Integrating CBDRM into Development _ADPC_ by rygoion

VIEWS: 149 PAGES: 55

									COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

integration to socio-economic development process

Le Huu Ti, PhD

The Partnerships for Disaster ReductionSoutheast Asia is a regional project implemented by ADPC, with funding support from the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) under its ‘Third DIPECHO Action Plan for South East Asia’. The one-year project, which commenced in June 2003, aims to strengthen capacities and to prepare and protect at risk communities from natural disasters through training and information exchange in targeted South East Asian countries in the region namely, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center is a regional resource center dedicated to disaster reduction for safer communities and sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. Established in 1986 in Bangkok, Thailand ADPC is recognized as an important focal point for promoting disaster awareness and developing capabilities to foster institutionalized disaster management and mitigation policies. For more information, please contact: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand Tel.: (66-2) 516-5900 to 5910 Fax: (66-2) 524-5360 E-mail: adpc@adpc.net Website: www.adpc.net

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific is the regional arm of the United Nations Secretariat for the Asian and Pacific regions, located in Bangkok, Thailand. UNESCAP is committed to materialize the visions of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2000. The current PDR-SEA project is being implemented jointly by UNESCAP and ADPC at the regional level. For more information, please contact: United Nations Building, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue,Bangkok 10200 Thailand Tel.: (66-2) 288-1450 Fax: (66-2) 288-1059 Website: http://www.unescap.org/

The European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office oversees and coordinates the European Union’s humanitarian operations in non-member countries, in partnership with nongovernmental organizations, specialized agencies of the United Nations, and other international bodies. DIPECHO is the Disaster Preparedness program set up by ECHO in 1996 to prevent and prepare for natural disasters. For more information, please contact: European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office 200 rue de la loi B-1049 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: (32 2) 295 4400 Fax: (32 3) 295 4572 E-mail: echobangkok@ECHO-Bangkok.org

Community-Based Disaster Risk Management

Integration to Socio-Economic Development

Dr. Le Huu Ti
Economic Affairs Water Resources Section Environmental and Sustainable Development Division

Copyright © UNESCAP 2004 To order a copy of this publication write to: Ambika Varma Information Manager, PDR SEA Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand. Tel.: (66-2) 516-5900 to 5910, Fax: (66-2) 524-5360, Email: ambika@adpc.net, adpc@adpc.net Website: www.adpc.net

Table of contents

Introduction

1

PART 1
Linking the Phase of a CBDRM Process
1.1 General Concept of Collaborative Strategic Planning 1.2 Implementing Strategic Collaborative Planning 1.3 Guidelines to Undertake Strategic Collaborative Planning

3
4 9 10

PART 2
Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process
2.1 General Aspects 2.2 Strengthening the Legal and Institutional Framework of CBDRM 2.3 Key Principles of the Institutional and Legal Framework 2.4 Process of Strengthening the Institutional Framework 2.5 Process of Strengthening the Legal framework

23
24 28 29 39 42

Endnotes

47

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

Introduction
Integration of CBDRM into the Socio-Economic Development Process1

The integration of CBDRM into socio-economic development should be seen as a process, which needs to be conceived as part of the three phases of a disaster management project: initiating, preparing and implementing phases. The level of intensity of activities in each of the three phases and the interaction among the phases will determine the depth and scale of such a CBDRM process. The integration processes of CBDRM would have far-reaching impact if they were initiated as part of a pro-active policy of government. However, the impact tends to be superficial and short-lived when the processes are driven by external factors and no supporting policy or infrastructure is established. In designing integration processes, the activities in each of the phases must be carefully studied and prepared to respond to the urgent needs, and properly planned to ensure consistency among the phases. Besides, the processes must be properly designed to respond to the priorities in disaster management at the local and national levels and to take advantage of the corresponding opportunities as well as of the international level. As the three phases have been discussed extensively in the Field Practitioners’ Handbook, this booklet is therefore devoted to discussing the link among the phases and the importance of sustaining the process.

1

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

2

1

part
2

1

Linking the Phase of a CBDRM Process

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

Linking the Phase of a CBDRM Process
In terms of designing the CBDRM process, it is of utmost importance to set out a clear strategy towards defining a programme of action to be taken in all the phases as well as to revisit the analysis of causes and motives at the beginning of a CBDRM project. As a CBDRM project involves “communities” and thus other stakeholders in its development, the linkages among the phases of the CBDRM process follow the same pattern as that of the “strategic collaborative planning” model proposed in the recent guidelines2 of UNESCAP on strategic planning and management of water resources. The UNESCAPproposed “strategic collaborative planning” reflects efforts of not just one organization but a group of institutions (or all key stakeholders) aiming to achieve a shared vision. The fundamental concepts and key conditions for effective implementation of these concepts, together with detailed guidelines for application of the strategic collaborative planning model are adapted in the following sections for CBDRM.

4

3

1.1 General Concept of Collaborative Strategic Planning
Collaborative planning is based on two key premises.3 Firstly, it assumes that intelligence and know-how are widely distributed throughout society, even in technical areas such as resource management, e.g. in specialized technical government agencies, universities, NGOs, the private sector (e.g. engineering firms), users and local government. Secondly, it assumes that government does not have a monopoly on governance. Even activities such as regional planning should not necessarily be a government monopoly. Because such an approach includes many stakeholders, it makes governance more sophisticated and mediation-based. Groups can work out issues then put forward legislation to the relevant constitutionally mandated authority, e.g. local government councils. In essence, much of a government’s

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

work is done for it, yet the outcome is often more responsive to the needs of constituents. In many democratic legislative bodies, lobbyists are so powerful as to prevent change. Collaborative planning processes enable constituencies to be formed and gather momentum; accordingly, strategies, policies, instruments and other measures usually enjoy much stronger support by the time they reach the legally mandated body, reducing the probability that vested interests will stop the proposed initiative. Collaborative planning is especially valuable in planning for complex systems where multiple policy objectives exist. Disaster risk management for natural hazards exhibit many of these characteristics, especially when these hazards are large scale such as tropical cyclones, floods caused by large river systems, El Niño. However, not all countries in Asia are ready for disaster risk management integration processes, especially when their governments do not play the lead role. Fortunately, strategic collaborative planning can be used much more conventionally. For example, a national disaster management agency or an umbrella planning agency can instigate a collaborative planning process. However, to be collaborative it must involve stakeholders outside the government, involve all relevant agencies, and view disaster risk management from a perspective that transcends any related agency, no matter how powerful or dominant the latter may be within the jurisdiction in question. Figure 1 describes the strategic collaborative planning model. Some of the key ways in which it varies from the standard strategic planning model are: 1. The strategic collaborative planning model may come into play because of a major societal issue; thus it is an issue (or set of issues) that drives the process, not a mission statement associated with a single institution.4 Sometimes the process is the result of a failure of traditional government processes to deal with an issue because of disagreements among agencies. For example, disputes regarding flood control between urban and rural areas could generate the issue-environment to set off this type of process. In some cases, even issue identification will be fuzzy, i.e. people or institutions will be unsatisfied about a situation, but the issue is not clearly articulated. Alternatively, it may come into play as a result of a visioning process in a

4

5

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

country in which disaster-risk management is deemed to play a key role in realizing an envisioned future but change is needed in terms of performance delivered by various resource management and development agencies. The strategic collaborative model may come into play because of lack of coordination among agencies in taking action. There may be a vision in place for disaster-risk management, and even implicit agreement among the agencies that the vision should be realized. However, lack of institutional coordination is hindering implementation. In this case, the strategic collaboration process may focus on how to effectively realize coordinated implementation of the vision. 2. Because strategic collaborative planning starts with (often illdefined) issues, it quickly involves many institutions and a wide range of interest groups and stakeholders.5 In this sense it is strategic planning at a more macro scale than the standard strategic planning model. This more macro level of strategic planning may occur at a higher level than the organizational level and is characterized by the involvement of many institutions. 3. In strategic collaborative planning the information base becomes extremely important precisely because of the wide range of interests involved. Although it is difficult for individuals and institutions to change their positions, and even more difficult for them to change their values, if they can agree on the validity of an information base, it is far more likely that deals can be struck using the strategic collaborative approach. The information base includes driving forces (internal and external) and scenarios (illustrating the range of possible futures affecting the issue area). Defining the internal environment for SWOT (strengths– weaknesses–opportunities–threats) analysis is difficult because a wide range of institutions may offer resources of significant importance in tackling the issue at hand – in fact complex issues usually require coordinated action by a networked set of institutions. Of course, many of the failures and shortcomings in improving complex systems of disaster-risk management in Asia and elsewhere can be attributed to the failure of a

