mainstreaming disaster risk reduction (drr) into sectoral policies
TRANSCRIPT
Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into sectoral policies
Governance issues for policy development and implementation
Lessons learned from the Philippines
input to
TOT Workshop 21-25 September, Bangkok Pro-Poor Policy Approaches to Address Risk and Vulnerability
at country level
by Stephan Baas FAOHQs
Presentation objective is to share a case study on DRR mainstreaming into sectoral policies and discuss governance issues that crucially influenced the mainstreaming process
existing institutional settings and structures decentralization Participatory, and inclusive policy planning across institutional level vertical and horizontal interaction (interface of policy processes and
technical evidence ) Coordination; Integration
Presentation Structure
Overall context : why is DRR mainstreaming important • The DRR/ FNS nexus • What is at stake in agriculture ? • Entry points for DRR mainstreaming
Philippines case example • What do we do • Governance issues/processes • Lessons regarding policy processes
Emerging key issue for discussion
• Integration/linking between different policy agendas - DRR and CCA
COUNTRIES WITH HIGH PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT
AND HIGH VULNERABILITY
TO NATURAL HAZARD AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Basic Map: Prevalence of undernourishment in the population (percent) in 2012-2014
Damage and Loss to Agriculture based on PDNAs (2003-2013) percentage share of damage and loss to agriculture, by hazard type
Overall, Droughts and floods together cause 74% of total damage and losses on agriculture.
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Floods Storms Earthquakes Tsunamis Droughts
37
21
2 3
37
perc
ent
FAO (2015): The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture and Food and Nutrition Security. A Call for Action to build Resilient Livelihoods.
AGRICULTURE ABSORBS 22% OF ALL LOSS AND DAMAGES
Average percentage share of damage and loss within subsectors, by type of hazard
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
crops livestock forestry fisheries
23
3
89
16
60
8 5 10
15
86
0 3 2 0 3
70
1 2 3
0
pe
rce
nt
storms
floods
droughts
tsunamis
earthquakes
Disaster Damage and Loss in Agriculture is proposed as indicator in SFDDR and SDG 1, 2, 13
Agricultural production losses in selected Asian Countries affected by large scale disasters
• Countries included: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao ,Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam
• Includes natural hazards affecting > 250,000 people : 2 Droughts; 3 Earthquakes; 21 Floods; 8 Tropical storms (total 34 disasters)
• Comparing production in year and year after disaster with 3-year average prior to disaster; production losses (tons) translated into monetary value using national producer prices/ton.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Cereals and Pulses Top 20 Commodities
8,962
1,587
Source: FAOSTAT (Production Quantity and Commodity Prices)
2003-2013 losses in million US$)
Floods account for 86% of losses
Entry point to DRR mainstreaming: International policy agendas provide frameworks for
national DRR policies:
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 -2015
Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
Bali Roadmap (adaptation) Climate Change Agreement envisaged 2015 under UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
MDGs
Sustainable Development Goals,
2015-2030;
Challenge: DRR was no mainstream
topic for AG sector
yet in most developing countries,
lacking evidence on value
addition in circles of
policy makers
Since SFDRR endorsement 2015 the important role of sectoral actors to prevent and mitigate impacts from shocks and disaster, and to build resilience
has been clearly articulated into global development policy frameworks
New challenge: How to respond to and integrate/link different policy agendas from a sectoral perspective
Philippines case study
The NDRRM Council is guided by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF), which envisions a “safer, adaptive and disaster-resilient Filipino communities toward sustainable development” (Figure below).
