REPORT ON THE DAKAR WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION, FORECASTING AND PLANNING Dakar 14th - 15th July 2015 1 2 3
REPORT ON THE DAKAR WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION, FORECASTING AND PLANNING
Dakar 14th - 15th July 2015
1
2
3
Definition of Acronyms
AFL: Action at the Frontline
HFA: Hyogo Framework for Action
SFDRR: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
CC: Climate Change
SD: Sustainable Development
GNDR: Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction
DRR: Disaster Risk Reduction
CSO: Civil Society Organisation
VFL: Views from the Frontline
NCO: National Coordinating Organisation
ToR: Terms of Reference
TFP: Technical and Financial Partner
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Introduction
Following on from the Lomé workshop held in November 2014, the members of GNDR Western Africa were reunited in Dakar. They were there to discuss the network and possible new directions in order to ensure greater efficiency in accordance with the Sendai Framework. The workshop described in this document was held from 14th to 15th July 2015 in the conference room of the Marie Lucienne hotel in Dakar. The regional workshop in Dakar began with a welcome given by Mr. Andy King. The workshop, which addressed evaluation, forecasting and planning, was attended by some twenty people from various countries, and included two journalists.
The present report outlines the main points of the workshop, particularly the presentations, the debates and the work in the plenary sessions.
I- OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
1-1 General Objective
The workshop's principal objective was to evaluate GNDR's system of operation in terms of governance and to develop a five-year action plan for the reduction of risks in the region of West Africa.
1-2 Specific Objectives
More specifically, it dealt with:
Analysing the system of governance of GNDR Western Africa in the light of the new challenges that have arisen,Proposing a regional plan of action on the reduction of disaster risk in accordance with the Sendai Framework,Proposing appropriate strategies for networking within GNDR to maximise efficiency of the network at the regional level.
II- INTRODUCTION AND SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES
The regional workshop in Dakar on evaluation, forecasting and planning began with a welcome by Mr. Andy King. He set out the context of the workshop and arrangements for helping it to run smoothly. The floor was then given to all the participants so they could introduce themselves and get to know each other better, get to know more about their organisation and, to a certain extent, learn about their area of work and their country of origin. This introductory phase was followed by the actual work.
3
32
33
34
35
36
3738394041424344
4546
47
48
495051
52
53
5455565758596061
626364656667
Actually, several presentations were made during this two-day workshop, which covered a range of topics. The first presentation was given by Marcus OXLEY, GNDR Executive Director, and focused on The History of GNDR.
GNDR was created in 2007 after the Hyogo agreement (signed by the various states in 2005), in order to help them achieve the objectives of the Hyogo Framework, which was the origin of the network. This happened through gatherings and meetings between several Civil society Organisations (CSOs), which resulted in the identification of recommendations that were presented to the United Nations. The idea behind this approach lay in the fact that the global network must be able to establish links with local communities and work together to ensure that their concerns be into account at the global level. The creation of this network gained support from several CSOs from around the world, and GNDR currently has more than 130 country members.
During the presentation, the speaker also highlighted the link between risk reduction and development. For him, the reduction of disaster risk was a way of achieving development. As he said, "if we are seeing more disasters, this means that the mode or style of development being advocated is failing." He went on to say that risk reduction was just a part of development because nowadays it was important to go beyond risk reduction and to consider issues related to climate change, conflicts, poverty, etc. The challenge that was presenting itself, and which had to be considered, was how the CSOs could work together, in a joint and concerted way, to strengthen the resilience of communities. Regarding this line of questioning, the speaker went on to highlight a very relevant approach: "We have to assess the different frameworks (CC, SD, DDR, etc.) in order to coordinate effort into more effective action, however difficult that might be, to benefit vulnerable populations. "
Returning to the analysis of national policies with regard to DRR, Marcus OXLEY noted that there was a gap between national policies and the realities on the frontline. He stated that there was a low accountability on the part of states because very often populations face small disasters, whilst governments pay more attention to major disasters. This state of affairs amply demonstrated that there was no real plan to reach out to grass-roots communities. He also pointed out that national policies do not reflect reality because when you analyse the Sendai Framework, you realise that the issues of insecurity and conflicts are not included in it, which increases the vulnerability of local populations.
