 Prof Jose Danilo Silvestre Philippines Professor University of the

Philippines

33 Dr Heather Bell Director Pacific Disaster Center