Thursday, September 22, 2011

Disasters, climate change and development: what do we need to do differently?

Jonathan Ensor from Practical Action reviews the barriers and drivers to integrating climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

What is the missing link in disasters? According to Terry Cannon, in a session I attended today it is the attention to social and cultural issues that mediate preparedness and perceptions of risk. Terry highlighted the need to think more broadly about the challenges of addressing disaster risk, discussing the need to bridge institutional and local knowledge systems, and bring in knowledge from other disciplines – a theme taken up by his co-presenter, Katie Harris.
Where Terry focussed in on the mismatch between NGO/policy priorities and those of local people (for whom, empirical evidence demonstrates, disasters are seldom the most pressing concern), Katie explored the role of emotions in disaster preparedness. Bringing insight from psychological research, Katie discussed how an appreciation of emotions can help explain why preparedness campaigns repeatedly fail, revealing refusal to prepare as a rational act when understood from the perspective of those at risk – for whom ontological security demands a rejection of risk narratives that would challenge the perception of the home as a safe place, of nature as a benign force, and in the ability of society to provide protection.
The insider/outsider tension that Terry and Katie highlight was taken up in the title of the next presentation, by Terry Gibson from the Global Network for Disaster Reduction. ‘It’s all one’ captures the views of local people, for whom disasters and development don’t exist in separate silos. As discussant, I suggested that this is a stark challenge to NGOs – what are we doing? Whose priorities are we following? Why is there a mismatch between ‘our’ priorities and ‘theirs’? One response was to be found in Terry Gibson’s focus on social learning and negotiation processes to enable the co-definition, between development actors and local people, of the priorities for development action.
Terry Gibson’s presentation highlighted how the View’s from the Frontline Project, in which NGOs and CSOs undertake a comprehensive assessment of progress in disaster preparedness as a counterweight to government reporting on progress on the Hyogo Framework for Action. This work initially had huge success in opening up political space at the international level for attention to action at the local level. However, no sooner had this space been opened, GNDR  realised that it’s language had been co-opted as a fig-leaf over a process that was as heavily top-down as ever. Part of the answer being explored is to adopt an approach that explicitly attends to power through a focus on politics, negotiation and contestation, working from the social learning literature that highlights the need for ‘double loop learning’ – changing not only actions (single loop) but also the assumptions on which these actions are based. Strong resonances, here, with the need to change mindset in disaster preparedness and start to understand why people behave as they do, rather than just assuming that our expert knowledge of mitigation measures is enough.
Thomas Tanner took the discussion on to consider tools for integrating climate change adaptation and disaster reduction into development. Sifting the preponderance of tools into three categories for analysis – process guidance, data and information provision, and knowledge sharing – Thom focused in on the first category and suggested that a significant benefit of these was to build awareness of climate issues at an individual level within the organisations that have developed tools. While highlighting the need for centralised, nationally owned climate information and disaster profile information, he also critiqued tools for bringing ‘the end of politics’ through a focus on techo-managerial fixes, and echoed Wilby’s suggestion that robust decision making would be more valuable than an endless search for climate information that only becomes more uncertain the more one tries to put it into action.
Thom’s call for a common approach to M&E was taken up by Paula Silva Villanueva, who presented an innovative approach that moves on from a preoccupation with indicators to an iterative, learning process that is specifically designed to support organisations in reflecting on their policies and programmes and to incorporate resilience as a framing for their work. The ‘ADAPT’ framework does this by encouraging: Adaptive learning and management that enable flexible planning; Dynamic monitoring that acknowledges changing hazard profiles and uncertainty; being Active in understanding social, cultural and personal issues, including the diverse interests of the actors that touch and are touched by interventions; are Participatory to promote self-reliance and problem solving; and Thorough, in looking across scales and at the underlying causes of vulnerability.
 Edwin Elegado, from Plan International in the Philippines, explored much of this in practice in the context of a climate hotspot that is ranked third in the World Risk Index. By applying the Climate Smart Disaster Risk Management (CSDRM) approach, on which Paula’s work is based, Edwin compared the work of actors at three scales – the national Climate Change Commission, an alliance of seven cities in a common watershed, and an island town – finding that each had made substantial progress in the three CSDRM pillars: dealing with risks and uncertainty, building adaptive capacity, and addressing the underlying causes of poverty. Reflecting a common and important theme throughout the meeting, Edwin and Paula both highlighted that integration ultimately means dealing with the complex realities of local change, demanding political will, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and the participation of the people at risk.