6

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

coordinated strategic response by key agencies and actors. Thus the internal environment analysis (SWOT) needs to begin with an inventory of resources at hand (across a number of institutions) that could assist in addressing the issue. Then, the strengths and weaknesses of these potential institutional resources need to be analysed. Because a wide range of institutions will need to be included, the analysis of internal strengths and weaknesses will obviously be in less depth than in the case of the conventional strategic planning model, which focuses on one institution. Developing scenarios to provide context for strategic collaborative planning in the field of disaster management is difficult.6 Because the future is less well known than the past and present (the information base for driving forces) and different interest groups will perceive and want to portray the future differently, developing scenarios will be challenging. Professional facilitators or mediation experts may need to be involved to facilitate agreement in potentially controversial areas such as scenario construction. 4. Once a strategy has been agreed upon, unlike the case of the conventional planning model in which the institution involved usually already has a legal (constitutional) mandate, the strategy will need to be legitimized. Often this requires legislation or a political mandate. However, if diverse groups have worked out difficult compromises and agreed on a strategy, this can be, relatively, the easy part. In effect, the strategic collaborative process will have done the ‘dirty work’ for the politicians, a situation that they often like. 5. Because the strategic collaborative approach involves a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups, the sustainability of feedback and monitoring becomes an issue, especially if the collaborative organization is outside the public sector. In cases where an umbrella agency exists with responsibility for overall disaster risk management, it is often the best agency to guide collaborative strategic planning process. Often the collaborators become less active once they put in place a strategy ––or especially if they fail to do so. However, the latter is not always the case; frequently the collaborative group does stay together. In cases where the collaboration was organized outside the

7

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

public sector, the collaborators may even set up office, hire staff, etc. paid for by contributions from collaborators, some foundation or NGO or the public sector. If the collaborative group does disintegrate or becomes less effective, it is especially incumbent on the official umbrella agency (if one exists) to monitor the performance of the overall strategy, because it will involve more than one institution. Figure1• Strategic Collaborative Planning Model

8

Source: D.W. Webster and Ti Le-Huu, Guidelines on Strategic Planning and Management of Water Resources in Asia and the Pacific, UN-ESCAP, 2002.

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

1.2 Implementing Strategic Collaborative Planning
As noted, this process is often kicked off by pressing issues or the existence of a change-oriented vision in which disaster-risk management plays a key role in socio-economic development. The hard part is to bring the key interest groups together – e.g. watershed planners, technical agencies, farmers, livestock herders, community groups, local governments, in the case of flood management of a large river basin – to catalyze the process. Normally, a government agency (such as an umbrella planning agency for disaster management, the environment ministry or the national developmental planning agency), an NGO or an interest group – e.g. a leading environmental research group – will need to champion the process. In the international case, an international body would normally trigger the strategic collaborative planning process, such as the Mekong River Commission which had recently initiated and successfully launched the Mekong Flood Mitigation and Management Programme in November 2002. Once the process has been constituted, it will need funds, although volunteers can contribute if there is sufficient motivation. Funding is primarily needed for the hard analysis, i.e. identifying and assessing the driving forces, and for undertaking SWOT and scenario analysis. To do the technical work, a technical working group needs to be formed. However, a wider but of still manageable size stakeholder group needs to exist to interact regularly with the technical working group. Key interest groups need to be represented as part of the stakeholder group, but its membership should preferably be limited to about 20 persons. It is virtually impossible to make progress in a collaborative process if large numbers of people are involved, because compromises cannot usually be negotiated in public (your constituency will accuse you of “backing down”). Large groups usually produce “watered down”, “lowest common denominator” and politically non-offensive outcomes. The victims are the consumers of the service, i.e. disaster-affected and vulnerable people. However, large-scale meetings are useful during issues identification and when subjecting findings from technical analysis processes to public scrutiny, i.e. drivers, SWOT and scenario analysis interim

9

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

outputs. Representatives of different groups involved in strategy formulation based on small-group dynamics have an obligation to constantly interact with their constituency during the entire process and bring feedback from their constituency to the small groups (technical working group and stakeholder group). Effective dynamics for such processes are readily understood, an outcome of a century of negotiations, e.g. labour–management negotiations.7 Once an overall strategy has been agreed upon, it is important that the collaborative group act as a unified front. Unity will dramatically increase the chances of the strategy being legitimized by the relevant level of government and being implemented, especially, as is often the case, if it involves a large number of networked institutions. It is ideal if the collaborative group can sustain itself. The fruits of strategic planning are in the implementation, i.e. in management, not in formulating a strategy. By remaining active, the collaborative group can monitor the strategy and provide feedback. If such monitoring is formally undertaken by an official body, and a civil society collaborative group is involved, the latter can work with the official monitoring agency, either by supporting its activities, or by playing a watchdog or second-opinion role.

10

1.3 Guidelines to Undertake Strategic Collaborative Planning
The following guidelines follow the steps indicated in Figure 1.

Vision
A vision is a statement that describes a desired future state. It is oriented to a given time period, usually about twenty years. A vision for flood-prone watershed planning might be built around a theme of achievement of sustainable water use and prosperity in all of a country’s watersheds by 2025. The problem with visions is that they often tend to be utopian rather than realistic, and are often so vague as to be of little value in guiding the collaborative strategic planning process. However, if well done, a vision can

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

be useful in orienting stakeholders (looking and pulling in one direction) in developing a strategy, particularly at the stage of mission formulation.

box1•Action Plan on Flood Defence for the Rhine (1998–2020)
Vision To protect people and goods against flooding while integrating ecological improvement of the Rhine and its floodplains Development of strategies Strategic approaches to flood control and management: NEW PERCEPTION, which involves also spatial planning and land use Integration of flood control and management into national development process: PRINCIPLES Establishment of a priority action plan: ACTION TARGETS Principles Integration of related sectoral measures: (i) water management, (ii) spatial planning and urban development, (iii) nature protection, and (iv) agriculture and forestry

11

Integration of preventive measures: (i) water is part of the whole, (ii) store water, (iii) let the river expand, (iv) beware of the danger, and (v) integrated and concerted action
Targets Reduce damage risks: no increase until 2000, reduction up to ten per cent by 2005 and up to 25 per cent by 2020 Increase of awareness of floods: risk maps for 50 per cent of the floodplains and areas at flood risk by 2000 and 100 per cent by 2005 Improve flood forecasting system: prolong forecasting period by 50 per cent by 2000 and by 100 per cent by 2005
Source: New Developments in Flood Control Along The River Rhine, Jan Leentvaar, in “Regional Cooperation on Flood Control and Management in the Twenty-first Century in Asia and the Pacific”, ESCAP, 1999.

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

How can realistic and useful visions be formulated? In terms of disaster-risk management, the vision needs to key off the national development vision (even better, be developed as a component of the national development vision) – to a considerable and increasing extent effective disaster management is a key factor supporting (and sometimes constraining) national development. A disaster risk management vision formulated in isolation from an overall national vision that incorporates social, economic and environmental dimensions reflecting national developmental aspirations is likely to be of little value. Many Asian countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea and Thailand have developed long-term visions that can be used to orient the disaster-risk management vision. In formulating the disaster-risk management vision, key stakeholders need to be convened. Priority (parameter defining) data need to be circulated to all involved stakeholders, e.g. information on past damage, current and forecast levels of risk by subregion, future economic structure, international water agreements in place and expected to be ratified, etc. The danger is that in trying to have all stakeholders on one’s side, the vision will be too general to be useful, thus expecting 100-per cent consensus is likely to be unrealistic. The vision that is produced should be short (less than four paragraphs), clear and oriented towards a specific time frame. Sometimes quality graphics can make a vision clearer. Once formulated, the vision should be widely disseminated.

