ECOSYSTEMS PROTECTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES

(EPIC)

A PARTNERSHIP INCEPTION WORKSHOP

BANKGOK, THAILAND 2012

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1. WORKSHOP STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT 5 1.1 Workshop Opening 5 1.2 Introduction 5 1.3 Programme Overview 6 1.4 Workshop Objectives 8

2. ECOSYSTEM-BASED DRR 9

3. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CASE STUDIES 11 3.1 Eco-engineering for Slope Stabilisation, China 11 3.2 Reducing Risk from Landslides and Flash Floods, Nepal 12 3.3 Ecological Mangrove Restoration, Thailand 12 3.4 Strengthening Ecosystem-Based DRR and CCA Strategies that Contribute to Poverty Reduction, Burkina Faso And Senegal 13 3.5 Improving the Protection Capacity of Forests from Snow Avalanches, Chile and Nepal 14 3.6 Conclusions 15

4. INFORMATION NEEDED AND HOW TO GET IT – TOOLS AND APPROACHES 16 4.1 Project Baselines 16 4.2 Tools 17 4.3 Action Learning 18 4.4 EPIC Impact and Elaboration of Workplans 20

5. EPIC PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT 23 5.1 Overview 23 5.2 Project Management 23 5.3 Financial Management and Reporting 24 5.4 Communications 24 5.5 Technical Exchange and Support 25 5.6 Governance Structure 25 5.7 Related Initiatives of Interest 26

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS 27

ANNEXES Annex I – List of Participants Annex II – Workshop Programme Annex III – Format for Case Study Baselines

3

ACRONYMS BMU Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsic (Federal Ministry for

the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) CCA Climate change adaptation DRR Disaster risk reduction EbA Ecosystem-based adaptation EMP Ecosystem Management Programme (of IUCN) EMR Ecological mangrove restoration EPIC Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities Ha hectare HFA Hyogo Framework Agreement IDRC International Disaster and Risk Conference ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MAP Mangrove Action Project NGO non-governmental organisation PEDRR Partnership on the Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction PMT Programme Management Team (of EPIC) VCA Vulnerability and capacity assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Particular thanks are extended to each of the workshop participants for having contributed so eagerly and enthusiastically to making this event one of true information exchange and learning. Sincere thanks are also expressed to Ms Ninni Ikkala Nyman for her expert role in facilitating the event to such a positive outcome.

Participants would also like to extend their thanks to Ms Surapon (IUCN-Asia Regional Office) for her assistance with many administrative details throughout the workshop, to IUCN’s Asia Regional Office and East and Southern Africa Regional Office for ensuring the successful organisation of this event, and to the staff of the Amari Atrium Hotel in Bangkok for their hospitality and assiduous attention in making sure that all logistics were in place for the workshop.

4

EPIC GOAL “Ecosystem services are recognized, promoted and conserved as an integral part of disaster risk reduction policy, planning and programming in the target EPIC countries and in key global processes such as implementation of The Hyogo Framework of Action of UN-ISDR, and the climate change adaption framework of the UNFCCC.”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Awareness in relation to environmental degradation and the increasing scale, impact and occurrence of disasters has finally started to receive increased attention in the past decade. Among the measures that are slowly gaining prominence is the role which healthy and well-managed ecosystems can, could and should play in preventing disasters from occurring or, in some instance instances, in limiting their impacts on society, particularly some of the world’s most vulnerable communities who are most often the worst affected by disasters. Building on earlier collaboration between to demonstrate with empirical evidence the importance of healthy and intact ecosystems on disaster risk reduction, the Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities (EPIC) Project is a new initiative that seeks to apply new research and tailor traditional experiences in this field. With funding from the Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsic (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety), it seeks to both influence practical actions on the ground and guide future policy decisions in relation to climate change and disaster risk reduction. The EPIC Project is based on selected case studies from Burkina Faso and Senegal in West Africa, Chile in South America, and China, Nepal and Thailand in Asia. Each example was selected for the distinct challenges and opportunities identified by the programme partners in terms of measuring how specific ecosystems might contribute to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in specific conditions – economic, environmental and social. This workshop was the first occasion to bring all project partners together to review the current status of ecosystem management, disaster risk responses and other related practical and policy considerations in each country, to exchange experiences and to strategise on how six quite diverse projects could contribute to a common learning framework, designed to draw lessons and best practices for replication elsewhere.

5

1. WORKSHOP STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

1.1 WORKSHOP OPENING A welcome statement was provided by Mr Anshuman Saikia, Regional Programme Support Co-ordinator, IUCN Asia Regional Office. Mr Saikia started by welcoming participants to this Inception Workshop, an event which he said marked the start of an important and potentially very influential process of informing both practitioners and policy-makers of the multiple benefits that ecosystems can play in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The speaker stressed the need for this programme to learn from the variety of tools, approaches and methodologies planned for respective country interventions and activities, underlying the need for both quantitative and qualitative information to inform people of possible best options. Mr Saikia also voiced his hope that this programme would link effectively into other related initiatives both in Thailand as well as the other countries and regions where this work will be carried out. Seeking complementarity and building cohesion between like-minded initiatives will be a major added value which this programme can support on the ground as well as in policy fora.

1.2 INTRODUCTION The direct valuation of many ecosystem goods and services has clearly helped raise recognition of their economic and social worth. Trailing far behind this, however, has been an acknowledgement of the positive contributions which many ecosystems – or a combination of ecosystems – might provide in terms of reducing the scale and impact of certain disasters. Gradually, as more and more people accept that the frequency, scale and impact of disasters are changing worldwide, with predictions for an increase in frequency and intensity of many disasters, awareness and recognition have started to grow in relation to ecosystem-based risk and disaster reduction. The current initiative – Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities (EPIC) – dates from 2008 when ProAct Network published “The Role of Environmental Management and eco-engineering in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)”, one of the first international efforts to quantify the impacts of ecosystems in terms of DRR, and to highlight the multiple roles of healthy ecosystems in DRR and CCA. This report was launched at a special event as part of the 2008 International Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC) in Davos, Switzerland. Many of the current EPIC partners, and workshop participants, contributed to both this report and the event itself. Stemming from this was the commitment of a wider number of partners to continue to work together on this theme and to seek funding to enable the experiences learned from this exercise to be applied in practice. This work was co-ordinated as before by ProAct. In 2010, the IUCN Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP) and ProAct started collaboration to promote the notion of this programme and, more specifically, to seek funding from a number of donors. The German Government (BMU) was the first to respond positively to this initiative, based on which a full proposal was submitted according to BMU selection and financial criteria. The programme was eventually approved in 2012.

6

The programme is based on selected case studies from Burkina Faso and Senegal in West Africa, Chile in South America, and China, Nepal and Thailand in Asia. Each example was selected for the distinct challenges and opportunities identified by the programme partners in terms of measuring how specific ecosystems might contribute to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in specific conditions – economic, environmental and social. Signalling the start of this programme, it was decided to hold an Inception Workshop with all partner organisations. The purpose of this Workshop was to bring the EPIC partners together, to learn about each other’s projects, proposed methodologies and to look for commonalities between the different initiatives. An important element of the workshop was also to clarify roles and responsibilities between different organizations and between the management group and the donor, BMU. It was highlighted that the donor through this – and other separately funded initiatives – wants to see how information on ecosystem management can be captured and shared more widely to enhance learning, effectiveness and impact. Given the diverse nature of the country studies, the challenges being addressed, the methodologies being proposed and the level of resources available in each case, one of goals of the workshop organisers was to try and ensure that all participants in the EPIC programme – currently and in the future – make a concerted effort to think outside of their own technical realm. The current event highlighted just how important this was and significant progress was already made during the workshop in terms of identifying potential technical, logistical and personal and professional synergies in tackling the broad range of issues that will be addressed in the coming years. This report provides an overview of the main discussions from the Inception Workshop, records a number of project-related issues which will help inform future monitoring, indicates where workplans (though still in progress) can be found for each project and provides details on the proposed management structure for the programme.