On the basis of this observation, the role of civil society is to serve as a bridge / link between national strategies and local realities. It must work to ensure that the concerns of local
4
686970
717273747576777879
8081828384858687888990
9192939495969798
99100
communities are brought to decision makers. To do this, it must advocate to induce governments to work to reduce the vulnerability of local communities.
Marcus OXLEY's presentation generated a series of questions, including the following: What role had GNDR assigned to the media over the past 10 years of the HFA (2005-2015)? What was the link between the HFA and the Sendai Framework, given that disasters were increasing? Had an assessment been carried out?
Answers were provided for all these questions. To ensure that national strategies were connected to communities, people had to change their individual behaviour and attitude. This inevitably required information, which meant there was a need to work with the media.
What was lacking in the HFA was the lack of inter-connectedness in the development actions of the CSOs.
In addition, the issues of the paradigm and of financial resources meant that the institutions, the CSOs and governments did not manage to work together to face the risk of disasters.
The second presentation was given by Mr. ADESSOU Kossivi Nevaeme, whose talk was entitled, How is GNDR structured and how does it work? He presented GNDR's objective and vision to refresh participants' memories.
Specifically, GNDR's objective was to strengthen CSOs to connect local to global and speak with a collective voice to drive resilient actions. Its vision was to build a more resilient world where communities would be prepared to reduce their vulnerability to disaster risks.
Organisation of GNDR
The network is structured in the following way:
o Board of Directors o Secretariat based in London and the regions ando Members (individuals, CSOs, academics, etc.)
A particular emphasis was placed on the need for members to take hold of the dynamic of GNDR, since they are the ones who make GNDR what they want it to be. In other words,
5
Board of Directors
Secretariat
Members
GNDR
Individuals, CSOs, academics...
101102
103104105106
107108109
110111
112113
114115116
117
118119120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127128
GNDR would not exist without its members, which impacts on the duties of members regarding GNDR.
Leadership and governance
Conferences, Skype meetings, discussions, e-mails, etc., are the channels through which members' points of view are taken into account and then turned into programmes, projects and actions. These strategies and activities are submitted to the Board, which amends them and takes the final decision.
This is the members' role: to be participants in the implementation process. They share their experiences with others, increase their knowledge and influence various topics. To provide background information, the speaker recalled that Mr. Peter AKANIMOH was the representative from West Africa to the GNDR Board of Directors.
This presentation generated a lively debate on the issue of the governance of GNDR. To allow everyone to have a better understanding of things, the experiences of Mali and Burkina Faso on the management and operation of the network at the national level were shared with participants.
The third presentation, which was entitled, The Role of civil society in disaster risk reduction, was given by Marcus OXLEY. In his talk, the speaker highlighted six (6) important roles required of CSOs regarding their contribution to disaster risk reduction, specifically:
1- Implementing projects and actions2- Strengthening capacities (farmers, fisherman, etc.)3- Sharing knowledge4- Liaising (playing the role of bridge / link)5- Monitoring (ensuring accountability by tracking and reporting on progress at the local
level)6- Providing advocacy.
He concluded his presentation by saying that, faced with these responsibilities, it was quite clear that when CSOs did not carry out their role, or when they did it poorly, there was no follow-up nor accountability to local communities.
After this brief presentation, all the participants were invited to join the group exercises. So three groups were formed to reflect on the different subjects that were proposed.
III- GROUP WORK AND PRESENTATION IN PLENARY
Three topics were submitted to the different groups in order to develop a regional strategy to contribute to disaster risk reduction in the coming five years, in accordance with the Sendai Framework. The three (03) discussion topics are presented below:
Group 1: "Risk Reduction"
6
129130
131
132133134135
136137138139
140141142143
144145146
147148149150151152153
154155156
157158
159
160
161162163
164
Group 2: "Awareness-raising and advocacy"
Group 3: "Community Resilience".