12

Issues
Identification of issues is critical to formulate a collaborationbased strategy for disaster-risk management. It may be wise to identify issues while developing a vision. Issues are usually related to failure to meet expectations. Issue identification involves convening representative stakeholders in the disasteraffected community, as per vision formulation. However, it is important that stakeholders be truly representative of significant groups and that they be accountable to those whom they represent, feeding back information to their membership.8 Other types of information are important in identifying issues, in

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

particular: (a) content analysis of the media – what problems pertaining to the disasters are being reported, (b) analysis of Internet sites hosting discussion of disaster management issues, (c) official referenda/voting (and results) on disaster-risk management issues, (d) political debate regarding disaster-risk management issues and (e) expert opinion (domestic/ international) regarding the disaster-risk management situation in the country in question. In formulating an issues statement, it is important that issues be grouped. Normally, an issues statement should list no more than ten main national disaster-risk management issues. Of course, at the sub-national level, different, more immediate issues will be identified, but sub-national strategic collaborative processes should be undertaken separately, albeit within the framework of the national disaster-risk management strategy.

Mission
Formulation of a mission statement is critical in collaborative strategic planning. At this level, the statement will normally have two components: (a) a substantive one, e.g. to minimize disaster risks to target groups of people and communities for sustainable development, and (b) a process one, which may be as simple (at least on paper) as achieving coordinated planning and management for socio-economic development of the country. The mission statement needs to be formulated by a smaller group than that which formulates the vision statement and identifies issues. Also, more technical information is needed, even though a mission does not detail the means to achieve it, to ensure that the mission is realistic. Formulation of the mission statement should involve a small group including representatives of government bodies responsible for disaster-risk management, experts (e.g. university faculty) and voluntary organizations. A mission statement should not be more than one paragraph long. The shorter the better, in that it should be posted widely throughout the country to constantly orient the population to the nation’s disaster-risk management mission. 13

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

Most important, a group of persons (or institutions) needs to be charged with responsibility for accomplishing the mission.

Driving forces
Identifying driving forces is critical to effective disaster-risk management. It is important that a technical working group be in place to identify driving forces. This group should be small, no more than ten people, but include experts on various sectors related to disaster-risk management (all experts should have expertise in one or more substantive and planning skill areas to minimize the size of the group). However, to keep the technocrats in check, the technical working group should interact at regular intervals with the wider group (the stakeholder group) that formulated the mission statement.

Table1• Driving Forces 14
Demographic forces Population Urbanization Migration Social forces Lifestyles Cultural preferences Poverty Economic forces Globalization Changes in mix of economic output Industrialization Technological forces Water use technologies Water distribution efficiency Development of practical renewable energy sources No water pollution Governance forces Institutional reforms Legal reforms Stakeholder participation Introduction of demand management decentralization

Environmental forces Overexploitation of water resources Contamination of water resources Degradation of aquatic ecosystems Climatic changes

Derived from Malaysian Water Sector by Salmah Zakaria, Director of Corporate Development Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia, presented at ESCAP regional workshop, December 2001.

In undertaking driving force analysis it is important that the internal and external environments be identified. This has always been a stumbling block in applying strategic planning techniques to

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

the public sector and is especially difficult when the spectrum of disaster-risk management is being assessed. Basically, the internal environment consists of all agencies responsible for disaster-risk management and planning in a country and the biological (e.g. watersheds), physical (e.g. infrastructure) and human (e.g. urban and rural communities) systems for which they have responsibility. The external environment is everything outside that system, including international forces affecting the internal environment. There is much technical literature on driving force analysis, which will not be repeated here. However, there is a consensus that driving forces should be generically organized by types of forces: Cyclical forces, e.g. annual flood cycles, business cycles; Trends, e.g. climate warming, deforestation in watersheds, population growth; Random, but predictable, events, e.g. earthquakes, changes in a major river course; Benchmark events, e.g. adoption of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction by the General Assembly, the Second World Conference on Early Warning, the United Nations World Conference on Disaster Reduction, or adoption of a national action plan on disaster reduction; Surprises, e.g. damming of a river (without consultation) by an upstream country, terrorist attacks.9 Information to undertake driving force analysis can be obtained from the popular media, professional and academic literature, insurance companies (which have a vested interest in assessing risk and future events accurately), professional futurists and historical data. But obtaining such information is only the first step. Useful driving force analysis needs to identify which driving forces are truly important in shaping disaster-risk management outcomes and how the strength and nature of these forces will change. For example, China’s joining the World Trade Organization will greatly change her agricultural sector (e.g. crop 15

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

mixes, areas farmed, farming systems) with profound implications for rural water use – most of them positive. As with issues analysis, it is imperative that driving forces be condensed (grouped) into a reasonable number of forces (no more than 12 internal and 12 external forces) so that scenarios can be developed and the strategy formulation exercise can be effectively informed.

Scenarios
It is impossible to predict the future. However, to strategically plan disaster-risk management it is important to know the range of possible futures. Furthermore, scenarios are needed to undertake SWOT analysis as described below. In disaster-risk management planning, the scenarios should focus on aspects of future national and international development that would directly affect the internal environment, i.e. the disaster prone regions. 16 For example, extreme free market economic policies without adequate regulatory infrastructure would very much affect the development and management of natural resources of the country, especially for rural agricultural population. Thus one scenario might postulate a highly market-oriented government in power, with its political base in urban areas, which would focus mainly on the exploitation of natural resources and devote major resources to development of major economic-growth areas to leave little resources for disaster management of rural population. At the other end of the continuum, a scenario might postulate a conservative government in power, which would make possible to focus on a more balanced socio-economic development policy to guide the management of natural resources and disaster-risk management for all disaster-prone communities. Scenarios are essentially stories about the future. Developing credible scenarios requires considerable skill. Fortunately, there are many excellent books and guides available for their formulation.10 The same team that produces the driving force analysis should develop the scenarios. Even more important than in the case of driving force analysis, the wider group (the

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

box2•Scenarios of Flood Management in the Mekong Delta
In dealing with the large areas upstream of the Mekong Delta covering Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Thailand, the upstream working group spent a great deal of time discussing approaches to identify development scenarios. In view of the complex and diverse economic, social and environmental conditions among these three riparian countries, the working group decided to focus on scenarios of directing cooperative efforts to development. The three scenarios identified were (i) good management of the Mekong water resources, (ii) effective development of the Mekong hydropower potential while conserving the special Mekong ecosystem and environment, and (iii) 20 per cent reduction in poverty in the Lower Mekong Basin. The working group highlighted the need to construct additional reservoirs and improve drainage so as to reduce annual flood damage, and recommended improving the management of existing reservoirs for more effective coordination of flood management measures. It recognized the need to integrate flood management measures and strategy into the economic and social development processes and therefore emphasized the importance of the Mekong River Basin vision adopted by the MRC in 2000: “Economically prosperous, socially just and environmentally sound Mekong River Basin.” The three other working groups on the Mekong Delta discussed possible development scenarios on the basis of the national vision of 2020, when GDP per capita would be expected to reach US$ 1,500 from the current level of about US$ 320 in the Mekong Delta. Despite the fact that the Mekong Delta is a rich area in terms of agricultural production and export earning in agriculture and fishery, it was recognized that the current economic and social conditions of the delta lagged behind many areas of the country. These groups therefore recognized the need to consider the high development scenario to be at least at the same level as the average condition expected in 2020. However, this generated a great deal of discussion as perceptions were quite diverse on potential resources and productivity, available human resources, capacity to respond to a more intensive development environment, emerging environmental issues and opportunities on international cooperation. Nevertheless, all shared the view that in order to ensure a more compatible and sustainable path of development with the rest of the country, the Mekong Delta needed to diversify not only its agricultural production but also its economy. Flood management strategy would therefore need to address a shift in development planning paradigm.
Source: Report of the Training Workshop on Flood Management for the Mekong Delta, Ti Le-Huu, ESCAP, 2001.

17

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

stakeholder group) that formulated the mission statement should be involved in developing the scenarios at regular intervals. According to Tegart, tests of a good scenario are: (a) it is plausible to a critical mass of experts and/or decision makers, (b) it is internally consistent, (c) it is relevant to the topic or issue of interest (in this case, planning and management of water resources), (d) it is challenging and contains some elements of surprise or novelty in directions where the organization’s vision needs to be stretched, (e) it is linked to participants’ mental maps, and (f) it should not be novel in every respect.

SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis is where the mission, driving forces and scenario come together to create the information base needed to formulate strategies. SWOT analysis can be subdivided into two main components: SW (strengths–weaknesses) and OT (opportunities–threats). SW analysis focuses on the internal environment, and institutions in particular. As noted earlier, because strategic collaborative planning involves a large number of institutions, SW assessment cannot be done in nearly the same detail as strategic accountability planning and management, discussed below, which focuses on one institution. If funds are available, this aspect of the collaborative planning process can often be enhanced by engaging professional organizational analysts who can apply techniques to rapidly identify strengths and weaknesses within organizations. Such outside experts should report back to both the technical working group and the larger stakeholder group. It is important to recognize, in undertaking SW analysis, that strengths and weaknesses are not objective qualities. What is strength under one set of conditions (scenario, driving forces) may be weakness under another set. For example, if a water agency is oriented towards regulatory-administrative approaches to water pollution management and political change results in market-based instruments becoming the norm, what was a strength (legal and policing functions) may become a weakness

18

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

and what was a weakness (expertise in economics) may become a strength. Similarly, if hardware approaches, e.g. building dams, give way to software approaches, e.g. demand management, the value of different institutional attributes will necessarily change. Given the foregoing, in undertaking SW analysis it is important that institutional characteristics be evaluated against future scenarios and driving forces to see how institutions would stand up under different conditions. An analogy would be the testing of aeroplane designs in a wind tunnel to see how they withstand different conditions. However, this is best done after OT analysis is done, because OT analysis can often help analysts better define the future. OT analysis focuses on assessing the external environment for both threats and opportunities. This analysis should be undertaken by the technical working group. To a significant degree, driving force analysis will provide the data base for OT analysis. However, additional information should be collected, as needed, as new possible threats and opportunities are identified. The wider stakeholder group should be involved regularly in the process. Often this wider group can play an important role in identifying opportunities or threats that have been missed by the smaller technical working group. The latter can then follow up technically to determine the importance of threats and opportunities identified by the wider group, and how they may play out. Global warming could represent a threat in terms of increased drought, for example, and obviously calls for appropriate responses. On the other hand, the potential to sign a trade agreement that enables a country to cultivate fewer hectares in water-intensive crops or sign a bilateral treaty which would ensure less fluctuation in water levels of an important navigable river would represent opportunities. Obviously, in formulating the strategy the emphasis should be on identifying means to maximize opportunities and minimize threats.

19

Identifying and refining strategies
The next step is actually identifying appropriate strategies. Strategic collaborative planning is likely to focus on the roles to

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

be played by different institutions (at both sectoral and agency levels) and on the strengthening of network dynamics, i.e. how institutions can more effectively interact to add value, ensure that there are no gaps in service delivery, minimize duplication and enhance synergy. Strategy formulation needs to be undertaken within resource parameters, i.e. the financial, human and technical resources that are likely to be available. Of course, all resources are elastic (more so in the medium and long terms than in the short term) depending on performance of the overall national system and performance within the field of disaster-risk management as a whole, and in sectors related to disaster-risk management. Nevertheless, it is important to identify the order of magnitude of resource availability before formulating strategies, so that the strategy put forward is realistic. Strategy formulation does not consist in creating wish lists of projects or programmes. Rather, it involves identifying no more than ten strategic thrusts that will work through interventions or incentive frameworks focused on points (fulcrums) of high leverage. Once these thrusts have been identified, appropriate institutional responsibilities can be assigned. Strategy formulation involves maximizing opportunities and minimizing threats, as noted earlier. Often systems modelling and information from analogous situations elsewhere can assist strategy formulation, as can best-practice databanks. Refining the strategy involves two components: (a) technical and (b) feedback from stakeholders. The former involves applying traditional tools of analysis such as cost-benefit analysis, economic analysis, financial feasibility assessment, environmental and social impact assessment, to key thrusts that have been tentatively identified. The latter involves distribution of the strategy to the larger group of stakeholders, to obtain their feedback. This process should not seek to make everyone happy, i.e. achieve consensus. Such an approach would guarantee a sub-optimal strategy; it is mathematically impossible to achieve change without making some groups worse off (at least relatively).11 However, exposing the draft strategy to a wider group will identify logical inconsistencies and thrusts that are clearly unacceptable to large segments of the population. (A strategy

20

partone. Linking the Phases of a CBDRM Process

must be acceptable and reasonable – technical optimality is a utopian goal.) Furthermore, constructive feedback will enable fine tuning of strategic thrusts.

Legal mandates/implementation
Once the strategy has been developed and accepted by the government, legislation will need to be prepared to alter the mandates of institutions, as necessary, to implement the strategy. (To a significant extent, it may be possible to effect changes in institutional roles through administrative guidelines rather than legislation.) In some cases, new institutions will need to be created although this should be an action of last resort to avoid proliferation of bureaucracy. In other cases, institutions which clearly perform a role unneeded or inconsistent with the strategy will need to be shut down. The strategy should clearly define roles of institutions, essentially defining their missions, but legal implementation will depend on the government. It is easier to prescribe institutional roles/mandates than institutional cooperation and empowerment of networks. Devising means to do the latter will be one of the main challenges facing those involved in implementing the strategic collaborative planning process. Although there are no easy answers, prescribing regular committee meetings involving the actors is unlikely to accomplish the coordination objective. More important is putting in place incentive structures (to be defined through the strategic collaborative planning process) which reward cooperation. For example, cooperation essential to implementation of the strategy could result in larger fiscal transfers to the cooperating agencies involved (whether national or sub-national) from the national government. Committee meetings create an illusion of cooperation; rewarding cooperation ensures that it occurs. 21

Monitoring and impact assessment
Very important in strategic collaborative planning is specification of monitoring and impact assessment systems. Basically, monitoring should be done by the agencies themselves, but be subject to quality control by high-level agencies (e.g. the national

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

planning agency, the Office of the Budget). However, since strategies at this level are likely to emphasize inter-agency cooperation, there will be a need to monitor such performance at a level higher than the line agencies themselves, e.g. by a national planning agency or, where an umbrella disaster-risk management agency exists, e.g. a National Disaster Management Committee in Cambodia, by such an agency. Monitoring involves creation of indicators that need to be aligned to the strategy. This is not an easy task and it requires considerable effort and resources.12

22

part

2

Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

Important aspects in sustaining the integration process
2.1 General Aspects
Conflict prevention and resolution
For most of the developing countries in the region, where participation of communities and stakeholders is still very weak, the initiation phase plays an instrumental role in changing the static prevailing conditions into launching the collaborative process, especially the trust building step. Effective initiation phase may be triggered in various ways, such as government efforts in public education, government or independent organization initiatives, and public protests resulting from worsening conflicts and leading to negotiation and collaboration. While the initiatives would provide ample opportunities to promote community-based projects, the response to public protests tends to provide little time for adequate analysis of the situation to move on to an effective participation of all stakeholders to ensure sustainability of the integration process. Prior analysis of conflicts or disputes in disaster management leading to public protests would provide better information for a proper design of participation of all stakeholders for effective integration of disaster management into the development process. Detailed analysis of conflicts or potential conflicts would form a firm basis to ensure effective participation of all stakeholders and timely establishment of mechanisms for conflict resolution or prevention. In this context, it is important to take note of recent important developments related to these aspects.

