1

Summary Report

Fourth Meeting of the SISRI Practitioners’ Network

Bringing Resilience to Scale in SIDS

12 and 13 May 2019, Geneva, Switzerland

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

CONTENTS

1. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Objectives of the Meeting ........................................................................................................................... 4

3. Expected outcomes ..................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Summary of Sessions................................................................................................................................... 4

5. Session 1. Decision-Making: Prioritization for scaling up activities that build resilience ............................. 4

6. Session 2. Financial instruments and management to scale up resilience .................................................. 7

7. Session 3. Scaling up the climate and disaster resilience of key development sectors ............................. 10

8. Session 4. Prioritizing actions for scaling-up resilience: investments with high impact potential – working

session .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

8.1. Key criteria to prioritize resilience-building investments ...................................................................... 12

8.2. Investments with high potential for resilience-building impact ............................................................ 12

Investments in institutional strengthening............................................................................................... 13

Investments in Nature-based solutions (NBS) .......................................................................................... 13

Investments in urban resilience ................................................................................................................ 14

Investments in multihazard end-to-end early warning systems .............................................................. 14

Investments in social resilience and inclusion .......................................................................................... 15

Investments in social resilience (stakeholder engagement and empowerment) ..................................... 16

9. Session 5. Boosting implementation for resilience (Overcoming key limitations) – Working session ....... 17

10. Session 6. Leaving no one behind: Inclusive risk reduction strategies ................................................. 19

11. Participant feedback ............................................................................................................................ 22

12. Proposed next steps ............................................................................................................................ 24

Annex 1. List of participants ............................................................................................................................. 26

Annex 2. Agenda .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Annex 3. Proposed list of investment prioritization criteria ............................................................................. 33

Annex 4. Summary of sisri’s second phase working framework - STRATEGY .................................................... 34

Annex 5. Instructions for the identification and prioritization of actions to scale-up resilience in key

sectors/areas..................................................................................................................................................... 35

Group 1: Urban climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience ............................................................... 35

Group 2: Climate and disaster resilient transport systems ........................................................................... 35

Group 3: Climate and disaster resilient energy systems ............................................................................... 36

Group 4: Social resilience – Inclusion. ........................................................................................................... 37

Group 5: Social resilience - Stakeholder engagement and empowerment ................................................... 38

Group 6: Nature-based solutions for coastal protection ............................................................................... 39

Group 7: Multi hazard end-to-end Early Warning Systems ........................................................................... 39

3

Group 8: Institutional strengthening for accelerated and effective implementation .................................... 40

Annex 6. Instructions for the identification of solutions to overcome limitations to resilience building .......... 42

1. BACKGROUND

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are among the world’s most vulnerable countries to natural hazards and climate change due to their small size and unique social, economic, geographic and environmental circumstances. Currently, more than two thirds of the nations with the highest relative average annual disaster losses caused by natural disasters (1 to 9% of GDP) are SIDS. This is a serious concern as the growing cost of losses associated to recurrent disasters undermines hard-won development gains and increases the national debt of many SIDS, which already have high levels of indebtedness. SIDS are at the forefront of international climate and disaster policy. Their need for special efforts to reduce risks and build resilience is at the center of the Samoa Pathway and recognized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030). Accordingly, SIDS have taken the lead to ensure coherence in the implementation of these three major global agreements and have mobilized international technical and financial support to address the unique challenges disasters related to natural hazards, climate variability and change pose to their populations, social and economic systems. Since 2014, the Small Island States Resilience Initiative (SISRI) of the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) has worked with SIDS in increasing the scale and effectiveness of their resilience investments, including investments to safeguard coastal areas from climate impacts and to build safety nets that protect citizens after disaster strikes. SISRI has also established a global community of practice, the SISRI’s Practitioners’ Network, to facilitate dialogue and the exchange of knowledge and experience on risk reduction and resilience building between leading practitioners from small island nations. Between 2016 and 2018 three meetings of the Practitioner’s Network have taken place, each with a different thematic focus. In 2018 the focus of the Network’s meeting was resilient recovery in the aftermath of disasters, with an emphasis on the 2017 hurricane season in the Caribbean. The Fourth Meeting of the SISRI Practitioners’ Network focused on the urgent need to accelerate the implementation and scaling-up of effective climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience building actions in SIDS. The meeting took place in Geneva, Switzerland from May 13 to 17, 2019, back-to-back with the World Reconstruction Conference (WRC) and UNDRR’s 2019 Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction. It brought together 59 participants from 29 SIDS, representing Ministries of Finance and Planning - with the overall responsibility for development- as well as technical ministries. Development partners, regional disaster management agencies and other interested actors1 also participated. The participants shared their experience on progress made in the development of resilient infrastructure, nature-based solutions, social resilience including gender, preparedness and early warning systems and risk finance, while also discussing implementation bottlenecks and potential solutions. The results of the Fourth Meeting of the SISRI Practitioners’ Network, summarized in this document, will inform the development of SISRI’s second phase and the high-level mid-term review of the SAMOA Pathway. The meeting was organized by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)/the World Bank in collaboration with the European Commission, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States(UN-OHRLLS).

1 The full list of participants is presented in Annex 1

4

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING

• To exchange experiences and good practices developed by Small Island States to make

development climate and disaster resilient;

• To facilitate peer-to-peer learning to support effective design and implementation of climate and disaster resilient investments and policy interventions and;

• To further strengthen the community of practice between Small Island States’ practitioners.

3. EXPECTED OUTCOMES

• Successful peer exchange with examples of countries picking up lessons/models/practices to implement

• Post-workshop surveys showing high ratings for knowledge sharing and learning

4. SUMMARY OF SESSIONS

The Fourth Meeting of the SISRI Practitioners Network was planned as a series of sessions that, after a short opening, offered the space to the participant countries to present individual successful experiences with potential for replication, answer emerging questions and engage with peers in discussions on challenges and solutions. Two working sessions (sessions 4 and 5) allowed the participants to explore and identify urgent projects or policy actions with high potential for impact on resilience and risk reduction as well as foreseen challenges in their implementation and means to overcome such challenges.

The summary of the presentations and highlights from the discussions held during each session are included below. The agenda of the meeting is presented in Annex 2.

5. SESSION 1. DECISION-MAKING: PRIORITIZATION FOR SCALING UP ACTIVITIES THAT BUILD RESILIENCE

Development planners and decision-makers engaging in climate and disaster resilience-building processes in SIDS confront the challenge of selecting, among a multitude of options, and with limited resources, the potentially most effective and efficient investments and interventions. While there is no single coherent approach to prioritizing or making decisions on resilience-building actions, the dilemmas faced by the different countries are similar and related to questions such as where to invest (sectoral vs. multi or cross-sectoral actions), at what level (local vs. national interventions), whom to engage, what is most urgent, how to ensure the benefits of resilience building reach the most vulnerable groups and how to ensure the investments and their benefits are sustained in the long-term. In the Caribbean, the journey to build regional resilience has evolved over time. In 2001, an inclusive, informed and highly consultative process led to the formulation of the Caribbean Comprehensive Disaster Management Strategy, as an effort to integrate climate and disaster risk considerations into development planning. Now, in its third iteration (2014-2024), the Strategy encompasses four major

5

priority areas and four crosscutting themes (gender, climate change, information communications technology and environment) and has been adopted by 18 CARICOM member States. However, after the 2017 Irma and Maria hurricane devastation, it became clear that the implementation of the Strategy had to be accelerated. But to do it, it was necessary to overcome evident challenges such as capacities issues, weak political will and the generalized lack of understanding risk. This led to a new, wider and stronger engagement with stakeholders (ministries, donor agencies, regional institutions) to revisit the Strategy and examine key areas that had not yet received enough attention and investments. From this effort, to complement the Strategy and ensure critical gaps were bridged, a Resilience Pathway for the CARICOM member states was created. The Pathway is based on focused investments and actions on five pillars, namely social protection for the most vulnerable, creating economic opportunities, safeguarding infrastructure (sector bearing the largest losses from hurricanes), protecting the environment and operational readiness (response and recovery). Revisiting the Strategy left several important lessons. Firstly, as exposure and vulnerability in coastal areas of the region keeps growing, the underlying risk drivers need to be urgently addressed. Secondly, when integrating the big global agendas into development planning, major priorities should be set at national level. Implementation should be steered locally (investment management and direction) and the institutional architecture should be revisited. This to reduce competing mandates, ensure efficiency gains and better manage development expectations. In the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) a major effort is being made to renew several national plans and strategies that are coming to an end, integrating the lessons learned from their implementation, but also introducing climate change adaptation and disaster risk management as cross-cutting issues in the new versions. This presents several challenges. For example, cross-cutting issues do not fit well within the traditional government structures and existing mandates. To overcome this and other associated communication problems between government agencies and other stakeholders, RMI is taking a new multi-level strategic approach. At the policy level, instead of renewing the plans and strategies separately, the government is ensuring that they are interlinked and aligned with the budget process. This starts by renewing the overarching National Strategic Plan with resilience as main theme, and connecting it to sectoral strategies, which are then articulated into applicable implementable plans included in the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (NAP). At the governance level, new institutional arrangements are being put in place to facilitate implementation of the plans. These arrangements are recognized and accepted by all stakeholders, to ensure roles, responsibilities and communication channels are clear between government institutions and across levels (national to village). In addition, the Government is preparing tools for the implementation of the arrangements. For example, guidelines for eligibility criteria for assistance after disasters; climate change and disaster risk management skill gap analyses to develop capacity building plans, and a registry of investments in resilience.

For the Government of the

Marshall Islands the

renewal of several national

development-related plans

and strategies has been an

opportunity to integrate

climate adaptation and

disaster risk reduction

across sectors, to interlink

plans and thus priorities,

and to establish institutional

arrangements for effective

implementation.

