Summary Report
Result of the Consultation Process in the Asia Pacific for GNDR Strategy Paper 2016-20
Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction
8 Waldegrave Rd, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 8HT (United Kingdom)
+44 (0)2089 777726 |
Contents
Executive Summary
A critical Review of the Strategy 2012-2015
Achievements during this period:
Articulating local voice to global platforms.
Contributing to community resilience.
Action research
Building relationships and developing partnerships.
Advocacy lobbying and campaigning
HFA monitoring
Strengthening civil society network, enhancing shared learning and collective voice
Areas for improvement and attention
Relevance of Purpose, Vision and Strategic Objectives
Strategy 2016-2020
SFDRR: Implication to GNDR and CSOs
Brief Regional Disaster Context
Specific Problem Statement for Asia Pacific.
Summary of DRR and Civil Society Context in Asia Pacific.
Suggested Focus for the next strategy from the members
Capacity development:
Governance Mechanism:
Membership Expansion:
Enriching Theory and Practice:
GNDR Functions
Opportunities and Challenges
Brief Sketch of the Sub-Regional Strategy 2016-2020
East Asia and the Pacific
Purpose
Vision:
Objective 1: Enhance the collaboration between CSOs and other actors
Objective 2: Communicate local realities of communities
Southeast Asia
Purpose /Mission:
Vision:
Objective 1:
Objective 2:
Objective 3:
Objective-4:
South Asia
Principle:
Mission: What GNDR Can Do
Objective 1:
Objective 2:
Summary Recommendations:
List of Annexes
Summary Report| Asia Pacific Consultation for GNDR Strategy 2016-2020 Page 1
Executive Summary
The Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR) is committed to a participatory review of its overall performance within the Strategy 2012-2015; and, to a formulation process for Strategy 2016 – 2020. A regionally led consultation process with its members was carried out to identify key recommendations for the next five year strategy. The strategy is anchored at GNDR internal and external context: past successes and limitations, current opportunities and challenges and identified capacities, competencies and constraints.
The consultation process has three phases: online survey through open ended structured questionnaire; a webinar each for the three sub-regions; and, a consolidation workshop. (Refer to Annexes 1: Online Survey Questionnaire; Annex 2: Webinar topics; Annex 3: Consolidation Workshop Schedule; Annex 4: Profile of the Survey participants). The survey conducted had the most involvement of members, followed by the webinar. The regional consolidation workshop had limited participants, but Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN), Duryog Nivaran (DN), and GNDR Board representatives were present. (See Annex 5: List of Workshop Participants).
GNDR faced the challenge of undertaking its strategy in disaster risk reduction for the first years of its operation from 2007 to 2011. GNDR captured its lessons identified and learnt from those first years of implementation phase and incorporated them in the strategy period 2012-2015. It has “moved forward” and expanded in terms of number, reach, capacity and impact. It has certainly advocated for putting the interests of vulnerable people at the heart of disaster risk reduction policy formulation and implementation. There were identified constraints and limitations though, that need to be addressed in the 2016-2020 to meaningfully become a cohesive and robust civil society network working to promote and advocate for effective policies and measures that increase resilience of the most vulnerable people.
This document is the summary of the result of the consultation process on the following: areas where GNDR did well and specific areas to spend more time on; relevance of its purpose, vision and strategic objectives; how to improve current governance structure including membership; priorities for the network; sub regional Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Civil Society Organizations’ (CSOs) context; the opportunities available and challenges CSOs are facing and brief sketch of sub regional strategy. This report outlines the recommended reformulation and changes/addition to GNDR’s purpose, vision and regional strategic objectives and activities for the next five years 2016-2020. It must be noted that not a big percentage of members participated in the process. The views of the respondents contained in this summary are mostly perceptions and based on their personal and organizational experience and therefore should not be generalized. Though the consultant tried to be faithful to the text stated in the survey, the summary required interpretations and reformulations.
A critical Review of the Strategy 2012-2015
In general, the workshop validated the consolidated result of the survey and webinar. (See Annex 6 Result of the Survey on Successes and Areas to Focus on)
Achievements during this period:
Articulating local voice to global platforms.
Communicating the day-to-day realities of life and vulnerabilities of people most at-risk to global policy discourses is the highest success of GNDR from the perception of the members. The GNDR has amplified local and national civil society voices at global levels and brought the concerns of the communities and of civil society to different levels: grassroots; national; regional t and global. It also highlighted the gaps that exist between local and national levels.
Contributing to community resilience.
As GNDR gave more weight and attention to the local-level implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA), it has engaged communities through consultation with the people living and working at the frontlines and contributed to community resilience. DRR message reached to thousands of local communities in an organized and systematic way.