24

Change in perception of disaster management
In order to improve disaster management, many new initiatives have recently been introduced to improve the current

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

management practices so as to better handle increasingly complex socio-economic development process, particularly those related to enhancing public awareness and participation of stakeholders in disaster-risk management. New initiatives instrumental to the participation of stakeholders are mostly evolved from the changing perception and practices in disasterrisk management.

box3•The Five Basic Sources of Conflict

Relationship conflict. This is conflict rooted in poor communication, misperceptions, dueling egos, personality differences, and stereotypes. This kind of conflict produces strong emotions and often must be addressed before people are able to resolve other forms of conflict. Sometimes this kind of conflict is resolved by increased communication or by getting to know each other better. But in polarized situations, increased communication may actually reinforce misperceptions and stereotypes. In such situations, the intervention of a third party is often needed to create an appropriate climate for better communication. Data conflict. This conflict results from a lack of important information, or contradictory information, or misinformation. It may also involve different views as to which information is important or relevant, different interpretations of the data, or different assessment procedures. In a conflict situation, conflicts over data are sometimes hidden because people may break off communication. They do not even know that they are arguing from a different set of facts. These conflicts are often resolved quickly once communication is re-established and there is an open exchange of perceptions and information. In other situations the information needed may not exist, or the procedures used by the parties to collect or assess information are not compatible. In such cases, resolution may require that the parties agree on a strategy to get the information they need to resolve the issue. Values conflict. Values conflicts occur when people disagree about what is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. While people can live with quite different values systems, value disputes occur when people attempt to force one set of values on others or lay claims to exclusive value systems which do not allow for divergent beliefs. Resolution of value disputes sometimes occurs, at least over time, as people educate one another about the basis for their beliefs. Beliefs about environmental

25

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

values, for example, have changed considerably over the past two decades, at least in part due to this education process. Value conflicts can also be resolved when people build upon their many shared values rather than concentrate on their differences. Or they may be resolved when the situation is structured so that it is not necessary to resolve the differences. Structural conflict. Structural conflict means that the situation is set up in such a way that conflict is built in. The “structure” that causes the conflict may be the way in which roles and relationships have been defined, or unreasonable time constraints, unequal power or authority, unequal control of resources, or geographical or physical constraints. For example, disputes over contracts often occur when organizations define the relationship as a competitive situation in which each side tries to get the best of the deal. If everybody does the best possible job of trying to ‘protect’ his or her organization, it may create a situation where all the organizations suffer, yet individuals continue to be rewarded for their efforts to protect them. Structural conflicts can be resolved by redefining roles or responsibilities, re-aligning rewards and punishments, or adjusting the distribution of power or control over resources.

26

Interest conflict. Interest-based conflicts occur over substantive issues (money, physical resources, time), procedural issues (the way the dispute is to be resolved) or psychological issues (perceptions of trust, fairness, desire for participation, respect). For an interest-based dispute to be resolved, all parties must have a significant number of their interests addressed and met by the proposed resolution in each of these three areas. Often it is necessary to address data conflict or relationship conflict before addressing interest conflict. If there are conflicts over interests, the dispute will not be addressed to people’s satisfaction until their interests have been addressed.
Source: Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) by James L. Creighton, Trudie Wetherall, Jerome Delli Priscoli, and Donna Ayres.

One of the most important changes is related to early warning, when the Declaration of the 1998 Potsdam Early Warning Conference stated that “early warning represents a cornerstone of disaster reduction and should, therefore, become a key element of future disaster reduction strategies for the 21st century”. The objective of early warning is to empower individuals and communities threatened by natural or similar hazards to act in a timely and appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

of personal injury, loss of life and damage to property or to nearby fragile environments. Risk assessment provides the basis for an effective warning system at any level of responsibility. It identifies potential threats from flood-related hazards and establishes the degree of local exposure or vulnerability to hazardous conditions. This knowledge is essential for policy decisions which translate warning information into effective preventive action. Effective early warning depends upon multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration among all concerned actors. Several groups must contribute to this empowerment. Each has a set of essential overlapping functions for which it should be responsible. Members of vulnerable populations should be aware of the flood-related hazards and the related effects to which they are exposed and be able to take specific action which will minimize their personal threat of loss or damage. Local communities should have sufficient familiarity with hazards to which they are exposed, and understand the advisory information received, to be able to advise, instruct or engage the population in a manner which increases their safety or reduces the possible loss of resources on which the community depends. Governments should exercise their sovereign responsibility to prepare and issue hazard warnings for their national territory in a timely and effective manner, and to ensure that warnings and related protective guidance are directed to those populations determined to be most vulnerable to the hazard risk. The provision of support to local communities to use information and develop operational capabilities is an essential function to translate earlywarning knowledge into risk reduction practices. As most natural disasters in the region are water-related, especially floods, it is of interest to discuss latest changes in perception of flood management. The changes are driven by the rapid expansion of urban areas during the past two decades, which have resulted in rapid growth in many population centres and settlements along coastal and low-lying areas that are prone to flooding, with increasing flood impact. The frequency and severity of flooding have, as a consequence, increased at both basin and local levels, particularly in those urban areas. Significant flood losses have frequently been experienced in many major urban centres in the region, such as Bangkok, Dhaka,

27

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

Hanoi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila and Phnom Penh. These flood losses are expected to increase with the continuing urban expansion and escalation of land and property values. In many of these urban centres, flooding may be caused mainly by storm waters. Local flooding caused by storm water offers opportunities for small-scale measures to be adopted and for local communities to play an active role in flood management. It is commonly accepted that proper drainage of storm water and protection against flood losses are fundamental requirements for the sustained development and growth of modern cities. In many cases, especially for storm-water management, non-structural measures are required for an optimal solution to the urban flooding/drainage problem. For the successful implementation of these measures, it is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders fully understand the causes of urban flooding and recognize the financial and environmental implications on the basis of sustainable economic development and sound environmental management. With regard to storm-water management, master plans and strategies have been established for many of the main cities in the region, based on an integrated and participatory approach to flood management. This approach involves all the relevant parties, i.e. the central and local governments and the private sector. In most cases, it is no longer practical or acceptable to regard floods, especially those resulting from storm water, as natural hazards to be tackled only by the central government. The roles of the local governments and the private sector are becoming more important in the financing of flood control measures and in resolving conflicts resulting from urban development causing increased vulnerability to flooding.

28

2.2 Strengthening the Legal and Institutional Framework of CBDRM
The most important components for the framework of CBDRM are laws and public policies. Strengthening the legal and institutional framework is therefore expected to facilitate the

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

integration of CBDRM into the socio-economic development process. Although it is recognized that individuals, groups or institutions may create success stories in enhancing public awareness and participation in CBDRM, there would be no assurance that these success stories would be further disseminated and replicated or even sustained. Therefore, it would be much more effective if the institutional and legal framework could provide freedom and incentives for people to participate in disaster-risk management, including CBDRM. Since the legal and institutional framework for disaster-risk management depends very much on the political, social and economic conditions of the countries, effective and successful strengthening of such a framework is an extremely difficult process, in which commitment of top level decision making and widespread participation of the public are essential. In this sub-chapter, attempts are made to provide information related to the principles and possible models for strengthening the legal and institutional framework for effective CBDRM. It includes three main sections: (1) principles of institutional and legal framework, (2) model for the process of strengthening the legal framework and (3) model for the process of strengthening the institutional framework.

29

2.3 Key Principles of the Institutional and Legal Framework
The following three key elements of the institutional and legal framework must be addressed to ensure effectiveness in public participation: (1) the right to information, (2) the right to participate and (3) accountability. 1. Right to information The provision of adequate and reliable information is the key to effective participation. In order to ensure effective participation, the provision of adequate and reliable information should be made in a timely manner. In other words, it should be done in a spirit of cooperation aiming towards a shared vision. In this connection, articles 5.1, 5.3 and 5.9 of the Aarhus Convention state that “mandatory systems” must

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

be established to ensure an adequate flow of information to public authorities and from public authorities to the public in a timely, transparent and responsible manner. According to World Bank experience, “Participation is a function of information through which people come to share a development vision, make choices, and manage activities. To achieve this, information must flow from governments and external supporters in ways that genuinely support people’s informed participation. The objective of information sharing, therefore, is to ensure that all affected individuals or communities receive adequate information in a timely and meaningful manner.”

box4•Issues in Access to Information: World Bank’s Experience
30
Obligation to disclose • Is there an obligation on the part of the implementing unit to ensure that stakeholders are provided with adequate and relevant information? • Is such information to be provided in a meaningful manner, that is, in a form that can be readily understood by relevant stakeholder groups? • Access to information and legal remedy • Is the mechanism for providing or requesting information accessible to all stakeholders? Is it a simple mechanism that can be used by all? For example, are stakeholders required to fill in complicated forms? • Are there time and financial constraints that may discourage people from seeking information? Is there a significant delay between the request for information and the provision of information? • Are there any cultural or social constraints for accessing this information? Do barriers exist that may inhibit women or other vulnerable segments of society? Are special measures required to reach potential participants who are poorly educated or illiterate? Is the information available in local languages and dialects? Do stakeholders have any legal remedy when their right to information is infringed?