The team work
After about thirty minutes of work, the different groups presented their results in plenary. This was followed by amendments and recommendations, which were integrated into the final document. The results of the work of the three groups are summarised below.
Feedback from the team workSummary of recommendations emanating from the work groups (3 groups)
7
165
166
167168169
170171172
173174175176
GROUP 11. Risk-mapping at national and regional level to identify key groups2. Presentation of the activities report3. The capacity-building activities of the different stakeholders4. Advocacy: Influence the development of national communication plans for each country5. Support the establishment of a national community plan of action for risk management6. Follow up and revisit the legal framework of the Regional Manager in each country.
GROUP 21. Awareness-raising of communities / stakeholders in order to increase the understanding of risks for a behavioural change (advocacy)2. Monitoring and Evaluation of existing laws / policies - advocate for an improved implementation3. Conservation measures in vulnerable areas (for example, afforestation)4. Advocacy at the national level, together with communication and campaigns at the local level. For example, Local Planning5. Strengthening the capacities of communities regarding risk-mapping.6. Build on AFL and VFL, etc., in order to strengthen the resilience of communities.
GROUP 31. Promote intelligent agriculture to increase production - adaptation of crops to climate change2. Integrate DRR into the curricula of educational programmes and community practices (learning)3. Promote the management of natural resources (reforestation / soil restoration / soil conservation)4. Sensitise communities to risks - better understanding (learning / knowledge)5. Improve socio-economic conditions Strengthen the production system in order to improve the standard of living of communities.6. Strengthen mobilisation capacity and resource management for communities (contingencies / response)7. Establishment of local DRR committees.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS:1. Awareness: increase the understanding and knowledge of the communities regarding risks (4)
REGIONAL PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF RESILIENCE AND RISKS
2. Management of Natural Resources (3) INTER-REGIONAL EXCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE (with other
platforms?)
3. Advocacy to influence national policies and plans (3) Joint advocacy actions in order to influence government
policies. For example: The involvement of communities in the planning and decision-making process and investment
in natural resources,
4. Risk-mapping at the national and local levels (2) Sharing of experiences on risk-mapping & Learning (including
risk-mapping on the FRONTLINE)
5. Monitoring of policies and laws (2) Joint Actions for monitoring and evaluation of legal frameworks
6. Strengthening the capacities of local stakeholders and communities (2) Training - Advocacy, Monitoring and
Mapping local risk / assessment (FRONTLINE) ; CONTINGENCY PLAN - Preparation / training, response and
recovery, Cf., the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) project ; FORGING THE MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP
7. Continuation of the Frontline programme
Other Potential Actions:
1. Strengthen the regional DRR / collaboration capabilities and resiliency platforms2. Strengthen the collaboration and strategic alliances with other frameworks and actors for joint actions such as
monitoring (Capacity Building)3. Strengthen the management of knowledge in the field of DRR within and between the regions including the
Frontline process with its "learning" component: Mobilisation of resources, risk-mapping, partnership, advocacy, etc.
4. Demonstrate "added value" and promote the very important role of civil society alongside national government actors.
8
In addition, the results of the group work were considered and analysed under the title, What we can do together as a network regarding the identified actions? It was clear that for some actions GNDR could directly achieve certain changes, whilst others should be carried out at the level of each country and reported to the regional level for consolidation. The distillation of actions proposed by the group indicated points of convergence on "who does what" in order to strengthen the network. To do this, GNDR intends to:
Strengthen communications concerning DRR Exchange knowledge and expertise on the management of natural resources Support organisations and platforms Support national organisations on advocacy (agree on the key points, the messages
to send out, etc.), or even Amplify this work at the level of the United Nations through the strengthening of
capacities to be able to implement the actions identified, etc.