1.3 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW Following a brief institutional review of both IUCN and ProAct (as programme co-ordinators and managers – the Programme Management Team (PMT), a broad overview was presented on the EPIC programme itself, the broad objective of which is to catalyse improved management of ecosystems to protect communities against disasters, taking into account the additional risks brought about by climate change. In addressing this, specific attention needs to be given to recognised knowledge gaps on the roles of ecosystems and their links with DRR and CCA, specifically:

the roles and effectiveness of intact ecosystems for DRR;

the appropriateness of ecosystems as a means of DRR and CCA given the many other roles and functions they can and do provide for society;

the fact that much available data and knowledge on the role of ecosystems in reducing the risk and scale of a disaster is mainly anecdotal – there is a need for far more quantitative information with which to challenge decision-makers; and

the need for better, clearer and more timely policy guidance.

7

This calls for at least two specific areas of intervention; a)more projects like EPIC to provide further evidence, and enable best practices to be learned; and b) strengthened institutional and community networks and improved co-ordination between all actors and stakeholders, from the community level to policy- and decision-makers. The programme has been broadly designed to take place in two phases, the first focussing on assessing needs, implementing projects and stimulating knowledge gathering, as shown below. Phase I. Knowledge Generation and Acquisition

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER COUNTRY TITLE HAZARD

Swiss Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research (WSL-SLF) IUCN SUR, IUCN Nepal

Switzerland, Chile, Nepal

Quantifying and Improving the Protective Capacity of Forests Against Snow Avalanches

Avalanches

Mangrove Action Project (MAP)

Thailand Demonstrating Ecological Mangrove Restoration (EMR)

Coastal storms and wind storms

French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA)

China Eco-Engineering for Stabilisation of Steep Slopes in Southern China

Landslides

University of Lausanne and IUCN Nepal

Nepal An Operational Framework for Reducing Risk from Landslides and Flash Floods

Landslides and floods

IUCN Regional Programme for West and Central Africa

Burkina Faso, Senegal

Strengthening Local Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in West Africa

Drought, floods, sand storms and locusts

Based on this, and the specific experience of the respective country and regional applications, Phase II will focus on assembling, processing and applying key products for capacity building at the national and international levels. Phase II. Advocacy, Awareness Raising and Capacity Building

PURPOSE PRODUCT TARGET AUDIENCE

Awareness Raising and Advocacy

Scientific publications Scientists and practitioners, donors, development agencies

Flyers, case studies, booklets and web resources

Public, interested students, practitioners, scientists, donors

Presentations at key national and international events

Disaster risk managers, environment managers, development planners, donors, governments

Tools for implementing ecosystem based DRR

A Field Manual for Practitioners

Technical staff in governments, research institutes and NGOs

8

Tools for implementing ecosystem-based DRR

Risk Assessment Methodology

Disaster risk managers, climate change adaptation practitioners, environment managers

Capacity building for policy change

Localised training package for national policy-makers

National and sub-national policy makers and practitioners in environment conservation, disaster management, land/use planning, development, climate change adaptation

The figure below depicts the proposed management structure of this programme. Further details on management and roles and responsibilities are given in Section 5.

1.4 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES This Inception Workshop was conceived for a number of reason, but primarily to allow participants working on EPIC – people representing a range of technical disciplines – to get to know each other and their respective organisations, to learn about the other project components within EPIC, to share information, discuss methods and approaches to ecosystem-based DRR (“eco-DRR”) and to start to develop a platform of common understanding on DRR amongst the programme partners. It was also structured as an opportunity for participating agencies to better understand overall expectations from this initiative and to contribute to the management structure and overall managerial requirements of this programme.

9

As such, the event was designed to serve as an interactive forum for information exchange, presentations on a series of relevant tools and technical approaches and a view to forming and adopting a common learning framework for the entire programme. Participants were reminded that EPIC has three main expected outputs, as follows: • Output 1: One common research and learning framework developed, and five case studies

covering the target countries/regions established and implemented;

• Output 2: Tailored policy messages for seven countries and two international organisations, and one capacity building package developed; and

• Output 3: Seven multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms, comprised of government, NGOs, civil society established in target countries, that use and promote nationally, and provide input into the findings of the project.

Expectations from the workshop were that participants would:

discuss and learn about current component of EPIC and useful tools;

start to develop workplans that address baselines, methods, timelines, training events;

understand and start to devise a common research framework for EPIC, including best practices; and

discuss roles and responsibilities, contractual issues and next steps. Expected outcomes of this Inception Workshop – on the part of the PMT – were the following: • a shared understanding of the current components of EPIC, given that this has been adjusted to

meet donor requirements; • initial workplans with indicative milestones for each project (to be continued after this event); • identified commonalities in approaches (including baselines…), goals, planned use of tools…; • gap analyses conducted at the project and programme levels; • schedule of trainings at national and regional levels; • a start made to elaborating monitoring and evaluation frameworks – project and programme;

started). • an understanding of the Learning Framework outline; and • an agreed set of action points from the workshop.

2. ECOSYSTEM-BASED DRR There is currently no widely accepted definition of eco-DRR. “Sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that reduce disasters risk by mitigating hazards and by increasing livelihood resilience” is the term used most widely by PEDRR. Approaches to and understanding of DRR is, however, both locally- and context-specific. A presentation and discussion on this subject was followed by mixed group work where three questions were posed to each group working in a carousel manner, thereby enabling each group/participant to reflect on each questions. The broad results are presented below as an aide memoire for all workshop participants. Question: What is the role of ecosystems in DRR and CCA?

10

Responses:

They help reduce the three component of risk, i.e., magnitude, frequency and exposure.

They play a protective role against certain hazards which can be cost-effective, especially in the longer term.

Focussing on ecosystems helps highlight their many functions to society, including livelihood support and recovery.

In recognising their many positive attributes better management of ecosystems is encouraged which, in turn, focuses on issues such as governance, health of ecosystems, tenure, inclusion of indigenous institutions and management of the knowledge base.

Some ecosystems help protect other ecosystems. Question: Why do we wish to work on eco-DRR and CCA? Responses:

Impacts on ecosystems = impacts on livelihoods.

Need to look for integrated solutions to DRR and CCA, which includes cost efficiency elements.

This approach helps put people and their welfare clearly in the picture.

Limited information thus far points out many positive and potentially lasting benefits of eco.DRR.

Additional risk factors caused by a changing climate call for multiple responses: traditional engineering approaches alone are not the answer.

There is a gradual changing perspective within DRR and, more specifically, the role of ecosystems with respect to DRR and finding sustainable solutions.

There is a need to influence the humanitarian agenda in respect to the multiple benefits offered to communities in relation to eco-DRR.

Question: What are the opportunities and challenges for adopting an eco-DRR and CCA approach? Opportunities:

Stronger community networks that are better equipped to prepare and respond.

