Governance in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a pan European perspective

332 views
253 views

Published on

Francesc PLA

Council of Europe - EUR-OPA

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
332
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Governance in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a pan European perspective

  1. 1. CCA AND DRR IN EUROPE: A Review OnGovernance 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 Francesc PLA 1
  2. 2. CCA & DRR: common agenda? Climate Change Disaster RiskCC has been addressed through DR has been addressed throughmitigation as source is considered response as source is consideredhuman non-humanFocus on hydrometereological Includes other hazards 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012hazards and deal with long term (geomorphological, technological)issues (greater uncertainty) and focus on short term issuesMove towards prepareness (less uncertainty)(includes irreversibility and short Move towards preparenessterm) (includes human behaviour and long term)Common goal: reduce societies’ vulnerability to threats.Such convergence justifies a coordinated approach 2covering both short and long term planning for both.
  3. 3. Governance versus Management Management GovernanceAllocation of resources and oversee Strategic task of setting theof the day-to-day operations of the organisations goals, direction,organisation : “How” the limitations and accountabilityorganisation will reach those goals frameworks : "What" theand aspirations. organisation does and what it 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012More technical/operational. should become in the future More political/strategical. 3
  4. 4. Goals and methodology of thereporthttp://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/20591Jointly commissioned with UNISDR Europeto Global Climate Adaptation Partnership•Goals 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012Explore major governance issues within both fields in EuropeIdentify interaction between CCA and DRR in Europe•MethodologyAnalysis of existing joint mechanisms at European levelInterviews with key actors in both fields•Specificity of European regionExistence of common legislation/directives , common researchprogrammes and common financing instruments 4
  5. 5. On networks and communication • Main drawbacks  Divergent approaches of researchers and policy makers  Lack of information sharing between entities  Insufficient links between researchers on CCA and DRR 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 • Key recommendations  Greater involvement of policy makers in project design  New exchange opportunities between research and policy  Necessary broker in the areas of CCA and DRR • Suggested steps forward  Reinforce policy evaluation of projects by science adviser  Focused workshops with researchers and policy makers 5  Use existing IOs events and tools to link CCA and DRR
  6. 6. On capacity building • Main drawbacks  Lack of common ground to develop common ideas  Insufficient communication skills of researchers  Absence of specific communication budget in projects 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 • Key recommendations  Develop common approach researchers/policy makers  Facilitate better communication practices  Support projects who include adequate communication • Suggested steps forward  Organization of capacity building workshops  Adequate educational curricula for universities  Include specific communication goals in projects 6
  7. 7. On joint projects and programmes • Main drawbacks  No links between various domains of study  Inaccuracy due to specific disciplinary approaches  Declining resources due to financial situation 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 • Key recommendations  Develop JPs as they are more cost-effective  Identify synergies for joint processes and procedures  Search alternative resources to foster joint projects • Suggested steps forward  Coordination between evaluators of related projects  Joint review of Cancun Adaptation Framework and HFA  Donors based identification of critical issues 7
  8. 8. On information flow • Main drawbacks  Limited accessibility to pertinent data  Conclusions of research little focused for policy makers  Linguistic barrier to pertinent documents 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 • Key recommendations  Reinforce clearinghouse mechanisms  Collect more local level data to identify clear actions  Spread more widely key documents among final users • Suggested steps forward  Disseminate already existing survey reports  Support community based DRR interventions  Develop linguistic versions of key documents 8
  9. 9. On national actions’ role • Main drawbacks  Little contact between entities in charge of CCA and DDR  Remaining gaps between policy and stakeholders  Excessive focus on purely national threats 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012 • Key recommendations  Promote collaboration across ministries and sectors  Develop partnerships between government and others  Share experiences on CCA and DRR with other countries • Suggested steps forward  NPs interface between policy entities and with research  Involvement of NPs in national research projects  Active participation of NPs in thematic group of EFDDR 9
  10. 10. Follow-up: lessons from CCNational Adaptation Plans• Need to study national governance Actual policies are mainly national/regional/local Explore issues already addressed in National Adaptation Plans Identify gaps yet to fill 3rd Global Risk Forum, Davos, 2012• Survey of actual situation Analyse the existing strategies at national level Compare national situations to identify good practices• Study launched by the European Forum for DRR 10
  11. 11. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION ! 3rd Global Platform, Geneva, 2011 WWW.COE.INT/EUROPARISKS/ 11

×