The possible actions of GNDR as a network in West Africa Following the proposals of activities, the participants were able to identify some activities that members could achieve as a network. This consisted of:
o Monitoring / Evaluation E.g., The frameworks and legal policies in force in the region
o Build on the actions of learning from the frontline - How to use this to develop the documents and the position reports, as well as to provide advocacy
o Continue the Frontline programme - learning actions can support the development of skills within local communities so they become more resilient.
o Support members in the mobilisation of resources throughout the region o Group 1; 1 / 3 / 5 / 6 Group 2; 6 Group 3; 6 / 7 (The main points returned by the group)
Contingency plans are important. It is vital to achieve at the local level / beyond the interests and capacities of governments.
EVALUATION OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GNDR
OUTCOME HARVESTING
In order to better understand the value added by GNDR and assess the changes it brings to its members, the workshop served as a framework for evaluation of the network by its members. Mr ADESSOU, in introducing the Outcome Harvesting tool, stated that this tool did not evaluate something as successful or not. Rather, it was a question of demonstrating the changes that had taken place during the process, be they positive or negative. This tool was characterised by not focusing on the amount of activities carried out, but on their quality.
Immediately following the debates, which strengthened the understanding of the workshop participants regarding this tool, the speaker involved participants in another exercise to assess the achievements, the lessons learned, and ways of harmonising GNDR's strategies.
9
177
178179180181182183
184185186187188189190191192193194195196
197198199200201202
203
204205
206
207
208209210211212213
214215216
Groups of two (02) people were formed to advise on changes (individual and organisational) implemented through membership of GNDR. This work was done on-line and returned via the link designed by GNDR for this purpose.
Returning to the question of governance, a very important point was made to senior managers and members. It was necessary to find possible answers to the following question: What are our expectations of GNDR? Several proposals were offered in terms of recommendations related to this question. This is what was required:
More commitment from countries that were not yet doing enough regarding DRR Access national platforms for each country Provide more support to achieve a greater impact at the national level Put in place a formal structure at the regional level to provide support to
organisations working on DRR Establish a team of 5 volunteers at the regional level (not a budget committee) Put in place an advisory committee for the region with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities. The mission would be to assist the Representative to the Board of Directors to identify regional needs.
Existence of National Coordinating Organisations (NCOs) as national focal points. The concept of the NCO should be reviewed. The name could be changed, but GNDR needed an entity at the level of each country whose mandate would be renewable every 2 years, for example. Each country must have its plan of action and the secretariat must integrate certain actions - countries in the international plan of action.
The question of changes in the approach based on the NCOs fuelled debate but, it was clearly seen that the NCOs were created at a time when GNDR did not have any focal points at the country level. It had to co-opt some organisations that were taken as focal points - countries in the context of the VFL and AFL process. The new formula that is emerging does not necessarily make NCOs the structures for implementing projects. This is because, in this respect, GNDR can proceed to calls for proposals in order to decide the awarding and implementation of a project according to skills. Having agreed on the need to redefine the
10
217218219
220
221
222
223224225226
227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241
242243244245246247248
role of the NCOs, the final decision would be communicated to all members as soon as it were available. In summary, the essential ideas that emerged from the debates were:
Establish an advisory council Make the Representative of the region to the Board of Directors accountable to
this advisory committee and to the Coordinator. Relay what is being done at the national level Have national focal points (not necessarily NCOs) Follow up the decisions taken. Organise a regional meeting a week after the
Board meeting Develop clear Terms of Reference (ToR) for applying as a focal point or as a
member of the regional council Acknowledge the need for a legal recognition within the region in order to work
in more depth at the national and regional levels.
PRESENTATION OF THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK
The fourth presentation enabled the speaker to mention the four (04) priorities contained in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction by the year 2030. The key priorities are:
i- Understand the risksii- Strengthen the governance of riskiii- Invest in resilienceiv- Better Disaster Risk Management.
Considered as the follow-on from the HFA, the Sendai Framework, after analysis, has both strengths and weaknesses. It involves several stakeholders, including CSOs, disabled people, the sick, the elderly, etc.)
Strengths of the Sendai Framework
Strengths include:
o More than 180 countries signed this agreemento The strong involvement of the various stakeholderso The existence of a global framework for discussion and exchange.