6

Sao Tome and Principe has taken a spatial approach to support resilient development planning. The country created the DRClima Platform (Apoio à tomada de Decisão sobre Resiliência Climática), an online geographic platform that integrates, among other, information on land use, transport systems, historical disaster records, flood maps for current and future climate using climate scenarios, and a register of adaptation projects. The Platform provides decision-makers the opportunity to identify current and future climate hazard hotspots (e.g. areas at high risk of flooding) and also offers information on the location of climate adaptation and mitigation projects set up for the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) implementation. All that information gathered in one online platform, is a step towards enhanced coordination avoiding duplication, improving communication, synergy building and scaling up of effective actions. The initial results obtained from the use of the DRClima Platform indicate that the most urgent resilience-building investments and actions are needed in the country’s coastal areas. Access to the information included in DRClima has been possible thanks to the engagement of relevant government agencies and other key stakeholders working together in a multi-sectoral committee. Another open, free-access online platform to inform risk-reduction investments was created for the Pacific region. The Pacific Risk Information System (PacRIS) emerged from the disaster risk assessment work that informed the development of the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Facility. PacRIS offers risk profiles for 15 countries; quantitative and probabilistic risk assessments for major hazards and other tools to inform the development of early warning systems and other risk reduction and preparedness interventions for tropical cyclones, tsunamis and earthquakes. Major challenges encountered by both the PacRIS and the DRClima platforms has been to raise awareness on their existence and the possibilities they offer. PacRIS has partially overcome this problem by rolling out country-level projects that develop and integrate products associated with the platform into the workflow of the relevant agencies. UN Women calls for gender-responsive resilience building. The conclusion from a study looking at records of disasters in 141 countries during a period of 21 years indicates that women are likelier to die during disasters and recued life expectancy more than that of men as a result of disasters. This is caused by women’s daily socioeconomic challenges and barriers from accessing resources, education, employment to policy and decision-making opportunities. As climate-related disasters are increasing the challenges of marginalized and vulnerable groups, including women, mainstreaming gender equality and women empowerment into disaster risk reduction and resilience building policies and investments is a necessity. Gender-responsive resilience building decreases hazard exposure for all population groups by using a gender lens into vulnerability reduction and disaster recovery efforts. A practical dual approach to achieve this goal proposed by UN Women includes 1) setting-up gender responsive systems, plans and tools for creating an enabling environment and 2) implementing targeted actions for girls and women to ensure their needs are addressed. Targeted actions relevant to practitioners include the collection of Sex, Age and Disability Disaggregated Data (SADDD), using fit-for-purpose methodologies and tools (some have been developed by UN Women); capacity building of DRR practitioners on mainstreaming gender considerations into their work (through successful experience sharing and other mechanisms) and on the use of the appropriate methodologies and tools for SADDD collection; setting accountability mechanisms for SADDD collection and ensuring that local women organizations and other organizations representing the most vulnerable groups (e.g. organizations working with people with disabilities) are engaged in the SADDD collection. Other targeted actions recommended include setting-up gender responsive budgets (with allocations for targeted action) and ensuring that policy, strategic and programmatic provisions are put in place to: a) provide women’s access to social protection and financial products before a disaster strikes as well as

The DRClima Platform in Sao

Tome and Principe and the

Pacific information System

(PaCRIS) are freely available

spatial tools to inform risk

reduction activities, climate

adaptation and other

resilient development

policies and investments.

7

to disaster compensation and cash for work programs tailored for women in the aftermath of disasters; b) recognize and respect that women farmers rely on land, agricultural and natural resources for their livelihoods, even if they do not own these resources and, c) ensure that effective services on Gender-based Violence (GBV) are in place, as data shows that GBV increases tremendously after disasters strike. Practitioners in the Solomon Islands have integrated gender into community work by raising awareness on disaster and climate risk issues at the community level and engaging communities in vulnerability risk assessment processes where they identify and prioritize the actions needed and set roles and responsibilities of women in the design of program investments. In Cuba, one of the countries with the highest representation of women in parliament, disaster and climate risk reduction has been integrated in land-use planning processes (taking into consideration climate change projections for 2050 and 2100); disaster risk management actions are part of the country’s economic plans and all new investments, projects and research follow risk reduction requirements. The country applies the lessons learned from the management of previous disasters to ensure new vulnerabilities are not created during the recovery phase of new events. Cuba’s disaster risk reduction tools have been adapted and used by other SIDS in the Caribbean and Pacific. Key points of discussion, questions and reflections:

• Lack of coherence between international agendas impose implementation and reporting challenges for SIDS. This is evident when with limited resources, countries need to report on interventions that are essentially the same but “branded” as climate adaptation or disaster risk reduction actions. The approach that the RMI is taking by framing these two aspects in an integrated manner within the context of a national action plan and setting up a register of resilience interventions was commended.

• Downscaling overarching strategies to the local level (e.g. regional to country strategies or national to local strategies) is necessary for effective implementation. Key to success in this goal is that local stakeholders own the process, set their own priorities and steer implementation. The regional/national level can support the local level through resource allocation and capacity building.

• Misunderstanding of risk and risk exposure complicates the delivery of results and reduces the effectiveness and use of risk information platforms. Identifying and using better communication channels to reach different decision-makers and audiences is necessary. Additionally, it is necessary to transition from ad-hoc capacity building interventions into well planned capacity building programs that fulfill existing needs (e.g. interpretation of risk data), to ensure ownership and adoption of risk information products. Partnerships, and bringing scientists and practitioners together is key.

• Data collection and analysis is key to resilience-building. However, planning and conducting data collection efforts should engage and enhance communication between different stakeholder groups, including scientists, policymakers, practitioners, communities, and civil society organizations. This would help raising awareness of the existing information, their importance and potential use and would as well avoid the duplication of data collection efforts which often occurs due to traditional silo governance structures.

6. SESSION 2. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND MANAGEMENT TO SCALE UP RESILIENCE

As demonstrated by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, disasters in SIDS can result in huge losses on their GDP, jeopardizing hard-won development gains and imposing crippling financial conditions on government operations, communities and households. To prevent this situation, SIDS are developing

8

and implementing financial solutions to reduce the economic costs associated with disasters and provide immediate liquidity for recovery efforts. Regional sovereign insurance risk pooling mechanisms, agricultural and property insurance and contingency funds are some of the financial instruments being tested and used to build resilience by anticipating ways to cover the economic cost of disaster impacts.

The Maldives is a country affected by high frequency, low impact hazards estimated to generate the same economic losses of a single major disaster every 15 years, in addition to major sporadic events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami which caused over USD 500 million in losses. Climate change is expected to impose additional economic challenges. Currently disaster risk reduction activities are budgeted through small government allocations; there are limited programs that finance insurance for the agriculture and fisheries sectors as well as temporary assistance and relief systems funded by the government for emergencies. Recently the Disaster Management Act was issued. It establishes a Disaster Management Fund (capitalized with national allocations) which is currently under preparation. Current financial instruments for disaster response and recovery available to the government are the Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (CAT DDO) and the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), set up by the World Bank to give immediate liquidity after a natural disaster is declared. Before accessing the CAT DDO funding, the government needs to comply with some strict procedures, such as preparing a National Emergencies Operation Plan, a Health Emergency Operations Plan, and a Construction Act. These requirements have been used as opportunities for accelerating the formulation of a DRR policy framework in the country. The Maldives is working with international partners in learning the best practices for capitalizing and managing their Disaster Management Fund.

The Bahamas Government has put a legislation in place to access funds in dormant bank account in the countries to place them in a Disaster Management account as the start-up for a Disaster Management Fund.

Jamaica, as many other SIDS, has limited fiscal space and scarce resources available for DRM. The traditional approach to fund disaster response and recovery efforts has been to internally reallocate budgets. However, this is highly inefficient as it results in planned expenditure cuts with negative knock-on effects. In view of the increasing risks, the need to build budgetary and financing resilience has been recognized. As a first step towards achieving this goal, Jamaica is developing a National Disaster Risk Financing Policy (due in November 2019). The Policy will adopt a risk layering approach. It will use disaster risk insurance as the risk transfer mechanism to manage high impact hazard events (e.g. large earthquakes and hurricanes); and risk retention approaches for the impact of medium and low-risk hazards. namely contingent credit lines for responding to floods, minor earthquakes and other medium-risk hazards and contingent budgets, reserves and annual budget allocations for low-risk hazards (e.g. local floods and landslides). The Policy will also include provisions to improve the national economy, including the development of capacities within the Ministry of Finance. In the past year, Jamaica has signed contingency bond agreements, similar to the CAT DDO to ensure immediate access to resources in the aftermath of a natural disaster. To expand financial protection in the medium to longer-term various options are being explored, including CAT bonds and thematic bonds (e.g. pandemic bonds, green/blue bonds). There is also a clear recognition that the Government cannot ensure the financial protection of all development sectors alone. Therefore, the Policy calls for participation from the private sector in increasing the penetration and expanding the market for private insurance (e.g. for property, agriculture and livestock). Among

The Government of the

Maldives has seen in the

requirements of

international disaster

financing an opportunity

to accelerate the

formulation of its DRR

policy framework.

It is expected that the

formulation and

implementation of the

National Disaster Risk

Financing Policy will

help improve Jamaica’s

credit ratings.

9

the lessons learned from this process is that the country needs to build capacities in data analysis and instrumentation.

In Saint Lucia the International Monetary Fund conducted a climate change policy assessment, which indicated that for a 95% chance of no-depletion of resources in case of a major disaster, the country had to save about 5% of its GDP. The challenge is how to find the fiscal space to do this saving while running the normal government operations.

The Seychelles has progressed significantly in strengthening its fiscal buffers. However, challenges remain, including a lack of systematic evaluation of disaster and climate risk and the integration of this analysis into fiscal planning. The country used a CAT DDO as a contingent line of credit in aftermath of 2013 cyclone Fellen to address immediate liquidity needs. The country is placing now more emphasis in disaster prevention than response, by integrating risk management considerations into key sector operations. Further, the Seychelles have effectively initiated the application of innovative financial solutions such as debt for nature swaps, focusing on ocean sustainability, and established the World’s first blue bond. Among the lessons learnt on the pathway to strengthening resilience is the need for initial risk and vulnerability assessments and the preparation of risk profiles and hazard maps. This needs to be supplemented by other measures, most particularly stronger public investment management and an ongoing need for budgetary flexibility.