Convincing evidence from the likes of EPIC to influence policy and practices.

Demonstrate concrete values to people and communities, using livelihoods and personal as entry points.

Cross-sectoral linkages between the development, conservation and humanitarian arenas.

They offer complementary solutions: we need solutions now!

Opportunities for new partnerships. Challenges:

Who will champion eco-DRR at government level?

How best to highlight and expand upon the merits of eco-DRR approaches and values to communities?

Communities may not wish to engage in eco-DRR if they see little immediate benefit.

Recognising thresholds and uncertainties in the degree of conservation/protection needed.

Commercial and vested interest in “grey” over “green” infrastructures.

Policies often science-based (how to achieve supportive policies).

Community empowerment v community control: giving community approaches a chance.

Communicate with different audiences, even though there has been a gradually increased recognition of eco-DRR.

11

Uncertainties of climate change.

Getting the broader conservation movement firmly engaged on eco-DRR and CCA.

3. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CASE STUDIES Following the background presentations and discussions above, the next phase of the workshop focused specifically on the national and regional case studies which form the core of the EPIC programme. A short summary of each is presented below. 3.1 ECO-ENGINEERING FOR SLOPE STABILISATION, CHINA Problem Statement: Landslides are common in southern China due to both anthropogenic (roads, dams, mines and intensive agriculture) and natural causes – mountainous landscapes and the monsoon climate which brings heavy rains and destabilizes soil and slopes. Solutions to prevent landslides include:

civil engineering, which at the scales required is difficult and expensive; and/or

reforestation on steep slopes, such as the Chinese government funded “Gain for Green” programme in which vegetation cover was used as an eco-engineering solution. The efficiency of this initiative, however, still needs to be measured.

Study site: The study site is the DaXingDi-Nujiang1 River Valley on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Qinghai plateau. The location is within a designated UNESCO Natural Heritage Site. There are few NGOs working on the ground in this region and there is a generally poor local understanding of DRR. Expected Outcomes:

Quantitative data on the mechanical reinforcement of soil/slopes by vegetation roots. Work will include: 1. characterisation of mechanical soil and root interaction; 2. studies of infiltration and preferential sub-surface flow along slopes; and 3. characterisation of roots system architecture.

DRR aspects to be documented:

slope stability modelling to determine the best mix of species for improving slope stability over time;

rainfall simulations to examine flow paths;

methods and guidelines for DRD measurement and assessment;

decision support system; and

a DRR-related species database. Challenges: Among the challenges foreseen are safe access to the project site (given its proximity with the Tibetan border) and being able to determine and decipher accurate data on the former history of this site. Others include the need to determine the main needs of local farmers and to

1 “Nujiang” means “Salween” in the local dialect

12

develop and deliver appropriate training on eco-DRR which resonates with their needs, and to disseminate information and provide training to students on eco-DRR approaches. 3.2 REDUCING RISK FROM LANDSLIDES AND FLASH FLOODS, NEPAL Problem Statement: Increasing number and scale of landslides and flash floods caused by variable rainfall patterns and road construction. Study Site: The Panchase area in West/Central Nepal. The main beneficiaries are Gurung ethnic groups. This project will place a livelihood focus on food security – high out migration is leading to decreasing farming and poor land/water management. Expected Outcomes are the following:

At the national and eventually regional level, informed and revised national policies on ecosystem management and DRR; and heightened awareness and strengthened institutional capacity to practice and adapt to Eco-DRR approaches.

At the local level: o awareness raising and capacity building on landslides and risk reduction; o research, baselines, and monitoring systems; o bio-engineering activities, including tree nurseries and vegetable production; and o enhanced local water management.

Challenges: A number of challenges are recognised, including:

an unstable political situation;

out-migration is creating feminization in the catchment area;

the willingness of national and local institutions to integrate DRR is uncertain;

linking livelihood components with DRR; and

ensuring adequate project funding to cover objectives and planned activities. Opportunities: At the same time, this project can already identify a number of opportunities, among which are:

building synergies between three broader programmes, namely, projects : EPIC, the BMU-funded ecosystem-based adaptation programme and the SNIS;

opportunities for applying and replicating good practices;

sharing experiences with and among other EPIC case studies; and

a growing national interest in landslide management and DRR approaches to this. 3.3 ECOLOGICAL MANGROVE RESTORATION, THAILAND Problem Statement: Shrimp aquaculture in Asia is the number one cause for the loss of mangroves with some 400,000ha of abandoned shrimp ponds now recorded. Quick fix solutions, such as many of those seen in the post-2004 tsunami fail on account of donors wanting quick results, a lack of interest in sustainability and lack of ownership.

13

Expected Outcomes:

former mangrove habitat restored using EMR which will demonstrate the appropriate and cost-effectiveness of this technique for eco-DRR;

local and national appreciation heightened for the DRR values of intact mangrove and other associated coastal ecosystems;

benefits to local participating communities in terms of ecosystem services from restoring and restored mangroves;

awareness raised amongst other NGOs who have the potential to replicate and scale up EMR in Thailand and elsewhere in the region;

lessons learned, including methodologies documented, for application elsewhere; and

revised government policies with regards the future use of abandoned shrimp farms. Challenges:

Locating good demonstration sites.

Land tenure of former shrimp farms is often unclear and can be difficult to decipher.

DMCR plan to give legal lands deeds to encroachers of 72,000ha of mangroves.

Recent price increases for shrimp and palm oil (some former farms are now being planted with oil palm).

Opportunities: This project has the potential to:

build on former initiatives such as the Raks Thai (CARE Thailand) project “Building coastal resilience to reduce Climate Change impact in Thailand and Indonesia”;

build on local, national and regional interest in the potentially protective values of mangroves and other coastal ecosystems post tsunami;

further demonstrate how and why EMR is the best practice for restoring former mangroves;

engage in a positive manner with local people and communities;

change government approach away from planting monoculture plantations; and

build local, national and regional partnerships that can further develop, apply and sustain eco-DRR from a mangrove and coastal forest perspective.

3.4 STRENGTHENING ECOSYSTEM-BASED DRR AND CCA STRATEGIES THAT CONTRIBUTE

TO POVERTY REDUCTION, BURKINA FASO AND SENEGAL Problem Statement: Recurrent extreme events – droughts, floods, dust and high temperatures and swarms of locusts combine with diminishing agricultural space (urban expansion, soil salinity and aridity) and declining and erratic rainfall are resulting in increased poverty and loss of livelihood options in many West African countries.

The overall goal of the project is to diversify and strengthen national and regional actors and their

strategies involved in the prevention and adaptation to climate change impacts on livelihoods and

natural resources in two countries of West Africa. This project seeks to integrate Climate Change

Adaptation (CCA) into poverty reduction policies in West Africa by inter alia raising awareness among

decision-makers and strengthening and mobilising civil society capacity.

Expected Outcomes:

Effects of climate change and associated strategies assessed and documented.

Demonstration of best strategies.

14

Stakeholders trained on CCA tools, approaches and dialogue.

Stakeholders aware of the best adaptation strategies. Challenges: Three main challenges are identified, all of which are to some degree interlinked:

the poor economic context within the two countries and the region as a whole;

the security situation; and

the lack of understanding and capacity to respond to DRR in much of the region, an aspects that translates into needed practical actions as well as informed policy decisions.

