Definition of Acronyms
AFL: Action at the Frontline
HFA: Hyogo Framework for Action
SFDRR: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
CC: Climate Change
SD: Sustainable Development
GNDR: Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction
DRR: Disaster Risk Reduction
CSO: Civil Society Organisation
VFL: Views from the Frontline
NCO: National Coordinating Organisation
ToR: Terms of Reference
TFP: Technical and Financial Partner
Introduction
Following on from the Lomé workshop held in November 2014, the members of GNDR Western Africa were reunited in Dakar. They were there to discuss the network and possible new directions in order to ensure greater efficiency in accordance with the Sendai Framework. The workshop described in this document was held from 14th to 15th July 2015 in the conference room of the Marie Lucienne hotel in Dakar. The regional workshop in Dakar began with a welcome given by Mr. Andy King. The workshop, which addressed evaluation, forecasting and planning, was attended by some twenty people from various countries, and included two journalists.
The present report outlines the main points of the workshop, particularly the presentations, the debates and the work in the plenary sessions.
I-OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
1-1 General Objective
The workshop's principal objective was to evaluate GNDR's system of operation in terms of governance and to develop a five-year action plan for the reduction of risks in the region of West Africa.
1-2 Specific Objectives
More specifically, it dealt with:
- Analysing the system of governance of GNDR Western Africa in the light of the new challenges that have arisen,
- Proposing a regional plan of action on the reduction of disaster risk in accordance with the Sendai Framework,
- Proposing appropriate strategies for networking within GNDR to maximise efficiency of the network at the regional level.
II-INTRODUCTION AND SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES
The regional workshop in Dakar on evaluation, forecasting and planning began with a welcome by Mr. Andy King. He set out the context of the workshop and arrangements for helping it to run smoothly. The floor was then given to all the participants so they could introduce themselves and get to know each other better, get to know more about their organisation and, to a certain extent, learn about their area of work and their country of origin. This introductory phase was followed by the actual work.
Actually, several presentations were made during this two-day workshop, which covered a range of topics. The first presentation was given by Marcus OXLEY, GNDR Executive Director, and focused on The History of GNDR.
GNDR was created in 2007 after the Hyogo agreement (signed by the various states in 2005), in order to help them achieve the objectives of the Hyogo Framework, which was the origin of the network. This happened through gatherings and meetings between several Civil society Organisations (CSOs), which resulted in the identification of recommendations that were presented to the United Nations. The idea behind this approach lay in the fact that the global network must be able to establish links with local communities and work together to ensure that their concerns be into account at the global level. The creation of this network gained support from several CSOs from around the world, and GNDR currently has more than 130 country members.
During the presentation, the speaker also highlighted the link between risk reduction and development. For him, the reduction of disaster risk was a way of achieving development. As he said, "if we are seeing more disasters, this means that the mode or style of development being advocated is failing."He went on to say that risk reduction was just a part of development because nowadays it was important to go beyond risk reduction and to consider issues related to climate change, conflicts, poverty, etc. The challenge that was presenting itself, and which had to be considered, was how the CSOs could work together, in a joint and concerted way, to strengthen the resilience of communities. Regarding this line of questioning, the speaker went on to highlight a very relevant approach: "We have to assess the different frameworks (CC, SD, DDR, etc.) in order to coordinate effort into more effective action, however difficult that might be, to benefit vulnerable populations."
Returning to the analysis of national policies with regard to DRR, Marcus OXLEY noted that there was a gap between national policies and the realities on the frontline. He stated that there was a low accountability on the part of states because very often populations face small disasters, whilst governments pay more attention to major disasters. This state of affairs amply demonstrated that there was no real plan to reach out to grass-roots communities. He also pointed out that national policies do not reflect reality because when you analyse the Sendai Framework, you realise that the issues of insecurity and conflicts are not included in it, which increases the vulnerability of local populations.
On the basis of this observation, the role of civil society is to serve as a bridge / link between national strategies and local realities. It must work to ensure that the concerns of local communities are brought to decision makers. To do this, it must advocate to induce governments to work to reduce the vulnerability of local communities.
Marcus OXLEY's presentation generated a series of questions, including the following: What role had GNDR assigned to the media over the past 10 years of the HFA (2005-2015)? What was the link between the HFA and the Sendai Framework, given that disasters were increasing? Had an assessment been carried out?
Answers were provided for all these questions. To ensure that national strategies were connected to communities, people had to change their individual behaviour and attitude. This inevitably required information, which meant there was a need to work with the media.
What was lacking in the HFA was the lack of inter-connectedness in the development actions of the CSOs.