Weaknesses of the Sendai Framework
Weaknesses of the Framework specifically include:
o The complexity of the documento Ambiguous global objectives (since they do not describe clearly what will be done
and in what proportion)o No commitment in terms of mobilisation of resources / additional resourceso Policies and strategies do not say what will be doneo The link between these policies and strategies with the community is weak
11
249250
251252253254255256257258259260261
262
263264
265266267268
269270271
272
273
274
275
276
277278
279
280
281282283
284
285
o Very little local knowledge and expertise accessed.
The deficiencies identified in the Sendai Framework are explained by the fact that the lessons learned in the conduct of the HFA were not taken into account in the preparation of the Sendai Framework. In addition, it is important to mention that during the preparation of these documents, technical aspects were neglected in favour of political considerations, as the states did not wish to increase their funding. In light of the above, it is more than important that the CSOs work very hard to meet this challenge. It is to be hoped that the next Paris conference can address these deficiencies in the Sendai Framework to achieve the resiliency objectives effectively.
CASE STUDIES
The cases of some countries
GNDR in Burkina Faso is doing well. Thanks to financial support from Christian Aid (local
financing), a plan of action has been implemented and activities are ongoing in the following
areas: advocacy for a stronger legal framework, national workshops for establishing a
national GNDR network, and awareness-raising activities for communities living in high risk
areas. This was the message of the brief presentation given by GNANOU Adama. At the end,
he did not hesitate to invite the managers of GNDR to support them by responding to some
of their invitations during various activities.
Serge DJOHY from Benin shared about the experience and opportunities available in his
network. This dealt more specifically with the participation of young people in the COP 21
(the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change). He invited the participants to join him and to work towards
enabling the voice of youth to be better heard.
A FEW KEY POINTS FOR GNDR TO REMEMBER IN WEST AFRICA
1. Possible Roles of GNDR in the region
Acting as a network:
A few key members continue to see GNDR as an external organisation that operates as an international organisation.
Is GNDR a duly registered organisation in West Africa? This option must be considered in order to facilitate the mobilisation of local resources such as Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds, Climate Change funds, etc.
12
286
287288289290291292293294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311312
313314
315316317318319
Where can GNDR be duly registered in its current format in the countries of West Africa? Burkina Faso and Senegal are two countries that provide opportunities.
Terms of commitment We need more commitment in West Africa on the part of countries, not only impact at a local
level. We need more commitment from the other countries in West Africa that are members but
are inactive. We need to engage with other CSOs at the national level in order to produce more impact at
the national level. We need a more formal structure at the regional level (a Regional Council that will support
the Coordinator and the Representative at the level of the Board of Directors - the National Coordinating Organisations (NCOs) can help)
The concept of the NCO came out of the VFL / AFL projects - this concept has evolved and deserves to change. The ToR should be reviewed.
Conclusion
Thus, the workshop in Dakar proved rich in debate and in exchange of ideas on the part of its members. This reflected the goodwill and the desire to work together in order to enhance the exemplary nature of the network. All participants were satisfied with the success of the workshop, and it was on this note of appreciation that Mr ADESSOU and Mr OXLEY thanked everyone for their commitment and their sense of solidarity, without which the network could not evolve. Mr Adessou took the opportunity to invite members to participate in the debates launched on the network.
13
320321322
323324325326327328329330331332333334
335
336
337338339340341342343
344
Appendix
Group 01: RISK REDUCTION.
Preamble: Risk reduction is an urgent problem that needs concrete actions or responses and there is need for the network to deal with these problems
No. Activity Objective Indicator Budget ($) Responsibility1. Sensitisation
Communities Stakeholders accompanying communities
Better understanding
and prevention of
risk.
Number of Households in Communities that do not set up in risk areas. Number of communities sensitised.
Behavioural change
1 Million GNDR Members at the national level.
GNDR assist in fundraising.
2. Monitoring and evaluation
(Implementation of existing laws)
Advocate for the
implementation of existing
laws or propose
review where necessary.