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

2. Right to participate The Aarhus Convention is recognized as the international legal instrument with the most detailed and most advanced provisions relating to public participation in any field. Regarding public participation in decision-making on specific activities, it includes several principles to be followed in carrying out a state’s obligations. The principles include the provisions that reasonable time frames shall be provided so as to allow adequate participation, and that participation should be provided at an early stage,

Disseminating information Bank experience suggests that centralized offices may have problems disseminating information. Accessing information was costly, time consuming and difficult. In addition, women who faced mobility problems or cultural constraints to travel were virtually cut off from information. Information can be successfully disseminated to stakeholders in a number of ways, such as newspapers, radio, talk shows, leaflets, posters and stickers. Apart from literacy, language, scope, timing, and selection of themes sensitive to gender, age and ethnicity are critical to channelling information flows to target audiences. Often, information can flow vigorously through local communication systems. This includes traditional entertainment such as song, dance, and community theatre. The exchange of information can also be facilitated at traditional gathering places, such as village markets, religious meeting places, police stations, or marriage celebrations. If, on the other hand, these modes are ignored, such indigenous communication systems can transmit messages that oppose and undermine development efforts. In South Asia, such communication channels have in the past frequently carried negative rumours about the side effects of family planning methods, sometimes leading to the outright rejection of the contraceptives being introduced.
Source: Adapted from World Bank Participation Sourcebook, February 1996, World Bank ISBN: 0-8213-3558-8.

31

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

where all options are open so that effective participation can take place. The convention also includes detailed provisions on the contents of notification given to the public at an early stage in an applicable decision-making procedure, as well as on the contents of the information relating to the proposed activity itself to be made available to the public for examination. Articles 6 through 8 provide for public participation in decisions on plans, policies, programmes, projects and activities which may affect the environment. These provisions are aimed to promote the development of procedures to take the views of members of the public into account at meaningful stages during decision-making processes.

box5•Right to Organize: World Bank’s Experience
Formalizing groups • What are the available processes for formalizing groups so that they can participate in project-related activities? • Are such processes complex or time consuming and beyond the scope of small community groups? • Is such formalization necessary to receive public funds or enter into valid contracts? • If there is no formal legislation or regulation, can project-specific arrangements be developed to achieve the same objectives? Ability to receive public funds • Can the community group receive public funds? • What are the requirements? Are such requirements complex, time consuming, or beyond the scope of small community groups? • Does the community group have a separate legal identity? • Can it enter into a valid contract on behalf of the members at large? Internal regulations • Are the responsibilities and obligations of the members clearly defined? • Do the internal regulations ensure that sharing of resources/profits is undertaken in an efficient and equitable fashion? • If the project involves financial contributions by communities, is there

32

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

According to the experience of the World Bank, it is important to ensure not only the right of individuals to participate but also their right to organize. The right to organize would involve the legal status of communities and groups and their internal organization. Its objectives are to (a) design effective mechanisms for group participation, (b) ensure that the legal standing of these groups is appropriate and enables them to interact effectively with external parties as required, and (c) ensure equitable relationships among group members and transparent processes for internal decision-making.

• • • •

a mechanism for ensuring that such contributions are provided in an equitable fashion? What constitutes community contribution? Can they contribute cash instead of labour? How are internal regulations drafted? How can they be amended? Is it possible to provide sample by-laws for different categories of project-related activities? Are records kept of such contributions to ensure that contributions are made by all beneficiaries in an equitable fashion? Are there any justifications for excusing specific households or individuals?

33

Representative and accountable groups • Is there any restriction on membership to the group? • Where the regulations are neutral, do they unintentionally have the effect of excluding women or other vulnerable sections of society? • Can such unintended effects be mitigated through the use of internal regulations or by-laws? • Who makes the decisions? Is there provision for participatory decision-making processes? • Are the leaders accountable to the larger group of members? • Is there a possibility of introducing some form of mutual monitoring or peer pressure?

Source: Adapted from World Bank Participation Sourcebook, February 1996, World Bank ISBN: 0-8213-3558-8.

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

3. Principle of accountability Accountability in the process of participatory planning and management is extremely important and instrumental to not only the performance but also the sustainability of the process of public participation. In a way, acceptance of the principle of accountability for the participatory planning and management process will lay down the foundation for learning and working together. From the experiences leading to the enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act, the United States Congress pointed out that “The public’s view of government has also changed. Several commentators have declared that [the] American government is currently beset with three deficits: a budget deficit, a performance deficit, and a trust deficit. The performance deficit is indicated by a public that doesn’t know what its government is doing. The trust deficit marks a public which has low confidence in its government doing the right thing. More and better information on what the government is doing and how well it is doing can address the trust and performance deficits.”13 34 It has been increasingly accepted, as recommended in Agenda 21, that in order to ensure sustainability, water resource management, and particularly flood mitigation and preparedness, must include the following key principles: empowerment of local people, self reliance, and social justice. These principles reflect concern about equity, accountability and transparency. The participatory planning and management process will enable water resource management to move away from traditional forms of water governance which usually have been dominated by a top–down approach, and professional experts in the government and private sector, towards the bottom–up approach which combines the experience, knowledge and understanding of local groups and people. In fact, one of the most important lessons during the 1990s was recognition of the benefits gained in combining expert knowledge with local, experiential knowledge. Accountability is “the clear and transparent assumption of responsibilities, the capacity and willingness to respond about one’s own actions (or inactions) and the acceptance of relevant consequences.”14 To ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

the participatory planning and management process, accountability must come from the two sides: agencies responsible for flood mitigation and preparedness on the one hand, and all key stakeholders on the other. Confidence-building does not stop at the planning process, but must continue into the implementation and management process. In the course of implementation, diverging interpretations of the details arrived

box6•Governance

Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Governance: a broader concept than government Governance can be defined as the institutional structures, policy and decision-making processes and rules (formal or informal) related to issues of public concern which determine: how power is exercised; how decisions are taken; and how citizens have their say. Historical evolution of concepts Governance in the 1970s: focus on government; at national level; and public service as motor of economic and social development. Governance in the 1980s: broader understanding; focus on development management; and incorporation of the capacity of the state, constituted under the rule of law, to integrate and lead society as a whole. Governance in the 1990s: expansion of governance to focus on capacities of the state and the civil sector; greater emphasis on the democratic nature of governance (on processes of participation and consensus-building, on involvement of civil society); recognition of the role of NGOs and community-based organizations; need to rethink the role of existing institutions and develop new institutions, functions, processes; and new emphasis on partnerships in the market economy.
Source: Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document, UNDP, January 1997.

35

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

at during the planning process, including plans and agreements between the two parties, may surface. For the more formal agreements, existing laws, including water-related and environmental laws, may provide the necessary basic reference. For the less formal agreements, which are usually the case in participatory planning, it is important to foresee the need to assist the stakeholders to clarify entitlements and responsibilities and to mediate in the event of conflicts. Under these circumstances, the principle of accountability is a prerequisite to smooth management, so that the process does not get caught in some rigid bureaucratic enforcement system. Good application of the principle of accountability will provide a sound foundation for the passion and creativity of the groups and individuals involved, and for their ability to manage human relations in an informal and convivial manner. Flexibility and good human relations may go a long way towards solving even complex and thorny controversies. During the implementation, it may be found that the effectiveness of an agreed course of action depends on specific changes in the related policies and regulation by the institutional actors (different actors may be able to use different pathways towards the desired changes). With respect to the agencies responsible for disaster-risk management, accountability requires to measure their performance. In terms of management, intelligent decisions cannot be made without dependable measurements. Measurements, therefore, can be used for: Control: Measurements help to reduce variation and aim to reduce expense overruns so that agreed-to objectives can be achieved. Self-assessment: Measurements can be used to assess how well a process is doing, including improvements that have been made. Continuous improvement: Measurements can be used to identify defect sources, process trends, and defect prevention, and to determine process efficiency and effectiveness, as well as opportunities for improvement.

36

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

Management assessment: Without measurements, there is no way to be certain we are meeting value-added objectives or that we are being effective and efficient. The basic concept of performance measurement involves (a) planning and meeting established operating goals/standards; (b) detecting deviations from planned levels of performance; and (c) restoring performance to the planned levels or achieving new levels of performance.

box7•Categories of Performance Measures

Most performance measures can be grouped into one of the following six general categories. However, certain organizations may develop their own categories as appropriate depending on the organization’s mission: 1. Effectiveness: A process characteristic indicating the degree to which the process output (work product) conforms to requirements. (Are we doing the right things?) 2. Efficiency: A process characteristic indicating the degree to which the process produces the required output at minimum resource cost. (Are we doing things right?) 3. Quality: The degree to which a product or service meets customer requirements and expectations. 4. Timeliness: Measures whether a unit of work was done correctly and on time. Criteria must be established to define what constitutes timeliness for a given unit of work. The criterion is usually based on customer requirements. 5. Productivity: The value added by the process divided by the value of the labour and capital consumed. 6. Safety: Measures the overall health of the organization and the working environment of its employees.
Source: How to Measure Performance – A Handbook of Techniques and Tools, prepared by the Training Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE) PerformanceBased Management Special Interest Group for the United States Department of Energy, October 1995.