The Caribbean Climate Smart Accelerator was created in 2018 to coordinate the implementation of the world’s first “climate-smart zone” in the Caribbean region, better understood as a zone of climate action. To achieve this vision, that emerged from the 2017 One Planet Summit, the Accelerator works with a coalition of 27 countries for which tourism is the main industry (and therefore at high risk of economic losses with climate change). The operations of the Accelerator follow an initial engagement and conversation with member countries, on the progress made in the implementation of their NDCs, the gaps remaining and government priorities. The Accelerator then identifies and requests proposals from potential external suppliers to help the countries cover the identified gaps. The idea behind is that by identifying, seeking and building partnerships for the implementation of climate-smart solutions, with suppliers that have some level of philanthropy (i.e. are willing to create jobs or build capacities in the region) and propose sustainable projects, the zone will be able to unchain economic opportunities brought by climate change. The core business of the Accelerator is to find innovative financing sources for projects that offer solutions to key climate change-related problems and can be commercialized (and thus attract further grant funding or venture capital, etc.). Once the supplier and one or more sources of funding for the project have been identified, the Accelerator works with the government in monitoring the project implementation. It keeps close contact with donors and finds that often their silo/thematic funding streams are a challenge to the development of innovative or integrated solutions. The Accelerator therefore continues exploring ways to secure the funding needed for marketable climate solutions with potential to generate the resources needed for more integrated climate action.

Key points of discussion, questions and reflections:

The Seychelles have

designed the world’s

first Blue Bond and

other innovative

financial solutions to

fund climate

adaptation, risk

reduction and

sustainable ecosystem

management efforts.

The Caribbean Climate

Smart Accelerator

builds partnerships for

the innovative financing

of projects that solve

climate change-related

problems and can be

commercialized, helping

Caribbean countries tap

into economic

opportunities brought

by climate change.

10

• Declaring a disaster situation to access immediate funding for response and recovery is a political decision in SIDS with economic implications on the tourism industry.

• The 2018 UN Interagency Task Force on Financing for Development Report includes a good list of quick disbursement mechanisms that may be useful.

• All financial instruments discussed address disaster response and recovery, including financing for building-back better. However, many questions remain unanswered such as: are these instruments really used to building back better? Are the instruments creating greater debt without addressing growing risk exposure and vulnerability, and thus the risk of disasters? What financial instruments are in place to address risk exposure and vulnerability? With growing exposure and vulnerability how likely is it that SIDS will be able to pay the insurance premiums that would secure sufficiently large payoffs to cover growing disaster losses?

7. SESSION 3. SCALING UP THE CLIMATE AND DISASTER RESILIENCE OF KEY DEVELOPMENT SECTORS

Extreme weather events combined with the unfolding effects of climate change are wreaking havoc in SIDS and taking a toll on their traditional livelihoods, economies, social systems and built environments. Vanuatu and Tonga for example, rank first and second among the riskiest places to live in the world, as they are exposed to and affected yearly by a multitude of climate-related and other hazards (e.g. active volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and cyclones). On the other side of the ocean, Haiti and most Caribbean islands are suffering from similar hazards. Haiti lost 100% of its GDP in 2010 due to an earthquake while Barbuda and Dominica were heavily impacted in 2017 by hurricanes Irma and Maria respectively.

For most of these countries, the impacts of disasters are immediately felt throughout, with significant damages and losses occurring across all development sectors, but affecting housing, public infrastructure, transport, tourism, and health systems particularly. Any delay in responding to the disaster affects the ability of people to return to a normal life. To prevent this situation, SIDS are taking concrete actions to protect their communities and infrastructure from hazard impacts, by improving the quality of their infrastructure and housing sector through the use of building codes, as well as by enhancing risk mapping, regulatory frameworks, interagency coordination, and building local population’s awareness on the importance of these measures.

Tonga is focusing on building resilience in the housing sector, which is the most affected during disasters as the country is expected to sustain, on average, average annual loses of US$15.5 million due to earthquakes and tropical cyclones. Following the devastation caused by tropical cyclone Ian in 2014, Tonga reviewed its National Building Code and issued a new Housing Recovery Policy. However, the implementation of these instruments faces many challenges. For instance, correctly transitioning from traditional to modern housing not only requires imported construction materials, and a large pool of skilled workers with knowledge of building codes and standards, but also reliable building damage data collected in the aftermath of disasters. Tonga is addressing some of these challenges by training its communities in the Building Back Better approach. The government is also strengthening its capacity to deliver multi-hazard early warning services and products, enhancing data and knowledge sharing between agencies and clusters working on disaster risk management, and supporting resilience at the community level by ensuring there is a

Building-back better

after disasters is

challenging for SIDS as

it often requires

materials, capacities

and data that are not

readily available.

11

representative from the National Emergency Management Office in each community in charge of defining and coordinating the roles of agencies and other stakeholders in disaster response, recovery and reconstruction.

Ebeye Island in the RMI is a low-lying and densely populated small island prone to storm waves, droughts, cyclones, coastal erosion and sea level rise. To protect and build its coastal resilience, the island has decided to take an engineering approach. As part of the Pacific Resilience Project II, Ebeye is building a seawall (US$ 40 million investment). As in other SIDS, the RMI suffers from limited in-country technical capacities and resources to undertake a project like this on its own. Therefore, the sea wall project depends on international expert design and implementation.

Caribbean states have building codes, but their compliance is limited. Regional organizations can support countries in the improvement of regulatory frameworks, by sharing information, developing systems and mobilizing resources for concrete projects and programs. However, the implementation on the ground must be undertaken at the state-level, with local governments and community leaders playing the critical role of ensuring that building standards are followed (e.g. by reporting any inappropriate construction taking place in their communities or by ensuring that inspectors are making regular visits to avoid bad construction habits to persists). In the Caribbean region, a major challenge in ensuring risk considerations are considered in disaster response, recovery and reconstruction activities is the lack of coordination and communication between government agencies and other stakeholders. This limits their ability to respond quickly and effectively to disasters and to use these events as opportunities for building-back better. For instance, often government agencies don’t consult with each other until crises hit. Mechanisms need to be put in place to encourage the different relevant stakeholders to meet and coordinate their actions on a systematic basis ahead of disasters. The CARICOM Regional Organization for Standards and Quality (CROSQ) representative noted that, where necessary, international building codes can be adapted to local conditions. For example, in Dominica, where 70% of the housing stock was destroyed in 2017, consultants from the US and the UK adapted the American building code to develop local documents that incorporated a wooding structure system to build better roofs using the wood that is available in the country.

In Haiti, the Interministerial Spatial Planning Committee (CIAT) has developed an Atlas of Natural Hazards to address risks and vulnerabilities in the country’s-built environment. This effort was possible with the support of the World Bank and BRGM (the French geological survey). The Atlas provides a synthetic multi-risk map that can be used by policy and decision-makers working on spatial planning issues at the national and local levels. Haiti has also elaborated earthquake-resistant practical guides to build or repair buildings. These guides which are in creole and French have been written and organized for a broad readership, avoiding specialized technical terms and providing clear educational and visual content, to facilitate their use by everyone including homeowners and construction workers. Similarly, with the support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Haiti has been rebuilding schools following appropriate architectural and anti-earthquake norms. Finally, the government continues to launch communication campaigns to raise awareness, at all levels of society, about the importance of disaster preparedness and prevention actions. This includes evacuation-training programs for schools, visual messages in buses and the deployment of cars traveling around the country, including to remote rural areas with recordings and loudspeakers delivering key messages.

Vanuatu spearheaded a number of initiatives to strengthen its resilience following the impact of cyclone Pam in 2015. This included the elaboration of a Resilient Rural Road Design Manual and associated climate screening tools that help ensure climate risks are taken into account during the identification, formulation and execution of road projects. In addition, as a timely and significant outcome of the previous SISRI Practitioners Meeting and the Understanding Risk Forum in Mexico City, the Government of Vanuatu agreed to develop a National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), expected to be

12

completed later this year. The Prime Minister’s Office is planning to establish a Recovery unit to manage the implementation of the NDRF and coordinate the recovery efforts of all sectors. The NDRF is also expected to provide a policy framework for funding arrangements as well as a possible disaster recovery fund.

Key points of discussion, questions and reflections:

• The decisions and actions taken in the period following emergencies is critical to strengthen community resilience in SIDS. It is key to innovate and implement practices and procedures to reduce response times when disasters occur.

• Communication among and between actors at all levels of society and government is key to the effectiveness and efficiency of resilience-building interventions. This includes coordination and communication between regional, state and local-level agencies, communities, civil society organizations, the private sector, academia and donor agencies.

• Unanswered questions remain: How to ensure that building codes and standards are followed when financial resources are scarce in local populations? How to ensure that unplanned development or construction that does not conform to the norms does not happen when government enforcement capacities are limited (i.e. some people might build on the weekends to avoid the building inspectors)?

8. SESSION 4. PRIORITIZING ACTIONS FOR SCALING-UP RESILIENCE: INVESTMENTS WITH HIGH IMPACT POTENTIAL – WORKING SESSION

This work session set the basis for discussions on key investments needed to accelerate the implementation of climate and disaster risk reduction policies and interventions in SIDS. The session included various group exercises described below.

8.1. KEY CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE RESILIENCE -BUILDING INVESTMENTS

Working in thematic groups and using an initial list of potential prioritization criteria (included in Annex 3), the practitioners determined the set of criteria most relevant to screen, among a wide range of possible investments, those with maximum potential for resilience-building across countries. This exercise sought to encourage discussions on current existing methods to select risk reduction investments and on the range of important issues and conditions needed to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of risk reduction interventions.

8.2. INVESTMENTS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR RESILIE NCE-BUILDING IMPACT

In a second exercise, each working group identified a series of technical, operational and/or policy interventions with high potential for resilience-building impact in the group’s thematic area/sector of focus. In anticipation of this exercise, participants were introduced to the efforts of the SISRI team in consolidating a working framework for a second phase of the initiative (see summary in Annex 4) and were requested to take this information into consideration when defining the key sectoral investments, as the results of this and the following session will contribute to further shape SISRI’s second phase program. .

While working materials had been prepared for eight sectors/thematic areas (see Annex 5), the number of participants permitted the configuration of only seven work groups of a good size to enable cross-

13

country discussions. Therefore, some of the groups addressed additional thematic areas. The following are the key interventions identified for each sector/thematic area by the respective working groups and complemented by other groups during a plenary discussion.

INVESTMENTS IN INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING

1. Development of mechanisms to improve the understanding of the resilience concept (as a process,

not an end-state) at the national, sectoral and local contexts for each country. This includes: a. Development or make available checklists, tools and guidelines for governments to

support them consider climate and disaster resilience when planning development activities in the medium and long term.

b. Strategies and associated interventions for changing mindsets, beyond the technical aspects of resilience-building (e.g. an information platform), stakeholders need to understand the importance of and be willing to contribute to the resilience building process. For example, it is necessary that government officers and agencies willingly use the appropriate tools, share information and ask questions about what they do not know, what they need to know and where to find the answers.

2. Preparation of an institutional mapping exercise to identify in each country conducted resilience-building activities at the national level by different institutions. This exercise can identify gaps and overlaps, help establish institutional responsibilities and define the institutional adjustments that are necessary to achieve resilience goals. It can also help in establishing a monitoring system to assess progress in the implementation of proposed institutional adjustments. Further, the exercise has the potential to provide institutions with a good understanding of their role and needs and thus, improve their position to negotiate national and international resources, including funding. 3. Foster practical interventions for communities and actors working at the community level (e.g. youth and church groups) to improve their understanding of resilience and to engage in and propose resilience-building activities. This is fundamental as the resilience concept can remain highly theoretical without concrete interventions on the ground to enhance resilience.

INVESTMENTS IN NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (NBS)

1. Integrated coastal zone management interventions, including coastal development regulation;

green infrastructure and sustainable forestry. The success of the interventions will heavily depend on the following underlying principles:

14

a. Spending time, at the intervention design stage, in local stakeholder consultations and in conducting proper extended cost and benefit analysis, considering social and environmental benefits and building scenarios for choices and decisions to be made;

b. Ensuring community involvement (as well as integrating local and indigenous knowledge) at all stages of planning and implementation of the NBS interventions, to ensure ownership.

c. Valuing healthy ecosystems and their services by creating or enhancing existing regulations to protect ecosystems;

d. Managing conflicting stakeholder interests by involving the private sector and communities in decisions related to the implementation of NBS projects that may affect some sectors or communities (or development projects that may affect ecosystems but benefit some sectors or communities);

e. Raising awareness on the transformative potential of NBS.

2. Analyses and pilot-testing of potentially effective NBS solutions for urban settings in SIDS where most of the populations reside are needed.

INVESTMENTS IN URBAN RESILIENCE

A lack of risk awareness among the population is prevalent in SIDS and a major obstacle to accelerate the implementation and sustainability of resilience-building investments. Key interventions to address this issue are: 1. Development of policies that ensure that risk awareness becomes

part of everyday life. 2. Review of existing building codes to ensure they are realistic and

enforceable. Building codes should cover social and public buildings (as there are some jurisdictions where codes cover only private buildings)

3. Development of policies for good consultations and urban risk awareness (until proper enforcement mechanisms are in place).

4. Creation of monitoring mechanisms for verifying the application of the building norms. Development of policies that enable the creation of an environment of self-regulation, that includes the support of financing and regulatory institutions for the implementation of the building norms (e.g. financing offered to projects that apply the norms).

5. Creation of partnerships between local, regional and national institutions and donor agencies to create effective risk awareness strategies and get the message across.

INVESTMENTS IN MULTIHAZARD END-TO-END EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS

1. Investments on technology for national warning centers to communicate with remote

communities. Cross-border communication with counterparts in other countries could be worked out for remote islands that are closer to those countries than to their own capital cities or other national major islands;

In Indonesia development project proposals must include extended cost benefit analyses with scenarios including nature-based solutions. This is a policy element that makes NBS an ever-present option. Environmental Impact Assessments, traditionally used in most countries, do not allow for scenarios.

“In SIDS, we have reports

and good practices, past

experience on failures and

messages on disaster risk

reduction and resilience put

forward every day, but

there is still a generalized

lack of awareness among

our populations”

15

2. Review of institutional arrangements, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different agencies in getting the warnings out to the communities and to their sectoral stakeholders. This is needed as oftentimes there is dependency solely on the Meteorological Service, while there are other agencies that could take an important role in the warning systems;

3. Simplification of warning messages, which are often technical and hard to interpret by communities, and ensure that warning messages are targeted to the communities;

4. Inclusion of traditional knowledge and practices in existing and new early warning systems. This knowledge is highly important, particularly for remote communities, but tends to be ignored as there is a tendency on relying only on technology (which sometimes fails in isolated locations).

5. Improvement of data acquisition (including baseline data) and training on information management and decision-making, which are all critical for any response.

6. Analysis of technological hazards in the context of end-to-end early warning systems.

INVESTMENTS IN SOCIAL RESILIENCE AND INCLUSION

1. Risk assessments, vulnerability profiles and registries can help locate people and groups most

at need of support and inclusion in climate and disaster risk reduction initiatives. 2. Mechanisms for the inclusion of disadvantaged groups in decision-making processes relevant

to risk reduction, to guide policies, programs, plans, institutions and the public on the effective actions to cover their needs before, during and after emergencies (including planning on how to reach them at times of disaster).

3. Communication plans tailored for vulnerable communities, including the assessment and use of appropriate new technologies.

4. Development of financial inclusion programs/initiatives. This includes access to blockchain, cryptocurrencies and mobile money technologies through policy support and well-designed initiatives.

5. Investments to set-up and/or strengthen the sustainability of regional systems for the storage and immediate deployment of medical supplies, food and non-food item supplies during emergencies. Mapping and communicating the information on the existing systems is needed.

6. Preventive measures to ensure that the most vulnerable educational and health facilities are resilient to disasters (including the installation of water and power systems that can operate independently during emergencies).

7. Innovative education programs that keep youth engaged in the education system and increase their awareness of existing natural, social, health and technological hazards (e.g. by implementing effective drug and sex education programs).

In the Caribbean, early warning systems have often been treated as ad-hoc initiatives, with a strong in-

vestment in data collection when the entry point is the national met service, or in community mobiliza-

tion when the entry point is an NGO. CDEMA is developing a project to develop a comprehensive plan of

action to advance in multi-hazard planning systems at the regional level, starting with a checklist to di-

agnose where governance and other gaps are (already rolled-out in four countries). An alliance has been

established to convene all key stakeholders, to bring order and structure, break the existing “piecemeal”

and silo approach and frame a common vision and strategy for the new comprehensive approach to EWS.

The alliance is encouraging partners with sectoral interests (e.g. cruise investments) to link into this sys-

tem for greater efficiency and effectiveness.

16

INVESTMENTS IN SOCIAL RESILIENCE (STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND EMPOWERMENT)

1. Investments in Social protection systems

2. Creating and/or strengthening volunteer groups that can be mobilized to support communities during hazard impact times

3. Investments in Building Disaster Resilient Communities (BDRC) initiatives. Namely technical support to bottom-up and community-based risk reduction processes, where communities themselves identify risks, design, implement and monitor their own disaster management plans, and undertake projects to reduce hazard impacts within the scope of their own resources. BDRC initiatives allow communities to advocate for external support (e.g. access to grants) to resolve the challenges that require technical or financial resources they do not have. For example, in the Caribbean region, some communities involved in BDRC initiatives have matured and been able to obtain large funding from the disaster risk reduction and climate resilience funding streams of regional grant facilities.

Key points of discussion, questions and reflections:

• The number of beneficiaries is understood by practitioners as an output, not an outcome of risk reduction interventions. Quality in the design and execution of projects leading to improvements on the grounds are deemed better criteria than number of beneficiaries when evaluating projects.

• The potential for projects to use or enable South-South or triangular cooperation, is also considered as an additional benefit of interventions, but not relevant to accelerate risk reduction implementation.

• Vulnerability and risk analyses, including roadmaps with lists of activities are a good start for resilience planning. However, for the roadmaps and interventions to be effective, real appropriation of activities and outcomes by the relevant stakeholders need to be ensured. Sustainable resilience-building interventions need leadership at various levels (agencies, communities, organizations, etc.), the engagement of all key stakeholders with clear roles and responsibilities, and the willingness to collaborate from the outset. A way to achieve this is to put in place a strong theory of change, including new interactions and communication channels at different levels, and to ensure people work together in ways they did not before owning the process and achievements, and finding appropriate ways to sustain them (vs. the status quo where interventions take place as one-off sectoral activities without follow up).

• Awareness empowers people to respond to risks and make informed decisions. Raising awareness and sharing knowledge on risks and solutions is the most powerful tool for DRR.

• Supporting community-based risk reduction and resilience-building initiatives is an important part of enhancing inclusion in disaster preparedness. Through these initiatives, communities transition from beneficiaries to stakeholders, they lead effective solutions and make their voice heard. However, a main challenge of many of these initiatives is the high turn-over of community members, which often leads to the loss of leaders and main actors, and to the need of reanimating the groups.

17

9. SESSION 5. BOOSTING IMPLEMENTATION FOR RESILIENCE (OVERCOMING KEY LIMITATIONS) – WORKING SESSION

In this last working session, participants reflected and shared their insights on policy and capacity bottlenecks and other limitations that could impede the implementation of actions and investments identified in Session 4. To facilitate the exercise a set of instructions was provided (see Annex 5). Below the limitations and potential solutions provided by and discussed among the working groups are listed. Most of the limiting factors are common to various sectors/thematic areas and most solutions could also be applied across sectors and thematic areas.

Policy and institutional Limitations Potential solutions

• Low human capacity to implement policies (e.g. few champions with time and resources to lead policy processes).

• Weak or inexistent legal frameworks for the formulation and implementation of new policies (enabling legal frameworks have to be in place before new policies are formulated).

• Inadequate institutional frameworks for policy implementation (policies need to be institutionalized to be meaningful).

• Low levels of buy-in from policymakers, government agencies and/or communities for resilience-related policy formulation/strengthening, implementation/enforcement.

• Policy compliance issues.

• Lack of awareness of the roles different agencies play in disaster risk reduction (particularly when there are no risk reduction projects ongoing).

• Weak capacity to monitor policy implementation.

• Sustainability issues brought by change of government and staff turnover (often leading to the disappearance of institutional knowledge and interest in the implementation of certain policies).

• Turning policy into legislation.

• Taking policies to the higher levels for them to become part of the everyday business of the relevant institutions.

• Empowering communities to be responsible for the implementation of risk reduction policies at the local level (e.g. establishing roles for the local chiefs to take up).

• Creating an appropriate M&E framework to measure progress and alert when sustainability issues appear.

• Involving development partners to support the government in bridging capacity shortages when appropriate.

• Addressing institutional strengthening and reorganization needs. (This may be controversial, as people may fear their positions are at risk. Therefore, starting with tests in (and exchanges between) a few agencies is recommended).

• Integrating solutions into existing frameworks (e.g. nature-based solutions into existing coastal management frameworks).