Number of laws implemented or
reviewed. Response of decision
makers to this issue.
1.5 Million GNDR Members at the national level.
GNDR provides guidelines for this
process and fundraising.
3. Conservation schemes in
vulnerable areas like planting of
trees
To build
resilience in vulnerable
communities
Number of conservation schemes
put in place or the numbers of hectares of
protected areas Consciousness of
environmental risk.
1.3 Million GNDR Members at the national level. GNDR assist in
fundraising.
4. Advocacy Campaign
and communication at the local levels
with education and sensitisation Advocacy to
National level (decision makers)
Prevention of some
avoidable risk for example
housing planning
GNDR provide a regional
communication strategy.
GNDR assist in fundraising and
capitalising experiences.
5. Capacity building for local
communities to map risks.
To profile risks and bring forth
better prevention
mechanisms
Number of country strategies that integrate
risk reduction Better involvement in
local planning.
1.2 Million GNDR Members at the national level.
GNDR provides resource persons.
We recommend that we build on AFL and VFL to get concrete responses to local communities.
14
345
346
347
348349
350
351352
353
354
Group 02: AWARENESS-RAISING AND ADVOCACY
No.
Activities Objectives Indicators Budget ($)
1. Updating the map, by country and by region, regarding the dangers and disasters
Identify the risks confronting populations
Number and type of risks identified
5,000,000
2. Sharing the results of studies (of governments, Technical and Financial Partners (TFPs) and local communities)
Get all the stakeholders to the same level of understanding
Number of people informed
500,000
3. Training of stakeholders (communities, the media and states) on the main hazards identified
Strengthen the capacities of stakeholders
Number of persons trained
1,000,000
4. Development of a national communication plan for each country
Encourage stakeholders to adopt positive behaviours
Populations better prepared for disaster risk
500,000
6. Contribution to the implementation of the response plan at community level
Facilitate the prevention and management of risks
Number of response plans
5,000,000
7. Advocacy for revisiting the legal framework and proposal for legislation adapted to each country
Help to adapt laws to national realities
Number of laws introduced or revised
4,000,000
TOTAL 20,500,000
15
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
Group 03 : RESILIENCE OF COMMUNITIES
No. Activities Objectives Indicators Budget ($)
1.
Promote an intelligent agricultureAcquire quality seed
Adaptation to the effects of climate variations in order to increase food and animal production
The rate of increase of production 7,000,000
2.
Integrate DRR in educational and school programmes and into community practices
Achieve population awareness concerning disaster risk
Engender good reflexes in populations to prevent disasters and to seek shelter in case of disaster
500,000
3.Promote sustainable management of resources
ReforestationRestoration of degraded soilsLand Conservation
Increase food production and diversify food sources
The number of area of land restored
7,300,000
4.Make at-risk communities aware of risk
Mitigate the damage in case of disasters
The rate of reduction of damage after x years
8,400,000
5.Strengthen the systems of socio-economic production
Organise communities around income-generating activities (farming, small businesses, supporting local initiatives for employment creation)
Improve the way of life of the communities
The average income per capita and per household
15,000,000
6.
Strengthen the capacity of communities regarding a strategy for the mobilisation of endogenous resources (savings)
Facilitate the implementation of contingency plans
Availability of funds and stock quantities of cereal 9,750,000
7.Put in place monitoring committees at the local level for mitigation activities
Ensure the implementation of DRR activities
Number of committees established. 6,000,000
TOTAL BUDGET 53,950,000
16
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKSHOP
No.By order
Surname & First Names Country of Origin
Position in Organisation
Contact / email
1. Kossivi ADESSOU Nevaeme Togo Coordinator GNDR Western Africa
2. Marcus OXLEY England GNDR Executive Director, Secretariat, London
3. Eyram AMENYENOU Togo APAD-International [email protected]. AMEGNIGNON Koami
FrancoisTogo Réseau de
journaliste environnementaliste (Network of environmental journalists)
5. Andy Agbein King Senegal Shalom [email protected]. Ahmed Sekou Diallo Mali AFAD [email protected]. Mrs. KOUYATE Mali8. Charles BAIMEY Cote d'Ivoire JVE Côte D'ivoire [email protected]. Serge DJOHY Benin [email protected]. GOMOU Francois Guinea
(Conakry)[email protected]
11. Fideline Mboringong Cameroon s/c [email protected]. Adama GNANOU Burkina Faso [email protected]. Eloi OUEDRAOGO Burkina Faso14. KENECHUKWU Onukwbe Nigeria [email protected]. Eme ATAKPO Nigeria [email protected]. Kalilu BANJA Gambia [email protected].