Opportunities: • Enhancing ecosystem-based DRR based on the results of ongoing projects. • Strengthen partnership with national bodies and other NGOs on the ground. • Expand regionally with ongoing initiatives. 3.5 IMPROVING THE PROTECTION CAPACITY OF FORESTS FROM SNOW AVALANCHES,

CHILE AND NEPAL Problem Statement: Forests – and the protective roles and functions which many provide – are often destroyed by large avalanches, leaving downstream communities and infrastructure exposed and more vulnerable to hazards. Based on simulations and field surveys, we can:

understand the protective role of forests against avalanches and other natural hazards in specific mountain regions;

quantify the risk reduction effects of specific forest ecosystems;

quantify the protective effect of forests; and

provide decision support on land-use planning and forest management. Knowledge on forest avalanche interactions and methods is already well established for the Alps: this project will transfer this experience to situations in comparable mountainous regions in Chile and Nepal. Expected Outcomes:

Heightened awareness of the protective role of forests from social, economic and environmental perspectives, based on research and modelling at selected representative sites.

Better understanding of natural disturbance.

Model validation and improvement.

Risk analysis and recommendations for DRR and CCA.

Long-term implementation and publications. Challenges:

Shift from well-known research to new case studies in Chile and Nepal. In Chile, this project starts from zero whereas more work has already taken place in Nepal.

Establishing regional networks.

Dealing with different data sources.

Determining and documenting the effects of natural or anthropogenic disturbance.

15

Opportunities:

Applying similar approaches to other sites.

Give valuable input to other DRR and CCA projects. In the Chile project, the involvement and buy-in of the Environmental Minister, Forestry Research Institute (INFOR), the Universidad de Valdivia and the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (Argentina) is seen as both a challenge and opportunity. 3.6 CONCLUSIONS Following the above presentations, an analysis was conducted of shared areas of interest and potential collaboration and opportunities that might exist. As a final output from this working session, a summary of key points was made which is again included here as an aide memoire for participants. Tools

Some case studies have identified or will need very specific tools for modelling and risk mapping, but these are not common to each.

All case studies should maximise the use of participatory engagement tools with communities and other stakeholders.

The programme has established a Dropbox to facilitate access to tools and other resources (www.dropbox.com): login details have already been shared with workshop participants.

Community Engagement

In all case studies, this is essential for contextualisation, engagement, sustainability and learning.

It also allows for ownership and traditional knowledge sharing.

Importance of communication and dialogues.

Livelihoods as entry points. Stakeholder Engagement

Local institutions.

Land owners and users.

Governments.

Thematic/regional/national networks.

Research institutions (for capacity building).

Private sector.

Media (local). Policy and Practice Products and Guidance

Raise awareness by media and communication.

Clarity of rights tenure.

Make the case at different levels (economic, environmental and DRR – local and national).

Involve governments at different levels. Challenges

Translate results and outcomes for practitioners and government.

16

Poor understanding of DRR and CCA.

Link livelihoods with DRR and CCA.

Maladapted policies.

Communities don’t prioritise DRR.

Help needed to scale-up DRR knowledge.

4. INFORMATION NEEDED AND HOW TO GET IT – TOOLS AND APPROACHES The objectives of this session were to look at some of the information required for project management and monitoring (e.g. baseline assessments of each study area), to learn about existing tools relevant for ecosystem-based DRR and CCA, to identify some additional tools which might be useful within certain contexts of this programme and to highlight opportunities for cross-learning.

4.1 PROJECT BASELINES For the purpose of this programme a baseline is being described as “a set of data describing specific conditions in a given situation, within a prescribed area and at a specific time”. Baselines are essential for future monitoring and evaluating: without good baseline data we will not be able to determine the impacts of this programme for society or the environment. A baseline is also important when framing and selecting indicators, particularly in relation to setting parameters and expectations for respective projects.

For EPIC, physical measurements of interventions and impacts are important to help allow quantitative evidence to be assembled on DRR, but on a programmatic level information should also be forthcoming to contribute to:

research standards and approaches – for EPIC’s common research framework; and

peoples’ understanding and appreciation – for EPIC’s common learning framework. Some key issues to consider when establishing project baselines are:

project context and the present time;

different level of data are required, e.g. at the community and policy levels;

scale of intervention – obtain GPS co-ordinates and geo-referenced photos wherever possible;

the main ecosystems represented;

past history of disasters and future DRR predictions;

external influences which could impact this programme;

WHAT MIGHT BE IN A BASELINE? • Context and time (year/season) specific.

• Different levels of data required – community, policy….

• Should included:

– scale (e.g. m2

or km2

) of intervention (GPS co-

ordinates; geo-referenced photos…);

– main ecosystems represented;

– history and DRR predictions/actions;

– external influences;

– number of people likely affected;

• Existing conditions on the ground – facts and figures.

• Previous baselines?

• Ownership clarification – current, future, e.g. Thailand,

China.

• Policies – pro and against, e.g., China tree planting.

• Risks and assumptions.

• Other…

17

the number of people likely to be affected by this programme;

what is currently taking place in term of ecosystem management and DRR at your project site?

how and why is the site vulnerable to DRR and CC?

how can EPIC activities reduce this vulnerability? ACTION: Partners to conduct new or update existing baselines using Annex III as a basic template.

4.2 TOOLS A wide, and growing, range of tools are now available that could be of assistance to all EPIC partners at various stages of the respective programmes. Participants were encouraged to review these in more detail following the workshop and to see how some might be applied for specific assignments, e.g. vulnerability assessments, baseline assessments, social needs assessments, as well as with monitoring and evaluations. 4.2.1 Participatory Tools Recognition was given to the fact that there are many tools and toolkits which could be applied to various stages of each of the EPIC projects, including a suite of participatory tools such as vulnerability capacity assessments and risk mapping, in addition to the many participatory rural assessment tools available.

Participatory tools are singled out for particular relevance to EPIC and its partners as they:

• provide “external” people with a snapshot of a community and a quick in-depth understanding of

key issues and capacities/resources; and, in addition

• help prioritise actions, partnerships and target resources more effectively.

What is important in this process is not the tool, but the approach used in any given project. Some important aspects to retain are the following:

The objectives of engaging a community need to be clear from the outset.

There is a need to define the “can” and “can not” of the project.

Multi-disciplinary team can be useful in interpreting results.

Good facilitation is a must – consider issues of sensitivity, trust and humility.

Knowledge of CCA/DRR is required as well as the ability to convert this into simple local terminologies.

If necessary, adapt the tool to the community situation. 4.2.2 Environmental Economics Analysis Economic analysis of environmental aspects lend additional to most projects as they help: • estimate the “values” of environmental goods and services that are not priced and/or are

imperfectly priced by the market; • determine if the benefits exceed the costs of a policy or investment project – often in a benefit-

cost analysis framework; • estimate the costs of present environmental damages (e.g. pollution effects on health) or future,

potential environmental damage (e.g. climate change); and • identify market and policy failures and propose solutions to these problems.

18

Economic valuations should take both the use and non-use value of the ecosystem into account, including:

provisioning services – food, medicines and pharmaceuticals, ornamental resources and building materials;

regulating services such as erosion control and shoreline protection;

cultural services, which might include spiritual values, knowledge systems and educational values, and recreation and ecotourism; and

supporting services such as sand production and primary production. 4.2.3 Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability and capacity assessments (VCAs) use participatory tools to gauge people’s exposure to and capacity to resist natural hazards. This is an integral part of disaster preparedness and contributes to the creation of community-based disaster preparedness programmes at the rural and urban grass-roots level. VCA enables local priorities to be identified, available local capacities to be recognised and appropriate action taken to reduce disaster risk and assists in the design and development of programmes that are mutually supportive and responsive to the needs of the people most closely concerned. Potential tools to help with this are:

data collection on aspects such as building surveys, household surveys and expert interviews;

indicator development;

modelling;

GIS; and

vulnerability mapping – at least part of which should be participatory in nature. Two such tools are as follows (others will be placed on the EPIC project dropbox – see below – in due course):

Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment developed by the IFRC: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/vca/vca-toolbox-en.pdf

Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis developed by CARE International: http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf

Both tools are available on line from these links in English, French and Spanish.

4.3 ACTION LEARNING Action Learning can be defined as “a process in which a group of people with a shared issue of

concern collaboratively, systematically and deliberately plan, implement and evaluate actions. Action

learning combines action and investigation. Investigation informs action and people learn from

critical reflection on action”.

Action learning is suitable when: • a problem is complex and the situation may be changing;

• people may not know where to start or where to go next;

19

• there is a concern shared by a group of people involved in action learning;

• there is need for a common vision, which involves people with differing perspectives; and

• group members agree there is a need for change, but do not necessarily agree what that change

should be or how to bring it about.

Some basic questions that might help advance a common learning framework for EPIC could be: 1. How do eco-DRR options compare – from an environmental, social and economic perspective –

with alternative options, and why? 2. How do eco-DRR options benefit the poor and those most affected by climate change when

compared to other options, and why? 3. What are the economic costs and benefits of eco-DRR as compared with alternative DRR

options? 4. To what extent and how is eco-DRR supported in and influenced by policy at local, national and

regional levels, and how can this be improved? Based on a template trialled for related ecosystem-based adaptation work, participants were asked to complete a trial action learning for their respective projects, the results of which are summarised in the questions below. 1. Which tools, especially participatory, are the best to use for different aspects of DRR (and

linkages to CCA) and why (based on learning from use in EPIC)? 2. What are the best species, management approaches, and methods to use for different DRR

scenarios (restoration, stabilisation etc.)? Why based on our implementation and how does this contribute to improved ecosystem management?

3. How do people manage the land/water are present – and does this contribute to enhanced or reduced ability to reduce the effects or impacts of a disaster?

4. What ecosystem services will reduce risks in my project site? 5. How is our DRR work relevant to the people we are working with – improved livelihoods,

importance of co-benefits (markets, products, new techniques)? 6. What are the causal linkages and relations between DRR/CCA and how can we optimize on them

(for example CO2 emissions/sequestration)? 7. What tools and approaches can we put in place to understand vulnerability and how

vulnerabilities and risks are being reduced over the life of the project 8. What are the best approaches we can use to inform and influence, based on our work and

results, at the policy level (local, national, regional, global) that takes into account very different sectors?

9. What are the most cost effective options for DRR (and CCA) and why? 10. What lessons from our implementation can we learn that makes our work different from

business as usual, why? 11. How can we best manage and handle “illegal” pressures , interests, contacts, influences who may

have more power than us? 12. How does climate change accelerate or reduce the risk of disasters, why and what evidence do

we have? 13. What aspects of local knowledge (and institutions) are available that we can use and learn from

in our DRR work? Why?

20

4.4 EPIC IMPACT AND ELABORATION OF WORKPLANS The anticipated outcome of EPIC is that ecosystem services are recognised, promoted and conserved

as an integral part of disaster risk reduction policy, planning and programming in the six target

countries and in key global processes such as implementation of The Hyogo Framework of Action of

UN-ISDR, the UNFCCC policy process and the post-2015 revised Millennium Development Goals.

Associated outcome indicators are shown below.

EPIC Outcome Indicators

At least 4 target countries allocate, from national or ODA sources, (or apply for ODA resources) to promote and implement ecosystem based DRR by the end of the project

The UN ISDR Global Platforms 2013 and 2015 include at least 3 advocacy events on ecosystem services for DRR based on the results of this project, that strengthen UN ISDR’s commitment to ecosystems services for DRR

The Climate Change Adaptation Framework of UNFCCC recognizes the importance of ecosystem based DRR as a core component of adaptation.

government yearly budgets and plans; donor records in each country of applications for and actual funding.

ISDR (2013, 2015) Platform plans and reports, and of events; reference to Ecosystem based DRR in closing plenary, and in ISDR formal report.

References made to ecosystem based DRR in, especially the Nairobi work programme, Loss and Damage

programmes, country reports to COP from EPIC participating countries. In keeping with this the programme has three overarching outputs, each of which has associated indicators, as described in the programme document: • Output 1: One common research framework and five case studies covering the target countries

established and implemented • Output 2: Tailored policy messages for six countries and two international organizations and one

capacity building package developed • Output 3: Six multi-stakeholder platforms, comprised of government, NGOs, civil society

established in target countries The figure below summarises the anticipated flow of development and impacts for this programme.

21

Working together for EPIC

Ecosystem services are recognised, promoted and conserved as an integral part of disaster risk reduction policy, planning and programming in the 6 target countries and in key global processes

Common research framework and five

case studies established and

implemented

Tailored policy messages for 6

countries & 2 int’l orgs and one capacity building package

6 Multi-stakeholder platforms, comprised

of government, NGOs, civil society

established

NEPALNEPAL &CHILE THAI CHINA SEN&BF

Activities Activities Activities Activities Activities

OUTCOME

OUTPUTS

Applying this overarching guidance to the respective country projects the following notes are included from group work as an aide memoire for advancing and monitoring the programme as part of the to-be-revised workplans. China The main research activities will likely focus on soils, roots, water modelling and local training. Links will be established on undertaking a vulnerability assessment similar to that planned for Nepal. The following questions/concerns need to be addressed:

preparation will begin for the China Inception Workshop early 2013, with clearer definition of budgets and invitees. Assistance may be requested from IUCN-China and ADPC for advice on how best this event might be organized.

a valuation or cost/benefit analysis would be usefully for the project, particularly if this can also take into account the social elements of this situation. Greater interaction now needs to commence with local communities and should include a gender analysis.

Thailand Anticipated main activities are to first identify Ecological Mangrove Restoration (EMR) demonstration sites which have clear tenure and access as well as will local partners. Establishment of management plans for the selected sites will require various technical – support and restoration monitoring. Particular attention will be given to improving biodiversity in the longer term, improving livelihoods and providing EMR training for students and field workers, all with a distinct angle of eco-DRR application.

22

The following questions and issues will be addressed:

Which social data are going to be the most relevant? What tools are available for the required assessments and trainings? Which local NGOs and government authorities need to be approached/engaged? What is the best modality of working with the anticipated communities?

Further consideration needs to be given as to how to measure project impacts in a 3-4 year period. The following will be taken into account:

o measure changes in communities even if not much mangrove has yet been restored; o a biodiversity analysis should be feasible after two years; and o focus on capacity building instead of the impact on DRR which is not easily measurable.

Stakeholders’ analysis: how much detail is required? This should be done in as much detail as possible as even in a single community you find many different interest groups. The project needs to know “who is doing what”, as part of the baseline. This stakeholder analysis needs to be updated consistently during the project.