Key areas of work to accelerate resili-

ence-building action at all levels:

• Awareness

• Leadership

• Ownership

• Capacities

• Collaboration

• Coordination

• Synergies

• Partnerships

18

Limitations to implementation on the ground Potential solutions to overcome the limitations

• Generalized lack of understanding of the resilience concept.

• Lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of community members in resilience-building.

• Lack of understanding by government agencies of their role in resilience-building when there are no ongoing projects or other interventions.

• Refusal to accept changes (e.g. to move away from high-risk zones and resettle; to change traditional lifestyles or risky behaviors).

• Lack of synchronization and coordination between development partners, who use different entry points (agencies) to support similar initiatives (e.g. multi-hazard early warning systems), creating absorption capacity issues at the government and community levels, missing opportunities to utilize synergies and ending often in unnecessary duplication.

• Creating a clear understanding of resilience at all levels. Training of trainer programs on resilience-building (including the resilience concept).

• Exploring different approaches for securing top-down and bottom-up buy-in (policymakers to communities and communities-to policymakers), including presenting decision-makers (at each level), examples of past disasters that are close to their context and memory.

• Involving communities in the set-up of fast-recovery systems.

• Educating and raising awareness among the groups resisting to change on benefits if they change their behavior towards risk situations (e.g. by providing practical examples).

• Taking a more programmatic approach to development cooperation, allowing for prioritization, better coordination of and synergies between development projects.

• Prioritization of projects and activities by the relevant stakeholders improve the chance for critical issues to be given the appropriate level of attention (and sustainability).

• Integrating capacity-building activities on resilience and resilience-building in ongoing projects and programs.

In Jamaica, the Jamaican Social Investment Fund (JSIF), ensures that communities highly vulnerable to disasters are provided with the assistance they need in a timely manner. The Planning Institute of Jamaica identified the 100 most volatile and vulnerable communities, facilitating the work of the Social Investment Fund. Based on that information the JSIF identifies the groups potentially most affected when disasters strike and in need of the protection and recovery support the Fund can provide. Lack of disaster risk reduction awareness by the general population and inadequate financing and institutional frameworks are two challenges to resilience building that the Fund is addressing. It integrates DRR sensitization into its programs (not as a stand-alone component). For example, in urban renewal programs, communities are also trained on solid waste management to ensure drains are not blocked. The Government has established a disaster financing framework to protect the country’s development gains, increase its ability to respond without delays after disasters strike, and protect the most

The Jamaican Social Investment

Fund, a special arm of the

Government and housed at the

Office of the Prime Minister, is

tasked with making specific

investments to build resilience

of volatile, fragile and

vulnerable communities

19

vulnerable. This includes, among other instruments, a special contingency fund, built in development loans as a contingent emergency response component for the immediate mobilization of unused balances to finance recovery (immediate cash transfers, without tapping into emergency loans or having to negotiating new loans). In addition, the Government has established disaster policy loans to fund capacity building and resilience interventions, including safety nets for the most vulnerable. International funding has provided the country with the requisite expertise to elaborate disaster-related decision-making products needed by state agencies, such as a risk atlas for the country’s road network, a resettlement framework, coastal guidelines, and a national emergency preparedness gap analysis. The Canada Caribbean Resilience Facility, with GFDRR as secretariat will further help in building the required capacities.

The Global Climate Change Alliance Initiative (GCCA+) is the main initiative of the European Union to support climate change action in SIDS and Least Developed Countries. It has funding commitments of EUR 750 million over the period 2007-2020. The GCCA+ works in two pillars: (1) fostering policy dialogue to develop common policy approaches; and (2) implement climate change mitigation actions. However, due to the nature of the partner countries, most of the 39 projects that have taken place in SIDS have been in the area of adaptation. The Initiative’s three priority areas are: a) increasing resilience to climate shocks and promoting disaster risk reduction; b) mainstreaming climate change into poverty reduction and development and, c) supporting the development and implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies, plans and actions. In the area of disaster risk reduction, the GCCA+ has funded interventions in the areas of protective infrastructure (cyclone shelters, drainage systems, coastal protection etc.); restoration of protective forests; social protection systems (insurances, safety nets); Early Warning Systems (flooding, cyclones, storm surges); adaptation of policies and research to support DRR actions. Many lessons have emerged from the implementation of GCCA+ projects in SIDS, including that investments in SIDS have high operational costs that need to be budgeted for; that flexibility and a good understanding of the national and local contexts, including its cultural (and spiritual dimension) is necessary when planning investments and operations (to consider for example non-linear views of time); that nature-based solutions are key investments; that comprehensive strategies and policies to risk financing (e.g. insurance) should be put in place and, importantly, that it is crucial to tap on local communities existing adaptation strategies and more efforts should be made in bridging science and traditional knowledge to address adaptation challenges. The GCCA+ has also formed a community of practice (Capacity4dev.eu) where hundreds of people share information on events, tools, guidelines and other issues relevant to climate and disaster resilience building.

10. SESSION 6. LEAVING NO ONE BEHIND: INCLUSIVE RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Disasters and climate change exacerbate inequalities and disproportionately affect people with limited capacities to anticipate and prepare for, cope with and recover from their impacts. Among vulnerable and/or marginalized groups are women, children and the elderly, people with disabilities, other groups marginalized from decision-making, people living in high-risk areas and the poor. Reducing gender and social vulnerabilities is a clear requisite to build climate and disaster resilience. It requires that important efforts are made to address the needs of and give a voice to the most vulnerable. SIDS have made progress to strengthen inclusion in relevant policies and operations, seeking to ensure vulnerable groups can, in a meaningful manner, participate in and benefit from investments in development, climate adaptation and disaster reduction and response.

20

In the Solomon Islands2, ranked as the sixth most disaster-prone country in the world, 80% of the population live in rural areas of 900 remote and scattered islands, men are the traditional decision-makers and all levels of the humanitarian space are male dominated. However, progress in gender mainstreaming is evident. The National Disaster Management Plan emphasizes the involvement of women at all levels for effective disaster management and the Public service has recruited a gender and social inclusion coordinator. Building on this progress, Oxfam is successfully integrating inclusion into risk reduction strategies at multiple levels. Its “Womanitarian” program engages women in the design and implementation of DRR activities and works with existing village-level disaster committees. Oxfam has adapted and rolled across the disaster committees a toolkit on gender and leadership training, as a result, the committees have expanded to include women, youth and people with disabilities. In other words, the community committees brought the most vulnerable to the decision-making table. Oxfam trained the committees on the use of initial damage assessment tools, for them to become first respondents when disasters strike. This proved effective, as observed during an extreme weather event early this year, when the response of the trained committees was immediate. Women not only collected the required data, using the tools provided, but also assisted the field assessment teams that Oxfam deployed to the rural areas. At the national level, Oxfam has worked with the National Protection Committee and facilitated the training of regional committees on tools for the provision of special attention to people with disabilities during disasters. The organization also used and shared with International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) in the country gender and inclusion self-assessment tools. Through this activity, it was identified that INGOs were lagging behind in the implementation of necessary policies and practices. The coherent strategy followed by Oxfam in the Solomon Islands has been fruitful. However, in this work the organization has faced several challenges. Among them, the traditional gender stereotypes, the lack of gender-responsive disaster assessment tools (Oxfam adapted them), the generalized tendency of communities to wait for assistance after disasters and declines in funding for disaster preparedness. In the Solomon Islands, the Government is increasing its efforts to support resilience building in the country’s most remote and vulnerable communities. This is extremely important and challenging as the Solomon Islands are very scattered and isolated (in terms of transportation, bank services, communication and other services), and limited financial resources do not allow the government to support all communities. The Government-led Community Resilience to Climate Change & Disaster Risk in Solomon Islands Project (CRISP) is currently formulating a resilience development framework to complement and run in parallel to the new National Disaster Management Plan. The plan focuses on disasters risk management and includes clear guidance and arrangements for sectoral and provincial-level engagement during disasters. The resilience framework will integrate climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction considerations into sectoral development processes, using an “instreaming” approach. In this approach, sectors engage in reflections on how to internalize DRR and climate change adaptation into their planning, investment and practice, using the simplest terms possible. To materialize the instreaming approach, CRISP supports the achievement of low-hanging fruits (e.g. risk mapping of health facilities with the health sector).

2 The Solomon Islands is a country of over 900 scattered and remote islands, with a population of about 623,000 people from three different ethnic backgrounds and speaking over 50 languages.

“Encouraging women leader-

ship and integrating women

and other vulnerable group

representatives in all levels of

DRR work in communities has

been a powerful instrument to

progress in inclusion.”

Oxfam in the Solomon Islands

21

At the practice level, CRISP has improved national climate disaster risk information and early Warning Systems (EWS) by establishing a digital radio-emergency network communication system for five provinces; a seismic, volcanic, tsunami early warning monitoring network and a national risk information management system that centralizes the existing risk information (and includes a Geographic Information System). CRISP is also responding to community disaster risk reduction priorities, working with community members in resilience solutions, such as improving access to freshwater (installing rainwater harvesting systems, boreholes, etc.) and constructing evacuation routes for cyclones, tsunamis and other hazards. CRISP has also put in place more effective procurement and shipping arrangements for the implementation of projects in remote areas (e.g. international donors pay materials to suppliers directly). Thus far, the project has been effective and has allowed the government to reach 146 of the country’s 5200 communities.

The Civil Protection in Cabo Verde is addressing the lack of women participation in decision-making process by actively inviting and encouraging women to comment on and take part on the development of the Nacional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and risk assessments. Following such approach, they increased the participation of women in the elaboration of the strategy to 40 percent and to 47 percent in the risk assessments carried out in urban areas. The Civil Protection is aware of the need to establish a monitoring system to follow on the implementation progress of the strategy, as well as to regularly update the risk assessments in urban areas as they evolve over time.

Grenada recently embarked in upgrading its emergency shelters to adequately cater for people with disabilities and the elderly. Ramps, rails and appropriate toilet facilities have been installed in over 125 emergency shelter facilities across the island. Communities and social development partners have been involved in the project, making sure the designs and fittings work for all. For example, real wheelchairs have been used to test easy access to and mobility within the shelters. The emergency shelters are also being fit with water storage facilities and currently, the level of satisfaction from the potential beneficiaries is high.3 In Vanuatu it is now compulsory that all evacuation centers have the necessary fittings to ensure they are accessible and appropriate for people with disabilities. In Jamaica, PANOS successfully tested an alerting device system between people with disabilities and their local municipal administrations. Simulation exercises showed that devices given to people with disabilities allow them to receive and respond to alert messages (the visually impaired can hear an alert and the hearing impaired can read the alert). The project is now looking for resources for scaling-up the system on an incremental basis. In Barbados the All Hands-on Deck project4 successfully trained volunteers and emergency responders in sign language. There is now a cadre of people who can communicate with the deaf in any situation (including the fire service and the police force). Further, sign language is increasingly used in government events, including press conferences, strengthening the inclusion of the deaf community in national communications.