Jonathan Ensor is the Policy Researcher at Practical Action

4 comments:

  1. By saying that robust decision making is valuable is ths article trying to hint that research on climate change shd nw be limited ? Who uses ADAPT?INGOs or the local ppl?if its the locals then we need lot of trainings..if its the ingos then guess short term projects aint gonna live up to the concept of adapt...the last point regardinv local change,political will etc is the need of the time i guess

    ReplyDelete
  2. psychological and local perspective with focus on changing ppl's mindset for DRR is worth noting

    but regarding the M&E, m a bit not sure whether ADAPT works or not, it has tried to get away from the indicators which basiclly gives us the indication on where we r, or what we have done, how we have done , how much we have done and so forth. If not for indicators, how r we gonna monitor and evaluate. Moreover ADAPT seems too much of a literary based explanation with another jargon added to DRR.
    Also whoz gonna do it? the organizations working in DRR with short term project? will they be able to perform " Adaptive learning and management that enable flexible planning; Dynamic monitoring that acknowledges changing hazard profiles and uncertainty; " am skeptical abt it.. if the frameworks simplified and worth using then i would like to see another post soon :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paula Silva VillanuevaSeptember 28, 2011 at 11:18 AM

    Hi both, thanks for your comments and questions – they address some of the key issues the ADAPT principles (not framework) call into question. The ADAPT principles were born out as a result of a research paper which reviewed current M&E efforts in DRR and Adaptation. You can find the paper here:
    http://community.eldis.org/.59d49a16/Learning-to-ADAPT.pdf

    Let me take this opportunity to clarify some issues. The ADAPT principles challenge the nature of short funding and programme cycles and current approaches which devise indicators that assume “we know” and “we can” measure progress and impact from the outset of a particular intervention in a particular context. The ADAPT principles depart from the understanding that the unique nature of adaptation to climate change calls for experience-based learning M&E processes for discovering the key insights into adaptive capacity and adaptation. While the development of M&E frameworks in the context of climate change face a number of complex challenges, these can be reduced through a clear focus on the specific purpose of M&E. If the purpose of M&E is to improve practice in a situation where there is limited knowledge about what works, then learning needs to be an essential intention.

    To a large extent, this is nothing new. There has always been a massive contradiction between short-term linear cause effect programme development and what most people know about the complexity and the long term developmental changes can take. The key message of the ADAPT principles is that incorporating resilience as a framing for development work, requires changing the way “we” work and to that end, M&E and the use of indicators play a critical role. Monitoring and evaluation needs to go “beyond business as usual” and climate change opens a window of opportunity to rethink current M&E practices. I believe that organizations need to come together and call on their governments to recognize that there is a real need to understand the complexities and risks involved in committing to performance and impact indicators that may be unrealistic, unpredictable or in the worst case scenario, lead to maladaptation. The ADAPT principles were devised to support organizations to be more critical of the work they do and how they do it – a critical first step if we want to incorporate resilience as a framing for development work.

    Just for clarification, following the ADAPT principles does not mean getting away from indicators neither increasing the quantity of indicators used - but questioning their purpose. At the heart of the ADAPT principles is the need for M&E approaches and indicators that emphasize constant monitoring and flexibility, reflect local context, perceptions and needs, enhance capacities to deal with uncertainty, and evaluates the processes of change. For example, The Climate Smart Disaster Risk Management Approach (and IDS, Christian Aid and Plan International initiative) has attempted to put the ADAPT principles into practice through a new approach to planning, monitoring and evaluation. The CSDRM uses process and outcome based indicators to support understanding of issues that enable or constraint adaptation (such us perceptions of risk, cultural issues, interdependencies across scales etc) and outcome based to measure progress towards adaptation (including a set of indicators across DRR, Adaptation and Development domains of decision-making). You can find more information here:
    http://community.eldis.org/.59d5ba58/monitoring.html

    The CSDRM PM&E work continues to be work in progress - feel free to post your comments or share your feedback on the CSDRM M&E section.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for this continuing discussion! My own perspective on this topic is at http://www.ilankelman.org/articles1/daeditorial2008.pdf

    Two relevant books from 2010 edited by Rajib Shaw, Juan M. Pulhin, Joy Jacqueline Pereira are at:

    Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Issues and Challenges
    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=2040-7262&volume=4

    Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: An Asian Perspective
    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=2040-7262&volume=5

    ReplyDelete

Please enter your comment here. Thank you for being part of the DSA blog community.