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management policy context Philippines
Three subsequent Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) projects implemented by the Government of the Philippines with technical guidance from FAO included process based DRR policy planning and mainstreaming in agriculture May 2009 – Dec 2011 July 2012 – Dec 2013 July 2014 – Dec 2015
Strengthening capacities for climate risk management and disaster preparedness in Bicol region
Consolidating capacities for DRR in Agriculture in South East Asia (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Philippines, DPRK) ’]
Enhancing capacities for DRR in Agriculture in Cambodia and the Philippines
Precondition: Operational Framework for policy process
Challenge: usually short term projects Insufficient time for policy processes in stand alone projects
Creating a programmatic long term framework
Philippines: Context what we do on DRR and Resilience; Overview
Increased resilience
of livelihoods to
shocks
APPLY PREVENTION AND
MITIGATION MEASURES:
WATCH TO SAFEGUARD:
ENABLE THE
ENVIRONMENT:
PREPARE and RESPOND:
In following part of presentation focus is only on the DRR mainstreaming into sectoral policies
• Understanding the risk and need • Understanding and use of existing institutional
environment and capacities (what is already in place?) • Know how , availability of and access to good practices
and technology options for DRR (evidence to make policies “tangible” at all levels)
• Synergies and complementarity with other policy development agendas
Key elements for mainstreaming DRR into AG sector policies and programmes
Natural hazard occurrence in the Philippines 1980-2010
Source: "EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
Detailed Understanding the hazard risk Basis for any sectoral policy development on DRR
Drought , 2.2% Earthquake, 3.7%
Flood, 28.9%
Storm, 60.6%
Volcano, 4.3% Wilfire, 0.3%
Country example Philippines Agricultural Losses by year and sub-sector
National data (DA)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bill
ion
s
Infrastructure
Fisheries
Livestock
Crops
• Between 2006-2013 total losses in the AG sectorS were 4.1 billion USD; of these losses, 3.6 billion USD occurred in the crops sub-sector
• In 2013, alone, total AG sectors losses were more than 900 million USD
• The regions most impacted were region 2 (Cagayan Valley) with 1.35 million Ha
affected, region 3 (Central Luzon) and region 5 (Bicol Region).
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4A Region 4B Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region 13 CAR ARMM
330
1354
1256
247 217
1082
384
61
530
35 55
131
39 6
303
50
‘00
0 H
ect
are
s
)
Areas of crops affected (‘000 Ha) by region, Philippines (2006-2013
365
488
738
107 94
260
306
62
492
18
71
574
25 10 0.1
18
173
16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4A Region 4B Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region 13 Region 15 ARMM CAR CARAGA
US$
Mill
ion
s
• There are significant differences between crop ha losses and US$ value loss
Region 3 has been the most affected by natural hazards during the period of
2006-2013, followed by region 11, 8 and 2.
• Climate change is expected to massively alter the situation southwards
Agricultural damage & losses by region in US$ millions, Philippines (2006-2013)
Strengths for DRR mainstreaming into
agriculture sector policies & plans
• National strategy , policies and overall legal frameworks for DRR/M exist
• High level of awareness of people and policy makers on importance of DRR exists.
• Emergency response system well established ; tasks for sectors defined; calamity funds at all levels exist
Governance bottlenecks for DRR mainstreaming
• Sectoral DRR/M policies and plans did not exist;
• Information flow for policy and/or decision making from the bottom-up and vice versa,
• Sectoral integration of strongly related but nevertheless different policy processes, with different stakeholder groups supporting differing policy agendas, e.g. the integration and link between DRR/M and climate change adaptation, and
• Up-scaling of good practices for DRR/M (e.g. farming practices, climate information services or methodologies for the assessment of losses and damages) for building resilience at scale.