Key points of discussion, questions and reflections:

3 Other disaster preparedness efforts in Grenada, with potential for replication in other SIDS, are summarized in https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/09/17/grenada-interview-prime-minister-keith-mitchell 4 More information available at: https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/sign-language-training-for-responders/

“Reaching the most remote, isolated and vulnerable communities is not for the faint- hearted but for those who really want to make a difference for the better. Our donors and GIS have helped us reach some of our most vulnerable and remote people”

CRISP Project, The Solomon Islands

22

• Empowering beneficiaries to become active participants in risk reduction and adaptation interventions is key for inclusion and sustainability of the investments. Community-driven development and risk reduction initiatives can be good entry points achieve this. An important consideration to gain the communities buy-in is to map and hire the skilled labor existing in the communities during the execution of the projects.

• Given human resource limitations, SIDS call for coherence in Multilateral Environmental Agreement reporting requirements as the dispersion, across sectors and agencies, of the data and information needed for reporting imposes serious challenges.

• Building partnerships and synergies with ongoing projects is an effective and efficient way to plan and execute projects in remote locations (i.e. it allows institutions to share costs and logistics and to enhance community benefits derived from the projects).

11. PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK

Facilitating peer-to-peer learning through the exchange of experiences and good practices is central to SISRI. To assess whether the Fourth SISRI Practitioners Network Meeting met its objectives and the expectations of participants, a simple evaluation questionnaire was prepared and shared at the end of the meeting. The answers to the questionnaire and additional comments and recommendations made by the participants to the meeting organizers during and outside the sessions offer guidance to SISRI on ways to strengthen the community of practice and improve the preparation and execution of future meetings.

In general, the feedback was highly positive, with most participants indicating that the meeting was informative, the topics addressed relevant, and the exchanges fruitful. Greatly appreciated were the openness and honesty of the presentations - particularly when dealing with challenges -, and the constructive feedback offered by the group. The interactive work sessions were also commended, with small group discussions efficiently fostering exchange of ideas and solutions. The main limitation of the meeting was time, with multiple calls for the next meeting to be longer, to enable deeper discussions and group work. The participants reiterated their interest in continuing contributing to the Practitioner’s Network and expressed the need for: a) developing a system to facilitate active communication between meetings; b) resources for South-South exchanges and visits, and, c) a system to track the progress made by countries on DRM/CCA implementation. In addition, during the informal exchanges the practitioners explained that this meeting offered, in the context of the 2019 UNDRR Global Platform, the best space for SIDS s to raise their voice, express and receive feedback on their challenges, concerns and solutions. Some participants expressed informally that they will seek for opportunities to continue exchanges with their peers.

For the participants, other positive aspects of the meeting included:

- Exposure to cross-regional challenges, case studies and lessons learned on DRR and climate adaptation, enhancing regional communication.

- Opportunities to share resources and innovative ideas and solutions to common challenges. - Constructive feedback on presentations and ideas. - Opportunities for individual countries to compare their risk reduction performance in relation

to other SIDS. - A good selection of presentations across regions and topics. - Excellent networking opportunities with other practitioners.

23

- Good organization and facilitation.

Aspects that could have been better:

- Setting a clear outcome for all issues discussed (some were too descriptive). - Involving practitioners beyond the Disaster Risk Management realm (e.g. representatives from

climate change departments/units). - Larger representation of Indian and Atlantic Ocean SIDS to balance the focus given to the Pacific

and Caribbean regions. - Deeper discussions into inclusion issues beyond gender. - Not overlapping with other important meetings/events. - Clarity on the future direction of the Practitioners’ Network (follow-up to issues raised during

the event, communications, next meetings, etc.)

Recommendations for future SISRI Practitioners Network Meetings:

- Planning longer and more frequent face-to-face meetings (2.5 to 3 days) with: o more time allotted to the sessions, presentations, Q&A and debate; o longer work group sessions, planned to produce concrete outputs or lead to a specific

form of knowledge transfer (for example, working groups could remain in contact after the face-to-face meetings and prepare publications, compile lessons learned, contribute to the elaboration of guidelines, etc.). A results-based matrix could be used when planning the list and order of presentations to achieve these goals;

o an additional session on regional issues should be included; o an additional group activity at the end of the meetings, to pull together the learning

from all presentations and recommendations.

- More frequent face-to-face meetings. The possibility of holding one meeting per year and/or regional events between sessions should be explored.

- To the extent possible, meetings should be held in participant SIDS. - Some participants called for the next meeting to remain attached to wider global events while

others requested that it is disconnected. - Expand the range of participants in the face-to-face meetings to include:

o representatives of other groups relevant to disaster risk reduction– NGOs, vulnerable groups – affected populations;

o agencies with climate change adaptation mandates; o a larger representation of Portuguese-speaking SIDS.

- Focus the content of the meetings on solutions, by:

o addressing more practical issues, i.e. implementation of solutions to the challenges raised during this meeting;

o offering policy solutions to disaster risk management; o presenting innovative projects and/or new ideas put forward by other countries (non-

SIDS) or other sectors (e.g. technology, software, science) and how these could assist SIDS in moving forward;

o presenting and sharing tools that are readily available and shared by other SIDS or sectors;

o placing emphasis on strategies practitioners can utilize to influence or gain more support from critical decision-makers (government policy-makers and cabinets);

o offering sectoral solutions for agriculture, health, etc.

24

o inviting experts from the World Bank to present the lessons learned from the implementation of relevant projects;

o further exploring the themes touched during this meeting; o presenting not only success stories but also failures of DRR interventions;

- Consider addressing the following topics in future meetings:

o Data-driven strategies for implementation and risk financing frameworks and policies o Seismic hazards and Early Warning Systems o Systemic risk in SIDS o Evidence on the existing links between environmental sustainability and resilience and

between risk reduction and resilient development o Economic benefits of risk reduction vs. disaster costs. o Disaster management advocacy o Institutional strengthening, e.g. discussions on the structure and frameworks of

effective disaster management agencies in specific countries, which could be replicated

o Sustainability of risk reduction investments o Climate security o Land issues and disaster risk reduction o Quality issues (e.g. standards, certifications, tools).

Housekeeping recommendations:

- Consulting with practitioners the areas they wish to work on during the meeting. - Sharing the meeting information package, including the agenda, list of participants and

presentations in advance. Other suggestions to strengthen the SISRI Practitioners Network included:

- Creating channels to enable inter-sessional dialogue and activities/programs. - Enabling South-South collaboration between practitioners, agencies and countries in areas of

mutual interest. - Creating core-groups to work on bringing different countries together to initiate the

implementation of priority areas and SISRI’s pillars. - Initiating pilot projects to test the main recommendations emerging from the meetings. - Elaborating a dashboard with diagnostics on progress/status for each country to allow

practitioners see where their country stands and seek advice from others with experience to share. The dashboard could indicate for example, which countries have developed (or are developing) strategic plans, relevant policies (e.g. financial policies), risk information platforms.

- Creating a database (possibly connected with the dashboard) on the data available for (and being collected in) the different islands.

- Developing a simple method for tracking the progress made by the network (i.e. indicators to show the progress made since previous meetings, clarifying what has been achieved (or not) as a result of the meetings and knowledge sharing, and showing the gaps.

- Show how some of the good practices shared can be adopted and duplicated across the regions.

12. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS

25

Based on the recommendations of participants to the fourth meeting of the SISRI Practitioners’ Network, proposed next steps include:

- Distribution of the meeting report to the participants

- Conduction of an online survey to track on resulting changes and activities in countries following the SISRI meetings.

- In consultation with participants develop a progress tracking system for selected in-country activities. For example, status on availability of risk data for ex-ante and ex-post analysis.

- Based on the demand and best enabling conditions, identify country partnerships to support exchanges in between meetings.

- Plan next the next SISRI meeting.

26

ANNEX 1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Financed by SISRI

Country First name Last name Role Institution

Cape Verde Jeremias Cabral Invitee/Speaker National Civil Protection & Firefighters Service (Serviço Nacional de Protecçã Civil e Bombeiros)

Sao Tome & Principe Geisel Carvalho de Menez

Invitee Ministério do Planeamento, Finanças e Economia Azul / Direcção de Planeamento

Sao Tome & Principe Carlos Mendes Dias Invitee Head of CONPREC (Conselho Naciona de Prevenção e Respostas as Catástrofes)

Sao Tome & Principe Felispberto Braganca Dias Invitee Serviço Nacional de Protecção Civil e Bombeiros

Sao Tome & Principe Arlindo Carvalho Invitee/Speaker Ministry of Environment

Seychelles Laura Elisabeth Ber-tha

Agathine Invitee/Speaker Ministry of Finance, Trade, Investment and Economic Planning

Seychelles Paul Labaleine Invitee/Speaker Department of Risk and Disaster Management, NDMO

Seychelles George Ucize Invitee Climate Change Negotiator who is also a Meteorological Technician

Indian Ocean Commission Rajendranath Mohabeer Invitee Indian Ocean Commission

Marshall Islands (citizen of Australia)

Anthony Mellen Invitee/Speaker PREP II, RMI

Marshall Islands Catalino Kijiner Invitee Ministry of Works, Infrastructure and Utilities

Marshall Islands Helene Jacot de Combes Invitee PREP II, RMI

Solomon Mary Vai (Judith Mary Alalo Haridi)

Invitee/Speaker

Tonga Paula Mau Invitee Ministry of Climate Change, Meteorology, Natural Disaster, Environment and Energy (MEIDECC)

27

Tonga Victorina Leger Invitee/Speaker Ministry of Infrastructure

Vanuatu Allen Faerua Invitee/Speaker Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Utilities

Vanuatu Lawrie Carlson Invitee Vanuatu Infrastructure Reconstruction and Improvement Project

Vanuatu Jerry Lapi Invitee Ministry of Planning

SPC/PIFS Litea Biukoto Invitee/Speaker Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPC/PIFS Rhonda Robinson Invitee