Action research
It strengthened collaboration of frontline actors in DRR and has generated and documented evidence based cases at local level. Multi-stakeholder relationship, which has facilitated coordination and cooperation amongst people within the community, was built locally and globally. It has bolstered the thrust on combined top-down and bottom-up approach. It has contributed to addressing the root causes of vulnerabilities and in linking disaster and development and has promoted the reduction of risks to attain sustainable development. It has generated ground breaking ideas in the various aspects of disaster and its management. Through Views from the Frontline (VFL) and Actions at the Frontline (AFL), the GNDR increased its support base that includes not only NGOs but governments, World Bank, and the UN. Action research has significantly contributed in developing the capacity at the local levels.
Building relationships and developing partnerships.
GNDR members enhanced engagement with CSOs and encouraged ties between CSOs and other key stakeholders. They have extended partnerships with governments, UN agencies and development partners through networking and sharing of knowledge which resulted to increased awareness on partnerships and building of strong networks across countries.
Advocacy lobbying and campaigning
These helped in constituency building. The VFL and AFL were good vehicles for public awareness and advocacy. GNDR was one of the leads in shaping HFA-2. (Note: there was a reminder here to be modest in presenting this point). Education in disaster and environment management and other GNDR concerns were incorporated in the final document, but there were areas, which did not get to the final document. GNDR facilitated CSO collaboration through the VFL and AFL research especially during the lobbying phase for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
HFA monitoring
HFA monitoring through VFL promoted public accountability through implementing DRR policy.
Strengthening civil society network, enhancing shared learning and collective voice
GNDR has increased its membership, evolving and becoming a network of regional networks, promoting and supporting national networks. The strategy document is useful in understanding GNDR’s strategic direction and has strengthened the way GNDR members work together. GNDR has powerful communication tool and platform to share ideas and project concepts among members. GNDR is collaborating, networking, consolidating members’ regional setup, expanding membership and visibility across regions, developing partnerships with the local, regional and national levels in its various programs. GNDR members are working together at the national, regional and global level, developing regional and national governance and structures. It has built relationships and partnerships resulting to dialogue and collaboration even outside of VFL and AFL.
Areas for improvement and attention
As a network, GNDR has very minimal contribution in advocating and tackling the underlying root causes of vulnerabilities and exposures. Members’ capacity in coordination is inadequate. There is limited visibility of the outcome of objective-1 and insufficient regular knowledge and technology sharing among members. There is also limited functionality and visibility of the regional secretariat. The GNDR was focusing more on international or regional level collaborations, but less active at national or local level. Advocacy for integration of role of Civil Society in DRR is lacking. “365 Disaster Campaign” is an excellent initiative but there’s no impact because there is no follow through actions.
Meaningful partnership is still a dream especially between CSOs, government and private sector. Still, a huge number of DRR actors are not connected with GNDR.
Enhancing engagement between civil society and other key stakeholders is tough and will take more time. GNDR is too focussed on "communication" ("reality check"..., just slogan) and not on "offensive" coalition of CSOs. There is little capacity as a network to be present (except in UNISDR meetings) in major disasters, for example in crisis like Nepal and Vanuatu, even just issuing a statement of support to the local members. There is no resource mobilization mechanisms to support local initiatives. There is a limited interaction amongst members within the country because they do not know who the members are in their own country.
Relevance of Purpose, Vision and Strategic Objectives
The purpose and vision are stated clearly, are relevant and appropriate. However, vision must reflect the whole range of DRR: natural hazards, complex emergencies and climate change. The current "hazards and changing climate" might be misinterpreted as referring only to natural events. The vision should emphasize its link to the greater development agenda and should include sustainable and developed communities, instead of just “resilience”. This stresses the importance of addressing the root causes of vulnerability that contribute to underdevelopment and continued exposure to hazards and disasters. Thus the vision statement should have the concept of "sustainability" as well as the emerging term "resistant" to describe the communities. Vision and mission should also consider social negative impact and psychological barriers in human behaviours such as racism, gender bias and discrimination.
Articulation of Vision and Mission and its implementation at different level is a problem. Purpose, vision, goal and mission have to be built on the regional and national visions and goals. There is no goal or mission in the document but there are objectives. There was a suggestion to have Purpose, Vision, Mission, and Goals
The strategic objectives are also relevant clear and smart. Strategy fits the purpose, especially the local to global advocacy and the building of long-term resiliency of communities. The action research component is a viable platform for local voices to be heard and for the most vulnerable to bring their advocacy agenda to the forefront. The current strategy has built the foundation for being heard at a global level. It has raised awareness of local peoples’ needs throughout Asia and other parts of the world. The new strategy of having actions based on risk assessments and plans, are more complete than in the past. Participatory dialogue and collaborative partnerships among different stakeholders are crucial channels to develop actions that are context specific, long-term, and effective.