Starting point for DRR mainstreaming process in agriculture (institutional context)
Nat
ion
al le
vel
Re
gio
nal
leve
l Lo
cal l
eve
l
Provincial AG office
Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRR/M) in Agriculture in the Philippines Key governance issue: Translating policies into local action
Local Government Units (LGU)
Barangays, farmers, farmer groups
Municipal AG officer
Policy/institutional environment for DRR Climate Change Act 2009; Strategic National Action Plan 2009-2019 Philippine DRR/M Act 2010; National Framework Strategy on Climate Change 2010-2022 Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 Midterm Update National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028; National DRR/M Plan 2011-2028
Policy/institutional environment for DRR Community-based DRR/M plans
AG extension system
Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit V DA/RFU V
(Technical Unit for DRR/CCA)
Climate and agro-meteorological
services (PAGASA)
Department of Agriculture
Climate Change Commission
MoU/partnerships Mutual cooperation
Information exchange
Enhanced climate + agro-meteorological
services
Design and endorsement of CCA and DRR/M policies
Link DRR + CCA/ensure policy
coherence
Overlapping mandates and account-ability
Integration of CCA and DRR planning and
GPO replication at municipal and barangay level
Inte
grat
ion
, co
her
ence
, flo
w o
f in
form
atio
n
Other stakeholders
Social mobilization process/ownership
Outreach and adoption
Other stakeholders
Universities, AG research institutes
Validation, documentation +
replication of lessons learnt and Good
Practice Options (GPO)
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (DND, DILG, DSWD, DOST, NEDA, DA, DENR, DAR)
Office of Civil Defense (OCD)
Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Inte
grat
ion
, co
her
ence
, flo
w o
f in
form
atio
n
Advise for, knowledge transfer, replication in and
cooperation with other regions
KEY
Governance challenges and bottlenecks
Opportunities, products, incentives
Success factors: Policy process with ”concrete” products
Challenge: Linking/ feeding policy process with results from bottom up planning Create evidence for policy makers
Outcome : Two regional and 30 municipality-based action plans for DRR/M in agriculture (all formally endorsed) provided evidence of value added for overarching national strategy for DRR/M in agriculture (currently under finalization)
Establishment of regional and community-based plans for DRR/M in agriculture
TCP project DIPECHO I project DIPECHO II project
a) Regional plan of
action for DRR in
agriculture
Identified specific needs
for sectoral planning for
DRRM
In Bicol region formally
endorsed by RFU 5 DA in
2013
In Caraga region 2015
(currently under
development)
b) Integrated
community-based
DRR/M action plans
for agriculture
For 9 barangays in 3
municipalities in Bicol.
For 24 barangays in 10
municipalities in Bicol.
For 10 municipalities in
Bicol and 7 municipalities
in Caraga)
c) National strategy for
DRR/M in agriculture
Facilitation support and
technical advice with DA
Central Office in the lead
Overarching institutional and policy environment; Global DRR agenda to refer to and existence and overall national DRR/M
policies and of legislation
Ownership & trust as basis to facilitate policy processes Continuity and consistency through iterative consultation process to
effectively take into account evolving governance/socio-institutional contexts/conditions, thus creating ownership of key stakeholders • working strictly through national/regional/local leadership and
encouraging a culture of ‘counter-partnering’ ;
Catalysing formalized collaboration “MoU” between/among national key actors to spur mutual cooperation,
information exchange, and capacity development activities between different stakeholders
Success factors perceived as helpful to address governance challenges:
Communication and knowledge management
enhancing critical mass and voicing platform though close collaboration and pooled messaging between various projects (TCP AMICAF UNJPJ and DIPECHO);
catalysing expression of concrete demands at various levels to inform decision makers to underline importance of topic and trigger support; and
providing learning platforms across levels, regions and agricultural extension contexts (regular learning/exchange workshops with decision makers; leveraging on existing extension programmes (e.g. FFS), use of PAR approaches);
Success factors perceived as helpful to address governance challenges:
Linking governance processes with “tangible” technical products/delivery: creating evidence-based, field-tested products/outputs perceived as value added
promoting “locally visible” incentives/value added to inform and support governance processes, e.g. through enhanced climate and agro-meteorological services, validated and documented lessons learnt and Good Practice Options ; improved PDNA methodology;
Enhancing political commitment Proactively informing on linkages between national/local/sectoral processes and “global”
commitments and agendas (e.g. HFA) thus highlighting importance of local/regional processes in wider contexts
Get agricultural sector players stronger involved into DRR and CC international discussion
Success factors perceived as helpful to address governance challenges:
Rice production trends
DRR/M within wider policy context : Linking DRR / CCA and poverty alleviation
Patterns/drivers of vulnerability to natural hazards
DRR/M within wider policy context:
Linking DRR/CCA and poverty alleviation
.
Ref: IPPC SREX report
DRR- CCA interfaces relevant for policy development
Climate change induces three dimensions of change for sustainable agriculture, food security & nutrition:
gradual changes (slow on setting increase of average temperatures, change in rainfall patterns, sea level rise, etc) which are less visible yet, but with possibly massive longer term impact on the sustainability of agro-ecosystems; (CCA long term planning)
the increasing variability and uncertainty of current weather patterns; and (sustainable agricultural production)
the increased occurrence of climate extreme events which have high impact and create emergencies with losses of lives, livelihoods and substantial economic damage and losses. (DRR)
Hand over to WS and group discussion: How to embed DRR and CCA, and possibly both together into Agriculture and AA policy development ??