PIFS Mosese Sikivou Invitee Pacific Resilience Program. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Maldives Umar Fikry Invitee/Speaker National Disaster Management Authority

Maldives Aminath Rushdy Invitee National Disaster Management Authority

Jamaica Omar Sweeney Invitee/Speaker Managing Director, Jamaica Social Investment Fund

Jamaica Oronde Dia Small Invitee/Speaker Ministry of Finance and the Public Service

Haiti Fritz Auplan Invitee/Speaker

Ministère des Travaux Publics, des Transports et Communication (MTPTC)

St. Lucia Cointha Thomas Invitee Ministry of Finance

CDEMA Ronald Jackson Invitee/Speaker CDEMA

CDEMA Clive Murray Invitee CDEMA

CROSQ Deryck Omar Invitee/Speaker CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and QualityCARICOM Regional Organisa-tion for Standards and Quality

Caribbean Accelerator Raquel Moses Invitee/Speaker Caribbean Climate-Smart Accelerator

CDEMA Elizabeth Riley Invitee CDEMA

Financed by UNDRR

Country Family Name First Name Role Position

Bahamas Russell Stephen Invitee Director, National Emergency Management Agency

28

Barbados Hinds Kerry Invitee Director, Department of Emergency Management (DEM)

Cook Islands Carlson Charlie Invitee Director, Emegency Management Cook Islands Office of the Prime Minister

Cuba Pardo Guerra Ramón Invitee Chief of National Staff of Civil Defense

Dominican Republic Blanco Conde José Alfonso Invitee Embajador, Representante Alterno de la Mision Dominicana ante Naciones Unidas en Nueva York

Federated States of Micro-nesia

Akinaga Elina Paul Invitee Disaster Management and Task force member

Fiji Leweniqila Anare Invitee Director Disaster Management

Guinea-Bissau Djaura Malam Invitee President of civil protection

Guinea-Bissau Sambu Alsau Invitee Programme coordinator, civil protection

Guyana Craig Kester Romero Invitee Lt. Colonel, Director General (ag) Civil Defence Commission

Haiti Chandler Jerry Invitee Director of the Civil Protection Agency

Jamaica McKenzie Desmond An-thony

Invitee/Speaker Minister Ministry of Local Government and Community Development

Kiribati Redfern Takena Invitee Disaster Risk Management Officer, Strategic National Policy Division, Office of Te Bereti-tenti

Maldives Ahmed Didi Mariya Invitee Minister of Defence and Minister in-charge of National Disaster Management Authority

Marshall Islands Langrine Timmy Invitee Director of the National Disaster Management Office

Nauru Botelanga Barassi Invitee Director of Nauru Emergency Services

Palau Towai Waymine Invitee Coordinator, National Emergency Management Office, Office of the Vice President

Papua New Guinea Martin Mose Invitee Acting Director for National Disaster Centre of Papua New Guinea

Saint Lucia St. Croix Irene Invitee Deputy Permanent Secretary, Office of the Prime,Minister (Head of Delegation)

Samoa Asora Lameko Invitee Assistant Chief Executive Officer Disaster Management Office

Seychelles Berlouis Vicky Invitee Senior Disaster Management Officer Risk Reduction Division | Geological & Hydro-Mete-orological SectionDepartment of Risk and Disaster Management

29

Solomon Islands Yates Loti Invitee Director of National Disaster and Management Office Ministry Environment, Climate Change and Disaster Management Solomon Islands Government

St. Vincent and the Grena-dines

Forbes Michelle Victoria Invitee Director National Emergency Management Organization

Tonga Maka Mafua i Vaiutu-kakau

Invitee Acting Director for National Emergency Management Office

Trinidad and Tobago Campbell Kevon Invitee Contingency Planning Specialist Office of Disaster Preparedness and Management

Tuvalu Silu Sumeo Invitee Disaster Policy Coordinator of the Department of Climate Change and Disaster for

Vanuatu Abraham Nasak Invitee Director NDMO, Ministry of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology, Geo-Hazards, Envi-ronment, Energy and Disaster Management

30

ANNEX 2. AGENDA

Fourth Meeting of the SISRI Practitioners’ Network

Bringing Resilience to Scale in SIDS 12 and 13 May 2019, Geneva, Switzerland

Agenda

Saturday 11th May (for GFDRR-sponsored delegates only)

Hotel Warwick, Rue de Lausanne 14, Geneva, 1201, Switzerland.

09:00 – 20:00 Support for arrival and registration at the Hotel Warwick

14:00 – 18:00 Support for finalizing presentations in the Lobby of the Hotel Warwick

15:00 – 18:00 Distribution of incidental expenses in the Lobby of the Hotel Warwick

Sunday 12th May World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 7bis Avenue de la Paix Case postale 2300 Nations, 1211 Genève,

Switzerland. Room C1

8:30 – 9:00 Registration & Welcoming coffee (served at the bar on the ground floor)

09:00 – 09:30 Welcome and Opening Remarks Moderator: Clara Ariza Introductory remarks

- Ms. Julie Dana, Head of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)

- Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction

- Ms. Fekita ‘Utoikamanu, High Representative for UN-OHRLLS - Honorable Minister Desmond McKenzie, Ministry of Local Government and

Community Development, Jamaica

09:30 – 10:30 Objective of the Meeting, Overview of the Agenda, Introduction of Participants Moderator: Clara Ariza Screening of a short movie presenting SISRI – Mexico City Objectives of the meeting: Naraya Carrasco/Cindy Robles, GFDRR Agenda Introduction of participants

10:30 -11:00 Coffee Break (served at the ground floor bar)

11:00 – 12:30 Session 1: Decision-Making: Prioritization for scaling up activities that build resilience Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: This session will focus on approaches and methodologies to prioritize investments to scale up climate and disaster resilience development.

- CDEMA, Ronald Jackson, Executive Director: Defining the Caribbean Resilience Pathway

- Marshall Islands, Helene Jacot de Combes, DRM & CCA Adviser: Institutional Strengthening of DRM and CCA in RMI

31

- Sao Tome and Principe, Arlindo Carvalho, Project Coordinator: Using the DRClima Platform (spatial risk information) for strategic resilient development planning

- Fiji, Litea Biukoto, Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Evidence based decision making – from multi-hazard spatial risk data and information systems to investments

- UN Women, Rahel Steinbach, Program Specialist, Disaster Risk Reduction and Humanitarian Action at UN Women: Inclusive and gender-responsive resilience planning

12:30 – 13:30 Group Picture & Lunch (Lunch will be served at the cafeteria on the 9th floor)

13:30 – 15:30 Session 2: Financial instruments and management to scale up resilience Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: This session will focus on mainstreaming resilience in public financial management, engaging the private sector as well as innovative instruments such as CAT-DDO, insurances, green/blue bonds, and others.

- Maldives, Umar Fikry, Deputy Chief, National Disaster Management Authority: Financial Instruments and Management to Scale Up Resilience

- Jamaica, Dr. Oronde Small, Ministry of Finance and the Public Service: Financing Options for Natural Disasters in Jamaica

- Caribbean Climate-Smart Accelerator, Racquel Moses, CEO: The Caribbean Context

- Seychelles, Elizabeth Agathine, Ministry of Finance, Trade, Investment and Economic Planning: Financial instruments and management to scale up resilience

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break (served at the ground floor bar)

16:00 – 17:30 Session 3: Scaling up the climate and disaster resilience of key development sectors Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: participants will present activities in key sectors and how they contribute to strengthening the overall resilience of the country. Actions per sector also include sector policy reforms, institutional strengthening, technical assistance and investments. This session highlights mainstreaming resilience in the following key sectors.

- Tonga, Victorina Leger, Ministry of Infrastructure: Tonga’s Experience on post-disaster housing recovery and resilience

- The Republic of the Marshall Islands, Catalino Kijiner, MWIU Secretary, Pacific Resilience Project II, Strengthening coastal resilience

- CROSQ (CARICOM), Deryck Omar, Head of CROSQ: Scaling up the resilience of the regulatory framework for built environments in the Caribbean Community

- Haiti, Fritz Auplan, Ministère des Travaux Publics, des Transports et Communication (MTPTC)

-

19:00 Diner at La Perle du Lac, Rue de Lausanne 126 · 1202 Geneva

Monday 13th May World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 7bis Avenue de la Paix Case postale 2300 Nations, 1211 Genève,

Switzerland. Room C1

08:30 – 09:00 Registration & Welcoming coffee (served in the cafeteria)

09:00 – 10:30 Session 4: Working session – Prioritizing actions for scaling up resilience (initiation) Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: In groups participants will follow a prioritization process which will identify projects or policy actions that are the most urgent and/or have the most impact on resilience and risk reduction. Guiding questions will lead the discussions and the participants will be asked to present their results in plenary. Some groups will work on aspects related to the S.A.M.O.A. Pathway.

32

- Group work and preparation of results to be presented

10:30 -11:00 Coffee Break (served in the cafeteria)

11:00 – 12:30 Session 4: Working session – Prioritizing actions for scaling up resilience (Presentation of results - continuation)

- Groups present their proposals - Open discussion

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (cafeteria)

13:30 – 15:00 Session 5: Boosting implementation for resilience Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: This session will focus on identifying challenges to the implementation of recovery and resilient projects and how to overcome them to deliver impact on the ground. The session will be divided in two parts:

1) Group work: groups will identify common implementation challenges and how to overcome them. Results per groups will be presented (30 min work, 30 min presentation. Results can be presented in the form of a matrix). Some groups will work on aspects related to the S.A.M.O.A. Pathway

2) Presentations of initiatives to accelerate implementation (30 min): - Jamaica, Mr. Omar Sweeney, Managing Director, Jamaica Social Investment

Fund: Building Jamaica’s Resilience to Natural Disaster and Climate Change - Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA+), Mr. Christophe Legrand: The GCCA

+ flagship Initiative Worldwide

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee Break (served in the cafeteria)

15:30 – 16:30 Session 6: Leaving no one behind: Inclusive risk reduction strategies Moderator: Clara Ariza Description: This session will focus on how SIDS are making sure risk reduction strategies (which include preparedness and response) are inclusive and gender- responsive.