GNDR strategic objectives are suitable to the countries in the Asia Pacific region, particularly the adherence to the balance approach (top-down and bottom-up). Specifically, the strategy is relevant to Nepal, Pakistan India, Philippines, Myanmar and even Japan. The strategy is valid to South Asia and Southeast Asia. (See Annex 7, Purpose, Vision and Strategic Objectives)
Strategy 2016-2020
SFDRR: Implication to GNDR and CSOs
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030, adopted at the Third UN World Conference in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015 is the successor instrument to the HFA 2005-2015. The SFDRR has several key improvements from HFA such as the inclusion of vulnerable groups; recognition of the critical role of civil society and international cooperation. The definition of disaster has been broadened to include not only natural, but also human-sourced hazards and related environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks. Health is strongly promoted throughout the document. The SFDRR has a strong emphasis on disaster risk management as opposed to disaster management, it has defined seven global targets, formulated a goal focused on preventing new risk, reducing disaster risk and strengthening resilience and it has laid out a set of guiding principles
GNDR identified some missing elements though, such as: not thorough problem analysis, limited relevance to local realities, missing cultural dimension, not clear linkage between ecosystems and hazard creation, no policy coherence with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), not clear accountability and undervalues learning process. In effect, targets became weaker
GNDR need to continue to push for indicators in the next few months and then more importantly advocate to national governments to develop equally ambitious national targets and indicators; ensure resilience to be reflected also in other post-2015 frameworks such as the SDG, World Humanitarian Summit and CCA; and, strategize on how the civil society will play its role in the implementation of the SFDRR and the other frameworks. (See Annex 8, presentation on SFDRR). A big challenge was posed to GNDR -- to give more emphasis on action, implementation and accountability.
BriefRegional Disaster Context
Disasters pose a common challenge to all countries in Asia-Pacific region. It becomes ever clear to governments and stakeholders that sustainable development goals and community resilience cannot be achieve without successfully managing disaster risks. The region is also increasingly challenged by population growth and distribution, defective use and management of resources, fast urbanization, weak urban planning, and poor ecological management. This has resulted in social, economic and environmental vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change.
Specific Problem Statement for Asia Pacific.
The risks and vulnerabilities in South Asia are increasing due to poor governance and lack of accountability, poor implementation of policy, and lack of rule of law in the context of increased exposure such as widening inequalities, suppressed population, conflict, disasters and climate change threat. A neo-liberal concept of development pursued in the region intensifies vulnerabilities. In Southeast Asia, there are obvious gaps in policy, strategy, planning, implementation and coordination at national and local levels. In East Asia, the prioritisation of rapid urbanisation and economic growth is leading to risk insensitive development, especially in energy sector. The threat of technological disasters, particularly nuclear is increasing. In the Pacific, climate change exacerbates sea level rise, erosion and disasters, which is threatening sustainable livelihoods.
Summary of DRR and Civil Society Context in Asia Pacific.
The political space for CSOs’ operation is shrinking in South Asia. The perception about CSOs is not encouraging. For example, in Pakistan, 10,000 CSOs are banned for not following Foreign Currency Regulation Act; for being suspected of non-accountability to constituency; support to ‘terrorists’; and lack of transparency. Meanwhile, the Civil Society is fragmented, non-cooperative and undercutting and is are co-opted, rather than engage other stakeholders meaningfully (Co-option vs Critical Engagement). Nevertheless, they complement governments’ work.
Severe poverty in Southeast Asia blocks the people’s engagement in disaster risk reduction processes (DRR).GNDR’s presence and relationships at national and regional levels are weak apart from Views from the Frontline and the Actions from the Frontline . GNDR programs, resources and robustness in adding value at national levels is limited, for example VFL outputs did not feed into national and regional HFA monitoring and SFDRR document. Political systems in East Asia are limiting CSO participation in DRR activities. The isolation of the Pacific islands is hindering much needed coordination and risk reduction.
Suggested Focus for the next strategy from the members
(See Annex 6. Result of the Survey on Successes and Areas to Focus on)
Continue the application of the gains of the previous strategy. However, GNDR should also focus on the following:
Capacity development:
The Network should spend more time, energies and resources in building capacities of individuals, communities, and institutions at national and/or local level. Need to spread the success to different regions. Organize more events for capacity building. Support the strengthening of member relationship. Build capacity of NGOs in vulnerable countries Technical capacity building of GNDR members is necessary. Provide technical support to local CSO networks to align with the GNDR strategy. Support CSO at local level to generate country specific evidence based stories. Issue a statement of support to local partners when major disasters hit their countries, for example after the earthquake in Nepal.
Governance Mechanism:
With regards to the governance, GNDR need to continue to define and develop its governance structure. The development and strengthening of GNDR regional and national governance arrangements is a must, in consultation with GNDR’s members. Currently in Asia Pacific, GNDR has three board members and one regional development coordinator (RDC). There are 426 members in 29 countries in the three sub regions. The board members set the strategic direction, while the RDC manages the day to day operation of the network at the regional level. Board’s advice may be sought whenever necessary.