37

In accepting the concept of accountability and thus performance measurements, it is important that its application should be made as part of the process of strategic planning and management mentioned in the linkage between the phases of the integration

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

process (section 1 above). The key points of the strategic planning process are: Future-focused Participatory planning as part of the strategic planning process is sometimes defined as a problem-solving process intended to adapt the organization towards a shared vision of its future environment. Customer/stakeholder-driven Participatory planning and strategic planning are customer/ stakeholder-driven and must be done largely from their perspective, because success will ultimately be determined by creating value for customers and stakeholders. Outcome and results-oriented Participatory planning within the strategic planning process should focus on achieving expected outcomes and customer satisfaction. This requires the development of a deep understanding of customer requirements, understanding of how core processes can support those requirements, and establishment of a strategy that continually improves those results. Involvement Widespread involvement of employees, customers, partners and other stakeholders in the planning process is critical to success. The premise for widespread involvement and participation is that participation increases the understanding, acceptance and commitment to shared visions, thus increasing the performance effectiveness of the planning. Dynamic Participatory planning and its strategic planning process should be dynamic so as to ultimately be continuous and flexible rather than static and periodic. With respect to the stakeholders, accountability should be applied to not only to communities but also to individuals. Application of accountability to these stakeholders will ensure not only transparency in the use of resources, but also the

38

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

appropriateness of the representation of individuals in participatory planning and management for disaster-risk management.

2.4 Process of Strengthening the Institutional Framework
Institutional building
Participatory planning and management requires a fundamental change in the ways government bureaucracies are accustomed to function, particularly in the operational philosophy of these institutions by putting people first and being customer-focused. To do so, institutions must redefine responsibilities and priority scope of the work, reallocate resources and provide incentives to meet the priority objectives, to build mechanisms for monitoring and adjustment, and to enhance outreach capacity for better interaction with stakeholders. In this process, strengthening existing institutions in participatory planning and management would need to be linked to capacity-building on strategic planning and management (SPM), as the SPM process will not only enhance communication and understanding between managers and staff in working and learning through the implementation of policies, but also allow scarce resources to focus on priority areas of capacity-building. The application of SPM will enable these institutions and their managers to carry out the principles and practices of SPM in their operations and to improve the institutional capacity in the process. In principle, SPM blends accountability with entrepreneurship and forms an overall framework for learning through adopting corrective steps within the systems and processes. Participatory planning and management within the SPM process will enable these institutions to bring factors or actions of other entities beyond their control under their influence into the planning and management scope through partnership arrangements.

39

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

box8•Accounting and Auditing Requirements

Sometimes, participating groups, fearing that their autonomy is being threatened, do not want to reveal their accounts to the government. On the other hand, accounting transparency helps to reduce abuses and the government as well as the Bank have a right to insist on transparency of accounts in Bank-financed projects. The degree of information revealed by the participating group should meet the requirement of public scrutiny without compromising the independence of the group. A practice which has worked well in this context is that the government and the Bank are allowed to examine the accounts for a particular project but not all of the NGO’s accounts. In any case, this should be agreed on to the mutual satisfaction of the government, NGO and Bank at the outset of the project. Key questions in this context include the following: • Do the regulations require that the use of funds be accounted for? If so, in what manner, and to whom? Do the regulations require that use of public funds be independently audited? If so, who is responsible? If the Auditor General’s Office is responsible, can this task be delegated to a private entity?

40

• •

Adapted from World Bank Participation Sourcebook, February 1996, World Bank ISBN: 0-8213-3558-8.

As discussed above, institutional building on CBDRM must include change in the mindset of staff towards future-focused, customer-driven and outcome-oriented action as well as improvement in the system of accountability (including incentives). In fact, planning and implementation of CBDRM projects with accountability will enhance visibility for these institutions and therefore improve resource mobilization. It is therefore in the interest of the institutions and their managers to promote the use of participatory planning and management for CBDRM along with performance measurements (accountability). However, in view of the complexity of the bureaucratic system of the developing countries, it may not be feasible to start institutional strengthening on participatory planning and management as part

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

box9•Towards an Effective Institutional Framework
Characteristics of responsive institutions Delegating authority Flexibility Experimenting and learning Accountability Multidisciplinary approaches Strengthening the capacity of government institutions Training Providing appropriate incentives Developing outreach capacity
Adapted from World Bank Participation Sourcebook, February 1996, World Bank ISBN: 0-8213-3558-8.

of the CBDRM integration process. Instead, the project approach with a clear accountability system, built in an overall programme of institutional strengthening, may be more feasible.

41

Building capacity for participation
It is also in the interest of these institutions to strengthen the organizational aspects of stakeholders’ participation. In fact, it is critical to build up their capacity to manage their own groups or institutions and to enable them to form partnership with other formal groups or financial institutions for disaster-risk management. Ultimately, it is the cohesiveness and selfmanagement capacity of these local groups that will enable them to improve disaster-risk management in local communities for better welfare of the people. In order to achieve this, substantial investments will be necessary to build up skills and systems that allow the local groups to take over most of the management of their institutions, including mobilization of resources. In this connection, it will be preferable to involve these local groups in the process of implementation of all disaster mitigation and preparedness measures so as to ensure their sense of ownership of these measures.

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

However, the establishment of groups is not a guarantee of success in view of the serious managerial problems they may face. On the other hand, apart from the financial resources involved, the local groups may foster corruption or division among the local community by excluding minority or disadvantaged groups. Nevertheless, the popularity and effectiveness of local groups in disaster mitigation and preparedness will ensure successful implementation of measures and policies on disasterrisk management for sustainable socio-economic development.

2.5 Process of Strengthening the Legal Framework
Strengthening the legal framework for participatory planning and management for effective integration of CBDRM into the socioeconomic development process can be viewed from two perspectives: (1) to implement the existing basic law on public participation or (2) to strengthen the existing legal framework of natural resource management and disaster management for better public participation. The two perspectives of the legal framework for public participation reflect the complexity of political and cultural conditions in the region. While these two perspectives may offer different legal frameworks for participatory planning and management, the socio-economic conditions of developing countries show the following common needs in capacity-building to strengthen the legal framework: fiscal decentralization and access to resources.

42

Fiscal decentralization
Decentralization of fiscal resources forms a powerful mechanism for public participation. One of the most common ways in fiscal decentralization to the local level is through municipal funds, matching grants, and community development funds to delegate functions and decentralize money to local governments. Under such arrangements, with the resources allocated by central governments, municipalities and local organizations would be able to fund small-scale mitigation measures and to improve

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

box10•Floodplain Management Committee: The Australian Experience
When a flood mitigation programme is being developed for a locality, the first step in the floodplain management process is the formation of a floodplain management committee. The management committee is formed and chaired by the flood authority in rural areas and by the local council(s) in urban areas. Because the responsibility for planning lies with the flood authority or the council, the committee should report directly to the responsible authority. Broad community involvement in the flood management planning process, from the very beginning, should produce the best prospect for community acceptance of and commitment to the resulting management plan. The principal objective of the management committee is to assist the flood authority in the development and implementation of the floodplain management plan for the area under its jurisdiction. The committee is both the focus of, and the forum for, the discussion of technical, social, economic and ecological issues for the distillation of possibly differing viewpoints on these issues. Membership of the management committee should consist of a balanced mix of elected (if appropriate), administrative and community representatives, together with technical experts actively involved in the preparation of the management plan. Community participation in the committee’s deliberations is seen as an essential input to the success of the floodplain management process.
Source: Community Involvement in Flood and Floodplain Management: The Australian Scene, George Whitehouse, Chairman, Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust, report presented at the Regional Workshop on Participatory Planning and Management for Flood Mitigation and Preparedness, ESCAP, 2001.