Editorial team
DAY 3 Stakeholder Meeting
Day 3 Stakeholder Meeting / Debrief with Adessou
17
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
9.30 am ENDA Office Meeting with Adessou; Marcus; UNICEF DRR Specialist Gilles
Chevalier ; World Bank DRR Specialist Dr Isabelle Celine Kane. (ENDA Programme Manager
Emmanuel Seck unable to attend due to illness)
Main Discussions Points:
Meeting started with general introductions and briefings on respective organisations.
GC: UNICEF working in key thematic areas across the region including; DRR; Social
Protection; Alternative Livelihoods; Vulnerable Groups; Resilience Measurement.
There are many potential entry points for GNDR including AGIR programme; Sahel resilience
strategy - many CSOs are already engaging.
IK; Main WB framework with national governments is the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS)
which all now include resilience in the West Africa region. Critical issue is how these
agreements are implemented. WB working on a range of sectoral and DRR programmes
including flooding, coastal erosion, climate change, social protection. Core business of the
WB is providing financial loans to the national government.
IK: What is most important is the involvement of all stakeholders (including civil society) in
the design and planning processes. – vital to build ownership and engagement - national
policies need to be owned at the local level to be sustainable and impactful …
Need to understand the comparative advantage of the different stakeholders (i.e. civil
society).
Need to be pragmatic in the implementation but recognise governments are in a leading
role.
UNICEF: Civil society tends to be involved in the implementation not the conceptual,
design and planning processes.
UNICEF: Need to improve knowledge sharing platforms across the West Africa
francophone region (multi-stakeholder) - capacity building in this vital area resonates with
GNDR strategic plans
18
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
One possible role for GNDR is to help organise and legitimise civil society across the West
Africa region – this could help develop relationships and strategic partnerships with national
governments.
Discussion on what inter-governmental actors see as the “added value” of civil society ? : - Direct experience and knowledge of programme implementation with vulnerable groups
Access to populations that government’s bodies can often not reach, particularly in areas
of fragility and insecurity
Can support the inclusion and participation of marginalised groups (those who are
disproportionately affected)
Participation can support mobilisation of local resources, increase effectiveness
Civil society can enhance impact - better return on investment
Support better targeting of resources to vulnerable groups – can give voice to the
voiceless
Help governments to understand vulnerability and marginalisation issues
A lot of the above are based on an understanding of civil society as an “implementer” ….
Trust and legitimacy within affected communities based on their work not mentioned
Role in strengthening accountability and transparency not mentioned
Monitoring role not mentioned
Advocate role not mentioned
Ways forward (to be read in conjunction with priority actions identified in working groups - see above): Civil society need to raise above community-level and forge strategic relationships with
national governments who are the key actors
Need to build trust and develop mutuality based on understanding of comparative
advantage – civil society often oppositional / threat to governments
Get better at articulating and promoting civil society “added value” - potential roles for
GNDR in West Africa
Civil society networks can help civil society to build bridges and relationships with
national and regional governments
Undertake capacity building activities with national governments – for example - how
to forge multi-stakeholder partnerships;
19
413
414
415
416417418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433434435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
Encourage GNDR members to engage in DRR multi-stakeholder platforms at national
and regional levels where these operate
Consider how to support multi-stakeholder risk-mapping / profiling / assessments
RDCs need to build good working relationships with regional state and inter-
governmental actors (UN / Development Banks / Donors / ECOWAS / etc.)
20
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452