- Oxfam, Dolores Devesi, Country Director Oxfam Solomon Islands & Member of the Solomon Islands national Protection Committee: Women leadership in DRR

- Solomon Islands, Ms. Mary Alalo, Project Coordinator, Solomon Islands Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster Risk Project: Reaching the most remote vulnerable communities in Solomon Islands through Community Driven Development

- Cape Verde, Mr. Jeremias Cabral, National Civil Protection & Firefighters Service: Gender inclusive response

16:30-17:00 Closing Moderator: Clara Ariza Closing remarks

- Ms. Bernice K. Van Bronkhorst, Director Climate Change Groupe, World Bank. - Mr. Jozias Blok, Policy Officer, Directorate General for International Development

and Cooperation. - Principal Secretary, Paul Labaleine, Risk & Disaster Management, Seychelles.

33

ANNEX 3. PROPOSED LIST OF INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

CLIMATE AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RESILIENCE BUILDING INVESTMENTS AND INTERVEN-TIONS PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS SUGGESTED FOR THE SELECTION OF ACTIONS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT

1 Technical feasibility and socially acceptability (Is the action technically feasible AND so-cially/ culturally acceptable? / Will the intervention be accepted/adopted/used by the intended beneficiaries? has it been successfully implemented elsewhere?)*

2 Cross-sectoral risk reduction and resilience-building benefits (Does the action reduce risks in and/or bring resilience benefits (e.g. disaster preparedness/ recovery benefits) to more than one development sector?)

3 Inclusion (Does the action reduce risks and builds resilience of remote communities, vulnerable and disadvantaged groups? / is it gender sensitive?)*

4 Long-term sustainability (Can the action be adopted by national institutions and main-tained over time without long-term additional external resources?)

5 Large number of beneficiaries

6 Additional environmental and social co-benefits (Could the intervention result in other environmental, economic or social benefits?)

7 Synergies (Can the action build on progress made by past or ongoing initiatives?)

8 Partnerships (Does the intervention involve the creation/strengthening of partnerships between government agencies and with other sectors and actors -e.g. private sector, communities-?) Could it be a whole of government initiative?)*

9 South-South or triangular technical cooperation potential (Could the technical assis-tance for the intervention be delivered by other SIDS?)

10 Scaling-up potential (could the action be piloted and easily scaled up if successful?)

11 Integrates or focuses on nature-based solutions*

12 Absorption capacity (Is there sufficient technical and administrative/financial capacity at the national government level to support the implementation of the action and en-sure its long-term maintenance?)

* Criteria aligned with the pillars proposed for SISRI’s 2nd phase

34

ANNEX 4. SUMMARY OF SISRI’S SECOND PHASE WORKING FRAMEWORK - STRATEGY

SIDS are some of the world’s most vulnerable countries to natural hazards and climate change. The

impacts of natural disasters and the effects of climate change are severely affecting their entire eco-

nomic, human, and physical environment and impact long-term development. To address these chal-

lenges, GFDRR and the WB has stepped up adaptation and resilience financing in small states and is

committed to do more. Based on the significant accomplishments of SISRI Phase 1 (2015-2018) and

lessons learned, GFDRR is preparing a new strategic and programmatic approach with a comprehensive

package of activities to strengthen resilience to Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management in SIDS

as part of a new “SISRI Phase 2”.

The proposed development objective of SISRI Phase 2 is to increase global knowledge, inform a strong

pipeline of multi-sector investments and boost implementation capacity for climate and disaster resili-

ent development in SIDS. Through the provision of technical assistance in targeted sectors and global

knowledge sharing, SISRI Phase 2 will be a key mechanism to support the implementation of the re-

cently approved 2019 World Bank Group’s Action Plan on Climate Change, Adaptation and Resilience

in SIDS.

SISRI Phase 2 will have the following core functions: share global knowledge including innovative ap-

proaches to disaster risk management and climate adaptation; encourage resource mobilization

through strategic partnerships; support policy advice to SIDS; generate tools to inform disaster and

climate resilient plans and investments; and strengthen institutions and boost implementation capaci-

ties in SIDS.

SISRI Phase 2 is structured around the following three pillars and set of activities:

- Pillar 1: Knowledge sharing, innovations and partnerships:

• Activity 1: Communities of Practice (internal) and Practitioners Network meetings (external)

Activity 2: Knowledge Platform and Communications

• Activity 3: Partnerships and resource mobilization for SIDS (incl. new partners) - Pillar 2: Country Engagement to inform plans, policies and design of multi-sector resilient invest-

ments:

• Activity 1: Improve availability of open source risk data (Open Islands Initiative - “SIDS Scan” geospatial assets)

• Activity 2: Strengthening the resilience investment pipeline (“whole of government approach” multi-sector risk-informed investments in targeted urban areas; Nature-Based Solutions)

• Activity 3: Climate vulnerability assessment (application of focused CVA methodology)

• Activity 4: Mainstreaming resilience in targeted sectors (Energy; Transport; Social Resilience) - Pillar 3: Strengthen institutional and implementation capacity in SIDS:

• Activity 1: TA support to the Caribbean Resilience Facility (CRF), newly approved single donor Bank executed Trust Fund with SISRI acting as Secretariat of the CRF

• Activity 2: TA to support the design of a new Pacific Recovery and Resilience Hub

35

ANNEX 5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF ACTIONS TO

SCALE-UP RESILIENCE IN KEY SECTORS/AREAS

GROUP 1: URBAN CLIMATE AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RESILIENCE

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to accelerate climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience in urban environments (e.g. multi-sector and integrated interventions).

Consider: a) Technical and operational interventions b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions c) Policy interventions d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high) Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 2: CLIMATE AND DISASTER RESILIENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur 2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to

accelerate climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience in transport infrastructure and services “climate and disaster proofing transport systems”.

Consider:

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

36

a. Technical and operational interventions

b. Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions

c. Policy interventions

d. Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high) Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 3: CLIMATE AND DISASTER RESILIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to

accelerate climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience in energy infrastructure and services “climate and disaster proofing energy systems”.

Consider:

a) Technical and operational interventions

b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions

c) Policy interventions

d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high)

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

37

Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 4: SOCIAL RESILIENCE – INCLUSION.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to accelerate climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience for vulnerable groups. The focus is on “leave no one behind”, and the interventions can include, but not be limited to social protection systems, contingency planning for people in vulnerable situations, women and girls, displaced persons, children, older persons and people with disabilities* as well as interventions for/with remote communities; gender-mainstreaming).

Consider:

a) Technical and operational interventions b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building

interventions c) Policy interventions d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high) Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores. Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/

monitoring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing,

technical/administrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in

international and regional risk reduction initiatives*

38

GROUP 5: SOCIAL RESILIENCE - STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to

strengthen the capacity of all members of society to thrive despite shocks. The interventions can include, but not be limited to actions related to education, communications, awareness raising and public dialogue on risk, disaster preparedness and recovery issues*; gender, youth and community empowerment (e.g clear and efficient mechanisms for community participation in decision making and resource management).

Consider:

a) Technical and operational interventions

b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions

c) Policy interventions

d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high)

Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

39

be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 6: NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR COASTAL PROTECTION

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to

harness the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity to reduce coastal climate and disaster risks and build resilience, as well as actions to protect coastal ecosystem services from hazard impacts.

Consider:

a) Technical and operational interventions

b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions

c) Policy interventions

d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high)

Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 7: MULTI HAZARD END-TO-END EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

40

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to

accelerate the effective implementation of Multi-hazard end-to-end Early Warning Systems.

Consider: a) Technical and operational interventions b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions c) Policy interventions d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high) Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

GROUP 8: INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING FOR ACCELERATED AND EFFECTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

2. Identify, discuss and agree on a series of investments or interventions with high potential to strengthen/build capacities within national and regional institutions to effectively implement risk reduction and resilience programs and projects. Interventions may include, but not be limited to, actions to improve: program management and coordination, operational activities (e.g. contract management and procurement), financial management, reporting; technical capacities for implementation, etc.).

Consider:

a) Technical and operational interventions

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

41

b) Information management, knowledge-based and capacity building interventions

c) Policy interventions

d) Local, national and regional interventions

3. Screen the interventions against all the criteria agreed (on screen)

(Ranking scale 0 = no/low; 1 = possibly/medium; 2 = yes/high)

Calculate the total score for each intervention

4. Report on the investments/interventions with the highest scores.

Reporting: Each group will have five minutes to report back to the plenary. While reporting please describe the investment/intervention, why it is important, at what scale the group considers it should be implemented (local, national or regional), whether it is a sectoral or a cross-sectoral / whole of government) intervention and the potential beneficiaries.

Suggestions: risk assessments; technological solutions, data and information platforms, baseline/ moni-

toring systems (including observation equipment) *, communications, knowledge sharing, technical/ad-

ministrative capacity strengthening actions; nature-based solutions; participation in international and re-

gional risk reduction initiatives*

42

ANNEX 6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF SOLUTIONS TO OVERCOME

LIMITATIONS TO RESILIENCE BUILDING

GROUP WORK INSTRUCTIONS:

Appoint a group moderator, a note-taker and a rapporteur

Key common limitations exercise – 15 min

1. Reflect on the main factors, other than funding, that currently constrain the implementation, and maintenance of risk reduction and resilience building investments and initiatives in the theme of your group in your country/region

Please consider among others, capacity issues at the technical, operational (e.g. contract manage-ment and procurement) and institutional levels, as well as policy, information and knowledge and other limitations. 5 min

2. Share your thoughts, discuss and identify in group the key main common constraints. 10 min

Potential avenues to overcome the limitations – exercise

3. Reflect upon and discuss in group how the identified constraints were overcome by other na-

tional/regional projects (in the theme of your group) that successfully delivered their intended initial benefits and have been maintained or scaled-up over time (the projects do not need to be disaster or climate change-related). 5 min. Include in the discussion other factors of success in these projects that could be applied to accel-erate climate and disaster risk reduction and resilience building action (e.g. elements of design, initial geographic scale, strategies to gain political-buy in, need-driven, stakeholder engagement strategy, coordination, communication strategy, feasibility, ease of adoption, technical and finan-cial capacity, etc.). 15 min.

4. Discuss and agree on practical options to overcome the identified common constraints, including the application of success factors/strategies identified in point 3 and others. 10 min.

5. Based on the discussion, draft key recommendations for interventions / programs / institutions / countries / regions to overcome current implementation limitations 10 min.

Group reporting – (5 min per group): Report back to the plenary on the most important limitations, potential avenues for overcoming them and other recommendations.