43

disaster preparedness. These small-scale projects are often initiated, prepared and controlled by communities, which usually provide labour and materials as part of cost-sharing schemes. Often these local initiatives are integrated into the socio-economic development process of the communities and thus remove critical constraints to community participation due to the lack of financial

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

resources. These local initiatives would also contribute a great deal to the success of these types of funding arrangements and sustainability of related development activities. According to the experience of the World Bank, numerous examples exist of fiscal decentralization and not all involve local participation in decisionmaking, but most help to provide an enabling environment in which such participation becomes possible.

Access to resources
As stated earlier, integration of CBDRM into socio-economic development is a process and participation occurs along a continuum. In such a continuum, the beneficiaries or recipients of the services and resources would increasingly involve themselves in the process of development. The ability of participation of these beneficiaries or customers would normally depend on the capability to get access to resources. The challenge is how to devolve the control over resources and decision-making power from agencies responsible for disasterrisk management to local communities and individuals. On the other hand, it is important to note that people may not be willing or able to take on the additional risks and increased responsibilities. To improve access to resources for better participation may therefore require creating mechanisms for social intermediation towards sustainable financial systems for the local communities, including the poor and disadvantaged groups. Such mechanisms must aim to bridge the gaps created by poverty, illiteracy, gender and remoteness. Local institutions should be built and nurtured to undertake these roles, and confidence-building processes must be developed. According to the World Bank’s experience mentioned in its Participation Sourcebook, building an appropriate system of financial intermediation that is accessible to poor people and yet sustainable for the lending institution can be a challenge. Overcoming the vulnerability imposed by continual reliance on subsidies (finance as charity) by establishing a market-based system (finance as business) that can operate on its own is not easy. In most cases, it is not something that can be fully achieved

44

parttwo. Important Aspects in Sustaining the Integration Process

box11•Social Funds

Social funds can provide funding to local organizations such as community-based groups, NGOs and local governments in a more flexible, transparent and rapid manner than line ministries. They are “demand-driven funding mechanisms”. They do not identify projects in advance but instead respond to requests generated by local organizations. Social funds do not implement projects: they promote specific activities, appraise projects or subprojects for funding using strict selection criteria, supervise implementation and monitor project effectiveness. Social funds have spread rapidly in developing countries since the Bolivia Emergency Social Fund was started in 1986; in 1994 the World Bank was supporting about thirty social funds. Autonomy Typically, social funds are set up as autonomous institutions that are transparent and have flexible funding, procurement and disbursement procedures. Because they are autonomous, they are able to avoid political interference and respond directly to local needs. In some cases, a social fund is an autonomous governmental structure reporting directly to the president or prime minister. In other cases, it is a private association contracted by the government. Decentralized operations This enables procedures to move quickly and allows the unit to deal directly with beneficiary communities. Communities prepare proposals for social service micro-projects for which they contribute to total costs. On approval, the implementing organization sets up a bank account to receive direct, incremental dispersals from the Micro-projects Unit, thereby cutting through typical bureaucratic delays and red tape. This has proved a quick and effective way of getting resources down to the local level and responding to varying demands and priorities among local communities. The channelling of funds to NGOs and local organizations has also increased the institutional ability of these organizations to undertake development activities and serve as instruments of participation.
Source: Adapted from World Bank Participation Sourcebook, February 1996, World Bank ISBN: 0-8213-3558-8.

45

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

within the time frame of one or even a series of Bank lending operations. In some borrowing countries where barriers are created by remoteness, poor infrastructure, a stagnant or primarily subsistence economy, illiteracy, or social factors such as caste and gender, self-sustainable financial services may not be attainable for a long time.

box12•Flood Mitigation Funding in Australia

• • • •

Three tiers of government make financial contributions to flood mitigation works and studies Funding formula is usually 40 : 40 : 20, split: Federal : State : Local No contribution is made to maintenance by the Federal Government Catchment management trusts levy the catchment community to obtain additional flood mitigation funds

46

Source: “Experience from Floodplain Management Practices in Australia: Principle and Practice”, George Whitehouse, presentation at the Regional Workshop on Participatory Planning and Management for Flood Mitigation and Preparedness,

Endnotes
1 The materials used in this chapter are drawn heavily from a recent publication of UNESCAP: “Guidelines on Participatory Planning and Management for Flood Mitigation and Preparedness”, Water Resources Series No. 82, New York, 2003 Webster, D. W. and Le-Huu, Ti,“Guidelines on Strategic Planning and Management of Water Resources in Asia and the Pacific”, UNESCAP, 2002 Collaborative planning is based on the principle that developmental intelligence and knowledge is widely distributed in a variety of institutions throughout society (“distributed intelligence”). Accordingly, one agency cannot and should not do planning in isolation. Collaborative planning involves representatives of key interests (stakeholders, e.g. labour unions, local governments, private corporations, community groups) involved in a developmental issue negotiating (through trade-offs, cooperation, mediation of conflict, etc) a course of action (plan). Once the key interests (through their representatives) agree on a course of action, the political/ bureaucratic process is likely to quickly approve/implement public-sector components of the action building on the outcome that has been negotiated among key stakeholders. Collaborative planning is based on the assumption that it is a sheer impossibility to control all actors (agencies) through a single plan; therefore, collaborative planning processes need to be simultaneously underway focusing on leading issues facing society, such as water resource management.

2

3

47

For an overview of the collaborative planning model, see Booher, D. and Innis, J., “Metropolitan Development as a Complex System: A New Approach to Sustainability”, Economic Development Quarterly, 13 (2): pp141-156 4 An issue is a failure to meet social or economic expectations. The severity of an issue is determined by, and changes, according to social values. For an informed discussion of techniques to involve stakeholders and interest groups in strategic planning processes, see Priscoli, J.D., Participation, River Basin Organizations and Flood Management, Bangkok: ESCAP, 2001. For a discussion of scenario preparation in the field of water resources, see APEC Centre for Technology Foresight, Water Supply and Management in the APEC Region, Bangkok: APEC Centre for Technology Foresight, 1998. (In particular, see section on “The future for water supply and management: scenario-based futures”).

5

6

CBDRM Integration to Socio-Economic Development Process

7

Delli Priscoli, J., “Participation, River Basin Organizations and Flood Management”, Background paper prepared for UNESCAP, Bangkok, 2001 Much has been written on stakeholder involvement in planning and management processes. For example, see ESCAP, Guidelines for Stakeholders’ Participation in Strategic Environmental Management, New York: United Nations, 2001. For a discussion of the importance of anticipating surprises in strategic planning, see “Scenario Planning: The Next Big Surprise: Wanted: A New Way of Planning for the Future”, The Economist, 13 October 2001, p. 60.

8

9

10 A brief, but excellent guide to scenario preparation is Tegar, G., Technology Foresight: Philosophy and Principles, Bangkok: APEC Centre for Technology Foresight. Monograph. See section entitled “Scenario procedure”, pp. 7-12. For examples of scenarios applied to the development of a nation, see Ogilvy, J., Schwartz, P. and Flower, J., China’s Futures: Scenarios for the World’s Fastest Growing Economy, Ecology, and Society, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000.

48

11 Based on the work of Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, for which he won the Nobel Prize in Economics. 12 For detail on the design of such a system, see Dearden, P., Natural Resources and Environment: Implementing the Ninth Five Year Plan, Bangkok: Asian Development Bank/NESDB, 2001. A key source describing current best practice in the formulation of environmental indicators, including for water resources, is Smeets, E. and Weterings, R.,Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2000 (Technical Report 25). 13 Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Walter Groszyk, Office of Management and Budget, prepared for a November 1995 OECD meeting of national experts on performance measurement. 14 Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing, Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, M. Taghi Farvar, JeanClaude Nguinguiri and Vincent Awa Ndangang. Published by Kasparek Verlag, Mönchhofstr. 16, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

About the Author Ti Le-Huu has been working with
UNESCAP since February 1996 as an expert on water resources management and water-related disaster reduction. At UNESCAP, he was responsible for projects related to strategic planning and management of water resources and capacity building on water-related disaster management, including coordination of activities of the Typhoon Committee and the Panel on Tropical Cyclones on disaster prevention and preparedness. Prior to UNESCAP, Ti Le-Huu had worked for the Mekong River Commission for over 20 years in various positions including Senior Adviser on Policy and Planning. Ti Le-Huu is an AIT alumnus, completing his Doctor of Engineering in Water Resources Engineering in 1975.


								
To top