• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Task 2.1. presentation dwf - KNOW4DRR
 

Task 2.1. presentation dwf - KNOW4DRR

on

  • 562 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
562
Views on SlideShare
562
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Task 2.1. presentation dwf - KNOW4DRR Task 2.1. presentation dwf - KNOW4DRR Presentation Transcript

    • KNOW-­‐4-­‐DRR   "  Enabling  knowledge  for  disaster  risk  reduc=on  in   integra=on  to  climate   change  adapta=on  «     Kick-­‐  of  mee=ng  11th  –  12th  June     Task  2.1.  Mapping  innova=ve  exchange  of   knowledge  to  support  DRR     John  Norton/DWF    
    • •  This  task  will  consider  eight  case  studies  to  which  the  project   partners  have  par=cipated  in  the  recent  past.       •  If  need  be  we  can  add  to  these  and  we  will  welcome  sugges=ons   about  cases  that  might  contribute  to  the  study  and  its  results.     •  The  cases  provide  examples  of  successful  and  unsuccessful  process   of  decision  making.     •  We  will  assess  how  knowledge  has  been  available  to  different   actors  in  the  stakeholder  ‘chain’  in  each  case.  Did  this  enable   different  stakeholders  to  act  and  contribute  to  disaster  risk   reduc=on  or  to  climate  change  adapta=on.  If  not,  why  not?   •  The  assump=on  put  forward  in  the  project  proposal  is  that  too   oUen  knowledge  is  fragmented  and  stuck  in  different   compartments.  We  shall  be  considering  if  this  was  the  case  and   what  the  consequences  were.  How  could  this  have  been  avoided.  
    • Yesterday,  we  discussed  two  broad  areas  per=nent  to  the   mapping  the  exchange  or  flow  of  knowledge  that  contributes  to   DRR.     •  The  importance  and  some  of  the  difficul=es  of  transforming   informa=on  into  knowledge  that  can  lead  to  ac=on  by  key   stakeholders.   •  The  poten=al  consequences  that  stakeholder  do  not  all  share   the  same  priori=es  and  perspec=ves.    
    • Some  considera=ons   •  There  are  gaps  between  knowledge  (informa=on)  held  be  different   actors  for  DRR  and  CCA;     •  The  knowledge  route  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  two  way  flow  of   informa=on.   •  The  local  stakeholders  view  and  experience  might  not  be    really   taken  into  considera=on;     •  That  approaches/and  related  knowledge  held  by  one  stakeholder   group  may  not  be  available  or  even  useful  to  other  stakeholder   groups.     •  That  knowledge  and  the  ability  to  act  on  it  may  be  actually  blocked   by  a  variety  of  internal  or  external  factors,  which  might  include   vested  interest,  poli=cs,  lack  of  money,  other  priori=es,  and  so  on.     These  are  some  of  the  issues  that  underlie  the  suggested  approach  to   the  mapping  process  
    • Which  priority?    
    • •  We  propose  to  draU  and  share  with  you  a  mapping  process  that   considers:     –  the  DRR/CCA  issues  that  each  case  has  been  trying  to  address;   –  the  actors/stakeholders  involved  and  their  role;   –  the  links  and  flow  between  different  stakeholder  groups  in  the   informa=on  &  knowledge  sharing  process;   –  the  type  of  knowledge  and  informa=on  that  has  been  developed/ made  available;   –  how  it  has  been  communicated,  by  whom,  and  how  this  has  been   received  by  other  stakeholders  and  made  use  of  in  the  decision  and   ac=on  process;  was  it  useful  and  used?   –  the  degree  to  which  knowledge  and  the  ability  to  act  on  it  has   contributed  or  not  to  reduce  risk  and  the  reasons  for  this.   –  the  possibili=es  that  other  processes  could  have  changed  the   outcome.  How?  
    • •  In  prac=cal  terms  it  is  suggested  that  the  assessment  of  the  cases  will  involve     •  (a)  the  project  partners,     •  (b)  the  external  stakeholders  who  par=cipated  or  were  involved  in  the   case  studies.     •  On  a  case  by  case  basis  we  will  together  consider  how  this  consulta=on  could   happen.     •  •  •  •  •  I  suggest  that  for  each  case,  we  have  at  least  three  mapping  assessments:     one  by  the    partner  who  provided  the  case  study,     one  by  another  partner,     and  one  by  DWF.   We  will  then  share  these  results  with  all  of  you  for  sugges=ons  and   commentary.   What  do  you  think?  
    • •  The  output  for  this  task  will  be  a  Document  on   decision  making  processes  and  the  flow  or  not   of  knowledge  to  those  who  need  to  act  on  it.