In addition, the issues of the paradigm and of financial resources meant that the institutions, the CSOs and governments did not manage to work together to face the risk of disasters.
The second presentation was given by Mr. ADESSOU Kossivi Nevaeme, whose talk was entitled, How is GNDR structured and how does it work? He presented GNDR's objective and vision to refresh participants' memories.
Specifically, GNDR's objective was to strengthen CSOs to connect local to global and speak with a collective voice to drive resilient actions. Its vision was to build a more resilient world where communities would be prepared to reduce their vulnerability to disaster risks.
- Organisation of GNDR
The network is structured in the following way:
- Board of Directors
- Secretariat based in London and the regions and
- Members (individuals, CSOs, academics, etc.)
A particular emphasis was placed on the need for members to take hold of the dynamic of GNDR, since they are the ones who make GNDR what they want it to be. In other words, GNDR would not exist without its members, which impacts on the duties of members regarding GNDR.
- Leadership and governance
Conferences, Skype meetings, discussions, e-mails, etc., are the channels through which members' points of view are taken into account and then turned into programmes, projects and actions. These strategies and activities are submitted to the Board, which amends them and takes the final decision.
This is the members' role: to be participants in the implementation process. They share their experiences with others, increase their knowledge and influence various topics. To provide background information, the speaker recalled that Mr. Peter AKANIMOH was the representative from West Africa to the GNDR Board of Directors.
This presentation generated a lively debate on the issue of the governance of GNDR. To allow everyone to have a better understanding of things, the experiences of Mali and Burkina Faso on the management and operation of the network at the national level were shared with participants.
The third presentation, which was entitled, The Role of civil society in disaster risk reduction, was given by Marcus OXLEY. In his talk, the speaker highlighted six (6) important roles required of CSOs regarding their contribution to disaster risk reduction, specifically:
1-Implementing projects and actions
2-Strengthening capacities (farmers, fisherman, etc.)
3-Sharing knowledge
4-Liaising (playing the role of bridge / link)
5-Monitoring (ensuring accountability by tracking and reporting on progress at the local level)
6-Providing advocacy.
He concluded his presentation by saying that, faced with these responsibilities, it was quite clear that when CSOs did not carry out their role, or when they did it poorly, there was no follow-up nor accountability to local communities.
After this brief presentation, all the participants were invited to join the group exercises. So three groups were formed to reflect on the different subjects that were proposed.
III-GROUP WORK AND PRESENTATION IN PLENARY
Three topics were submitted to the different groups in order to develop a regional strategy to contribute to disaster risk reduction in the coming five years, in accordance with the Sendai Framework. The three (03) discussion topics are presented below:
Group 1: "Risk Reduction"
Group 2: "Awareness-raising and advocacy"
Group 3: "Community Resilience".
The team work
After about thirty minutes of work, the different groups presented their results in plenary. This was followed by amendments and recommendations, which were integrated into the final document. The results of the work of the three groups are summarised below.
Feedback from the team work
Summary of recommendations emanating from the work groups (3 groups)
GROUP 11. Risk-mapping at national and regional level to identify key groups
2. Presentation of the activities report
3. The capacity-building activities of the different stakeholders
4. Advocacy: Influence the development of national communication plans for each country
5. Support the establishment of a national community plan of action for risk management
6. Follow up and revisit the legal framework of the Regional Manager in each country. / GROUP 2
1. Awareness-raising of communities / stakeholders in order to increase the understanding of risks for a behavioural change (advocacy)
2. Monitoring and Evaluation of existing laws / policies - advocate for an improved implementation
3. Conservation measures in vulnerable areas (for example, afforestation)
4. Advocacy at the national level, together with communication and campaigns at the local level. For example, Local Planning
5. Strengthening the capacities of communities regarding risk-mapping.
6. Build on AFL and VFL, etc., in order to strengthen the resilience of communities. / GROUP 3
1. Promote intelligent agriculture to increase production - adaptation of crops to climate change
2. Integrate DRR into the curricula of educational programmes and community practices (learning)
3. Promote the management of natural resources (reforestation / soil restoration / soil conservation)
4. Sensitise communities to risks - better understanding (learning / knowledge)
5. Improve socio-economic conditions Strengthen the production system in order to improve the standard of living of communities.
6. Strengthen mobilisation capacity and resource management for communities (contingencies / response)
7. Establishment of local DRR committees.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS:
- Awareness: increase the understanding and knowledge of the communities regarding risks (4)
- Management of Natural Resources (3) INTER-REGIONAL EXCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE (with other platforms?)