Nepal Planned activities include:

capacity building: combining inception workshop + PEDRR + landslides issues at the national and local level;

bio-engineering studies based on local techniques: community-based in collaboration with CFUGS and Tribuhuvan University;

research on bio-engineering best practices;

water management activities;

research on high mountain areas with particular focus on avalanches; and

Documenting and publishing findings. Some of the main issues highlighted include:

the actual duration of this project in relation to the budget given that it was initially a three year initiative, now extended to four. The longer time span, however, should allow for more reliable bio-engineering results;

packaging EPIC, considering the political situation and site selection;

training of trainers for PEDRR training? o everybody involved at the local level should be trained (EPIC team); o some trainings coming out in certain countries; and o the possibility for EPIC sub-level (local) trainings;

ensuring good communications between the different partner elements in this, and related work under EPIC.

Chile Research activities will be split between field work, analysis and modelling. The inception workshop will likely not happen early 2013 on account of the need for broader consultation with potential partners, site selection and basic background research. From a managerial perspective it would be advantageous if funds could be advanced from 2016-2017 to 2013-2014 because of the need for fieldwork and modelling.

23

West Africa Burkina Faso and Senegal are already working together for CCA and poverty reduction so there is prior contact with communities, some tools have been developed/adapted to help communities adapt to climate change and some related activities are well advanced. What needs to be done however, is to:

influence different levels of society and administration at local, national and regional on DRR and CCA;

identify and make/strengthen links between local and global activities and objectives, e.g. EPIC risk mapping;

scale up existing knowledge to a regional level; and

develop and support policy briefs at different levels. Influencing so many different actors is going to be a challenge and the expected level of influence will primarily depend on who is interested in this subject matter. IUCN is already a member of those responsible for revising local planning and key policies which is an important platform for change. The problem of language was also highlighted, as this leads to limited access to materials. Assistance and resources should be available within the programme to assist with this.

5. EPIC PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

5.1 OVERVIEW This programme offers considerable potential for learning, adapting tools, consensus building and influencing policies and practices at a range of levels. Two key points which all partners were requested to continuously bear in mind were the relevance of actions to DRR and the need to extract quantitative results from activities wherever possible. There was a strong consensus that all partners want to see this programme as a true partnership initiative in which we all work together around the theme of eco-DRR and CCA. This is expected to manifest itself further once further planning has taken place and once implementation begins, primarily through identification of commonalities, skills exchanges, cross learning and mutual technical support and advice. Partners were again reminded that what now constitutes the present programme is hopefully the start of a broader EPIC programme on Eco-DRR as other project proposals have already been prepared for which funding will eventually be sought through the same management structure, in that way building on this initial experience and enriching the overall learning from these approaches. Individual partners should also consider their own opportunities of now leveraging addition funds through their respective donor links to augment current work, though this is not a requirement of the BMU agreement.

5.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Programme management and oversight is to be shared between IUCN and ProAct who, together constitute the Programme Management Team (PMT). IUCN, however, as signatory of the BMU agreement will have overall legal and financial responsibility for this programme. It will also be solely

24

responsible for sub-contracting each non-IUCN partner and issuing Internal Agreements with relevant IUCN offices by the end of October 2012. Updated workplans for each case study need to be prepared as part of the respective contracts and agreements, ideally with as much detail as possible for the period 2013-2014. These will be shared through the project dropbox. In terms of co-ordination, the following should be noted:

ProAct and IUCN will follow-up and support projects and partners at national level through technical assistance, identifying linkages, sharing experiences and learning. Partners, however, should not hesitate in asking the respective persons within IUCN or ProAct for specific assistance or clarity on any management or technical issue. If we don’t have the answers, we’ll try and find them!

ProAct will lead in support for China, Nepal and Thailand, while IUCN will support the projects in Chile and West Africa and share the lead with ProAct on Nepal .

Partners are encouraged to join IUCN’s Commission on Ecosystem Management if they are not already represented here.

Each EPIC project has provisions to organise a national DRR platform: additional support can be requested from both IUCN and ProAct in organising and running such events. The intention here though is that national partners take the lead.

All partners are actively encouraged to profile EPIC at major regional and international events (UNFCCC, GPDRR, CSD, Davos…). A calendar of such events can be added to the forthcoming website (see below).

5.3 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING The workshop recognized that the project officially started on 1 September 2012 and is scheduled to end on 30 August 2017. IUCN is currently negotiating the schedule for funding release, hoping that this can be on a six monthly basis instead of the current two month condition. According to reporting requirements, annual financial and narrative reports must be submitted by IUCN before 30 April each year, which requires all partners to have completed and submitted their reports by end February for IUCN to then compile into one consolidated version. Templates for reporting will be distributed ahead of time by IUCN. Action: IUCN-EMP. A mid-term programme report is expected in and all final reporting should be submitted by end February 2018.

5.4 COMMUNICATIONS Ensuring and maintaining good communications is central to the success of EPIC. With this in mind, it was agreed that the following steps/actions be taken as soon as possible to start building EPIC’s community of practice:

Dropbox system established to share tools and documentation (see below).

An e-mail list to exchange information. A new version is in use post-workshop: partners are asked to please check this and send any comments or changes to the Programme Management Team asap. Partners are also encouraged to think about who to copy on e-mail correspondence to avoid overload.

25

Regular teleconference calls with an agreed schedule: minutes of each meeting to be shared to the full mailing list.

A list of key terms has been posted on the EPIC Dropbox. ACTION: IUCN EMP to initiate process.

A website will be established and maintained by ProAct: all partners are actively encouraged to contribute to this.

ACTION: ProAct, and subsequently each partner for links.

A short brochure will also be established for promotional and publicity purposes. ACTION: ProAct to draft. IUCN-ESARO to assist with layout, printing and shipping to partners. Note: It was decided that Facebook and blogs would not be used for EPIC, at least for the moment, given that these may be difficult to access in certain countries.

Mission reports should be compiled by all partners undertaking support, review or exchange mission to other EPIC sites, and subsequently shared, as appropriate.

5.5 TECHNICAL EXCHANGE AND SUPPORT Additional support is available to all EPIC partners for the duration of this programme, as follows:

IUCN-EMP and ProAct technical (e.g. baseline assessments) and administrative assistance;

IUCN regional and national technical assistance, especially where this proves more practical than the above;

PEDRR training opportunities, and the use of materials already available for partners to modify and apply;

overall administration and financial support; and

the 2015 mid-term project review and reporting. The importance of using existing and identifying potential linkages with EPIC should be consistently considered. Examples include BMU’s ongoing initiatives in terms of ecosystem-based adaptation (in Nepal, for example), Mangroves for the Future and MESCAL, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, and so forth.

5.6 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Two informal structures were proposed: A Steering Group be established with one representative from each of the six initiatives, plus a representative from ProAct, IUCN-EMP and IUCN regional offices, where the latter are not a direct part of this programme. The intention is for this Group (or as many representatives as is possible) to have separate face-to-face meetings where possible on the occasion of other international meetings and conferences. These would be supplemented by regular, pre-scheduled teleconferences. Minutes of each such meeting would be circulated to the main EPIC contact points on the main mailing list.

26

The Steering Group should, however, meet at least once each year. A possible occasion for 2013 is the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva from 19-23 May. A Global Oversight Advisory Group, the purpose of which is to lend external technical credibility as well as input to the programme. Invited experts could, for example, be drawn from the BMU, ISDP, PEDRR, ADPC and the Global Network for Civil Society and DRR. This group could also be formulated around the 2013 Global Platform for convenience and consistency. Specific Terms of Reference should be drawn up for this group, which would be circulate to all partners for comment. ACTION: ProAct and IUCN to draft and circulate to partners. 5.8 RELATED INITIATIVES OF INTEREST

Formally established in 2008, the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR) is a global alliance of UN agencies, NGOs and specialist institutes. As a global thematic platform of the ISDR, PEDRR seeks to promote and scale-up implementation of eco-DRR and ensure it is mainstreamed in development planning at global, national and local levels, in line with the Hyogo Framework for Action. It provides technical and science-based expertise and applies best practices in ecosystems-based DRR approaches. PEDRR is guided by its vision of: “Resilient communities as a result of improved ecosystem management for DRR and CCA”. Its objective is to pool expertise and advocate for policy change and best practice in ecosystem management for DRR and CCA, based on science and practitioners experiences. PEDRR currently has 14 member organisations who collaborate to work on DRR at the international level. In order to support vulnerable countries in addressing these challenges, the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR) has designed a Training Course on Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction for Sustainable Development aimed at strengthening resilience at national and local levels. The objective of the course is to promote and catalyse institutional change towards integrating ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction into development planning at national and sub-national levels. PEDRR training events work with local experts to deliver the training. This material is available to all EPIC partners (www.pedrr.net) and is adaptable to national or sub-national levels. It is anticipated that some of these materials will support EPIC partners during their respective national inception workshops. Partnering with PEDRR and integrating EPIC outputs and outcomes into future PEDRR training and advocacy events has been regarded as an important component of EPIC from its initiation. The expertise and linkages which EPIC and PEDRR partners have are expected to result in close working relations and strengthened cohesion between all involves organisations during the timeframe of this programme.

27

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS Prior to closing, participants were asked to complete a short evaluation of the Inception Workshop. The results of this valued feedback are shown below. Participants wee overall very pleased with the entire event, due in large – from the organisers’ points of view – to the openness and willingness of all participants to actively engage in exploring how synergies might be created for the common good of this initiative..

Following this, participants and the organisers were thanked once again for the open and constructive manner in which the workshop had been concluded, a sign which shows much promise for continued exchange of ideas and expertise across the projects and across the continents.

28

29

ANNEX I – WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Doris Cordero, IUCN SUR (doris.cordero@iucn.org)

Peter Bebi, SLF Switzerland (bebi@slf.ch)

Rajendra Khanal, IUCN Nepal (rajendra.khanal@iucn.org)

Anu Adhikari, IUCN Nepal (anu.adhikari@iucn.org)

Jim Enright, MAP Asia (mapasia@loxinfo.co.th)

Jaruwan Kaewmahanin (Ning), MAP Asia (map.seasia@gmail.com)

Alba Saray Pérez Terán, MAP Asia (albasaray@gmail.com)

John Kim, INRA France (john.kim@cirad.fr)

Don Picker, INRA France (don.picker@atptree.com)

Karen Sudmeier, University of Lausanne Switzerland (karen.sudmeier@gmail.com)

Jean-Marc Garreau, IUCN PACO (jean-marc.garreau@iucn.org)

Sylvain Zabre, IUCN PACO (sylvain.zabre@iucn.org)

Balle Seye, IUCN PACO, (balle.seye@iucn.org)

Ali Raza Rizvi, IUCN ARO (Ali.raza@iucn.org)

Annita Annies, IUCN (Annita.annies@iucn.org)

Naoya Furuta, IUCN (Naoya.furuta@iucn.org)

Anshuman Saikia, IUCN ARO (anshuman.ssikia@iucn.org)

Rowan Fraser, ADPC Thailand (rowan@adpc.net)

Ed Barrow, IUCN ESARO (edmund.barow@iucn.org)

Radhika Murti, IUCN Gland, (Radhika.murti@iucn.org)

Kaia Boe, IUCN Gland, (Kaia.boe@iucn.org)

Camille Buyck, IUCN Gland, (camille.buyck@iucn.org)

Ninni Ikkala Nyman, Facilitator, (ninni.ikkala@hotmail.com)

Katiuscia Fara, ProAct Network (katiuscia.fara@proactnetwork.org)

David Stone, ProAct Network (david.stone@proactnetwork.org)

30

ANNEX II – WORKSHOP PORGRAMME

TUESDAY 18 SEPTEMBER

TIME ACTIVITY Format Who

SESSION 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

09.00 – 10.30

0900 Welcome Statement Speech IUCN ARO

0910 Background of project Speech Ed

0915 Introduction to EPIC project Powerpoint Radhika

0935 Participant introductions – institutional and personal

Activity Facilitation – Ninni

1005 Purpose of meeting - Introduction of meeting objectives

and desired outputs

PowerPoint Objectives: David Outputs: Ed

1025 Other matters Ninni Kaia Siriporn

10.30 BREAK

11.00 – 12.30

Brainstorm on ecosystem-based DRR (eco-DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) Objective of the session: Reach a common understanding on “what is eco-DRR” and CCA Output: 4-5 bullets/ key attributes on what eco-DRR means in the context of this project

Introduction to eco-DRR 10 min.

Carousel

Split into 3 groups (birthday: Jan- Apr; May-Aug; Sept-Dec)

Three tables with flipcharts are set up, each with a facilitator and 1 key question. The groups are given a specific color of pens.

Groups rotate from one table to the next, spending 10 min at each. After each rotation, the facilitator introduces where the last group got to, and the next group builds on this work. (30 min)

At the end, the facilitators provide

Carousel Facilitation – Ninni A facilitator/ rapporteur for each group: Radhika, David, Katiuscia Overall rapporteur to capture 4-5 key bullets: Ed

31

feedback to plenary (15min)

Summary on agreed 4-5 bullets (written by rapporteur onto color cards) and discussion (15 min)

12.30. – 13.30.

LUNCH

13.30 -17.00

Objective of the session: To learn about project case studies and organizations; identify commonalities and opportunities for learning and sharing across case studies Output: A summary of commonalities and opportunities for learning and sharing

Each case study team prepares a powerpoint presentation (5 x 15 min = 1h15)

Q&A

Energisers During country presentations, team of 5 capture commonalities and opportunities for:

Tools and approaches: Radhika

Community engagement: Katiuscia

Stakeholder engagement: Kaia

Policy and practice products and guidance: Ed

Challenges: David

PowerPoint presentations Energisers Discussion in plenary Cards to capture commonalities and opportunities

Kaia - Introduction Presentations by: - Chile: SLF + IUCN SUR - China: CIRAD - Nepal: IUCN Nepal and UNIL - Thailand: MAP - West Africa: IUCN PACO

1330 Overview and expectations

1340 China Presentation John Kim

1355 Q&A / activity Energiser Ninni

1410 Nepal Presentation Karen, Rajendra, Anu

1425 Q&A / activity (?)

1440 Thailand Presentation Alba

1455 Q&A

15.00 BREAK

15.30 West Africa

Presentation Sylvain and Balle

15.45 Q&A / activity

1600 Chile/Nepal Presentation Peter and Doris

1615 Q&A

1620 Discussion David, Ed,

32

Presentation on commonalities and opportunities on the wall

Discussion

Radhika, Kaia, Katiuscia

1650 Review of Day I and Look Forward to Day 2 Programme

Words Ninni

1700 Day I Closure

1830 - 2200 Dinner

WEDNESDAY 19 SEPTEMBER

SESSION IV PROJECT BASELINES

0900 Review of previous day’s presentations and recommendations; Clarification on issues arising

09.30 Project Baselines Objective of the session: To have country teams reflect on the current baselines at their project sites and consider how to develop EPIC project baselines Output of session: an understanding of how to establish project site baselines

Presentation on baselines (10 min) + Q&A (5 min.)

Split into country groups (incl. regional and global) to work through key questions (TBD)

Prepare a flipchart presentation summarising the case for their country case study baseline (40min)

Feedback from country groups – walk around gallery to flipcharts (30min)

Group work Flipchart posters Plenary discussion Facilitator/ Rapporteur from each country group

David

11.00 BREAK

SESSION V. TOOLS

1130 - 1230

Objective of session: Learn about existing tools relevant for ecosystem-based DRR; identify what tools to use within the context of the project and opportunities for cross-learning PowerPoint summarising tools presented in

Presentation Group work

Radhika

33

Session 2, Day 1 and introducing any new tools (10 min) + Q&A (5min) Split groups through life boat activity – 5 min OR alphabetically Mixed groups to discuss key questions (25min):

What do we need tools for?

Which tools add value to the EPIC project? Which don’t?

Are there opportunities for cross-learning on tools?

Discussion and conclusions (15 min)

12.30 LUNCH

SESSION VI. COMMON LEARNING

1330 Objective of session: Establish a Learning Framework for EPIC Session output: Draft learning questions and actions points for next steps

Presentation PART 1 (10min)

Q&A (5min)

Participants work individually to reply to work sheet 1 (10min)

Presentation PART 2 (10 min)

Participants are split by country into working groups to discuss how they could apply action learning questions to their own projects (30 min)

Feedback and discussion (20 min)

Presentation Group work

Ed Rapporteur

1500 BREAK

SESSION VII. ELABORATION OF WORK PLANS

1530 Objective of session: Review existing activities and indicators as per project document; assess need for changes; start planning for first 2 years of project (Sept 2012 – Dec 2014) Output of session: Draft revision of activities, indicators and timelines; roadmap for finishing draft:

Presentation on planning and M&E (10 min)

Presentation Group work

David; Radhika; Kaia presentation Facilitators: David, Ed, Radhika, Kaia, Ali Facilitation:

34

Q&A (5min)

Presentation of project outcomes/goals and outputs (5 min)

Country working groups

Participants are split into 5 case studies, with one support person per group

Activity 1: brainstorm on how will you, at your project site, achieve the set project outputs? (30 min)

Feedback from countries (20min)

Ninni Rapporteur

1650 Review of Day 2 and Look Forward to Day 3 Programme

Ninni

1700 Day 2 Closure

THURSDAY 20 SEPTEMBER

SESSION VII. ELABORATION OF WORKPLAN YEAR I AND BEYOND (continued)

0900 Review of previous day’s presentations and recommendations; Clarification on issues arising

0930 Continue in country working groups Activity 2 (2 hours)

Work through each set of Output activities and indicators, revising both i) global activities; ii) country specific activities (if possible)

Set a timeline for activities

Write revised activities/indicators down electronically.

Group work Presentations Plenary discussion

Facilitators: David, Ed, Radhika, Kaia, Ali

11.00 BREAK (can continue work during break if needed)

11.30 Part 2. Monitoring: Baselines and indicators; timelines for M&E (continued)

Continue group work (20min)

Country feedback - presentations (30 min)

Conclusion

Agreement on a roadmap for revising indicators (10 min)

35

1230 LUNCH

SESSION VIII. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1330 Objective of session: Discuss and agree on a project management structure, reporting, roles and responsibilities Output of session: Road map for project management:

Presentation of options for project management (20 min)

Discussion on different approaches (30min)

Agreement on roles and responsibilities in management structure and implementation arrangements (20 min)

Presentation Plenary discussion

IUCN and ProAct – David and Ed

1500 BREAK

SESSION IX. OTHER INITIATIVES OF POTENTIAL INTEREST

1530 PEDRR Overview Objective of session: introduce PEDRR and Mountain EbA and how it links to the EPIC project

2 presentations, 10 min each

Q&A

PowerPoint and discussion

Radhika Ed

SESSION X. CLOSURE AND NEXT STEPS

1600 Objective of session: agree on next steps, roles and responsibilities

1. Overview summarising conclusions from each session and agreement on next steps – including roles and responsibilities and timelines (40 min)

2. Closing words (10 min)

3. Evaluation (10 min)

PowerPoint Discussion

Ninni Facilitation – Ninni David

1700 WORKSHOP CLOSURE

36

ANNEX III – FORMAT FOR CASE STUDY BASELINES

Baseline for EPIC Project

A baseline assessment provides information on the situation the project aims to change. It provides a critical reference point for assessing changes and impact, as it establishes a basis for comparing the situation before and after an intervention, and for making inferences as to the effectiveness of the project. Baseline assessments should be conducted before project intervention starts so as to serve as a benchmark for examining what change is triggered by the intervention. A baseline assessment is a crucial element in any monitoring and evaluation framework.

The type of data to be included in the baseline depends on the goals of the project, the theory of change underlying the project, and the change indicators that are defined in the monitoring and evaluation framework. Baseline information should be carried out in such a way that the same type of data can be collected after the intervention, in order to

compare the results and assess the extent of change, or lack thereof. UN 2012

Please fill in this form to answer all highlighted sections and delete extra blank spaces.

Guidance is in italic

1. Case Study Number and Title:

2. Site location: Country, Province/district/map if possible

3. Situation Analysis (1 page max):

The situation analysis is a narrative of the status quo of the wider environmental and socio-

economic context (DRR specific analyses are in the next sections)

1-2 paragraphs of general description including the specifics below

Climate, including any observed variable weather patterns/trends Main livelihood strategies/major economic activities Governance systems/political situation Other international, national or local ongoing projects and initiatives in the area, for

potential collaborations Any significant socio-economic and environmental trend? (e.g. increase in plantations,

industrial development, urbanization or out-migration, severe and active deforestation, land use reform etc…)

37

Population in area of

intervention (#):

Types of Communities (ethnic groups, major religious groups

or other significant societal structures):

4. Major hazards faced and local awareness: How and why is the site vulnerable to disasters? What policies & capacities are in place? Answer by providing information on the below:

Hazard frequency, intensity, aggravating factors & examples of impacts on livelihoods and the

environment

What specific resources (infrastructure, technological) and capacities (human, institutional) are

there to cope with these hazards at a community level?

What is the level of awareness? Is related local knowledge (e.g. indigenous knowledge)

transferred and documented – if so how? Is DRR discussed in local fora? Is climate change

discussed in local fora?

5. Has a risk or vulnerability assessment already been carried out? If so, provide a summary indicating which tools and methodology have been used in this process.

38

6. Targeted policies and partnerships – How will EPIC add to current efforts and where should we target our messages? Answer by providing information on the below:

Relevant Climate Change & DRR policies in place – which current or developing frameworks can

be targeted for influencing?

List the political bodies responsible for environmental management:

Is there a National DRR Platform? Which ministries are represented (e.g. Economic? Agricutlure?

Environment?)?

Key players in development planning and land use, especially as related to private sector

engagements, government investment plans & infrastructure investment plans:

Which local institutions are linked to DRR activities/awareness raising?

Are there any regional DRR/CCA fora EPIC can contribute to?

If so, provide details on the fora and explain how EPIC can get involved.