- Advocacy to influence national policies and plans (3) Joint advocacy actions in order to influence government policies. For example: The involvement of communities in the planning and decision-making process and investment in natural resources,
- Risk-mapping at the national and local levels (2) Sharing of experiences on risk-mapping & Learning (including risk-mapping on the FRONTLINE)
- Monitoring of policies and laws (2) Joint Actions for monitoring and evaluation of legal frameworks
- Strengthening the capacities of local stakeholders and communities (2) Training - Advocacy, Monitoring and Mapping local risk / assessment (FRONTLINE) ; CONTINGENCY PLAN - Preparation / training, response and recovery, Cf., the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) project ; FORGING THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP
- Continuation of the Frontline programme
- Strengthen the regional DRR / collaboration capabilities and resiliency platforms
- Strengthen the collaboration and strategic alliances with other frameworks and actors for joint actions such as monitoring (Capacity Building)
- Strengthen the management of knowledge in the field of DRR within and between the regions including the Frontline process with its "learning" component: Mobilisation of resources, risk-mapping, partnership, advocacy, etc.
- Demonstrate "added value" and promote the very important role of civil society alongside national government actors.
In addition, the results of the group work were considered and analysed under the title, What we can do togetheras a network regarding the identified actions? It was clear that for some actions GNDR could directly achieve certain changes, whilst others should be carried out at the level of each country and reported to the regional level for consolidation. The distillation of actions proposed by the group indicated points of convergence on "who does what" in order to strengthen the network. To do this, GNDR intends to:
- Strengthen communications concerning DRR
- Exchange knowledge and expertise on the management of natural resources
- Support organisations and platforms
- Support national organisations on advocacy (agree on the key points, the messages to send out, etc.), or even
- Amplify this work at the level of the United Nations through the strengthening of capacities to be able to implement the actions identified, etc.
The possible actions of GNDR as a network in West Africa
Following the proposals of activities, the participants were able to identify some activities that members could achieve as a network. This consisted of:
- Monitoring / Evaluation
- E.g., The frameworks and legal policies in force in the region
- Build on the actions of learning from the frontline - How to use this to develop the documents and the position reports, as well as to provide advocacy
- Continue the Frontline programme - learning actions can support the development of skills within local communities so they become more resilient.
- Support members in the mobilisation of resources throughout the region
- Group 1; 1 / 3 / 5 / 6 Group 2; 6 Group 3; 6 / 7 (The main points returned by the group)
- Contingency plans are important. It is vital to achieve at the local level / beyond the interests and capacities of governments.
EVALUATION OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GNDR
OUTCOME HARVESTING
In order to better understand the value added by GNDR and assess the changes it brings to its members, the workshop served as a framework for evaluation of the network by its members. Mr ADESSOU, in introducing the Outcome Harvesting tool, stated that this tool did not evaluate something as successful or not. Rather, it was a question of demonstrating the changes that had taken place during the process, be they positive or negative. This tool was characterised by not focusing on the amount of activities carried out, but on their quality.
Immediately following the debates, which strengthened the understanding of the workshop participants regarding this tool, the speaker involved participants in another exercise to assess the achievements, the lessons learned, and ways of harmonising GNDR's strategies. Groups of two (02) people were formed to advise on changes (individual and organisational) implemented through membership of GNDR. This work was done on-line and returned via the link designed by GNDR for this purpose.
Returning to the question of governance, a very important point was made to senior managers and members. It was necessary to find possible answers to the following question: What are our expectations of GNDR? Several proposals were offered in terms of recommendations related to this question. This is what was required:
More commitment from countries that were not yet doing enough regarding DRR
Access national platforms for each country
Provide more support to achieve a greater impact at the national level
Put in place a formal structure at the regional level to provide support to organisations working on DRR
Establish a team of 5 volunteers at the regional level (not a budget committee)
Put in place an advisory committee for the region with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The mission would be to assist the Representative to the Board of Directors to identify regional needs.
Existence of National Coordinating Organisations (NCOs) as national focal points. The concept of the NCO should be reviewed. The name could be changed, but GNDR needed an entity at the level of each country whose mandate would be renewable every 2 years, for example. Each country must have its plan of action and the secretariat must integrate certain actions - countries in the international plan of action.
The question of changes in the approach based on the NCOs fuelled debate but, it was clearly seen that the NCOs were created at a time when GNDR did not have any focal points at the country level. It had to co-opt some organisations that were taken as focal points - countries in the context of the VFL and AFL process. The new formula that is emerging does not necessarily make NCOs the structures for implementing projects. This is because, in this respect, GNDR can proceed to calls for proposals in order to decide the awarding and implementation of a project according to skills. Having agreed on the need to redefine the role of the NCOs, the final decision would be communicated to all members as soon as it were available. In summary, the essential ideas that emerged from the debates were: