Photo documentation bogor workshop 14 november 2014

Key researchers, policy makers and practitioners brought together

Session I : Welcome and Introduction
Welcome and Introduction
Session II – Thematic 1 : Evidence and
economics of Eco-DRR / CCA
Plenary sessions
Lunch break
Session III – Thematic 2 : Decision making
tools for Eco-DRR / CCA
Plenary sessions
Session III – Thematic 2 : Decision making
tools for Eco-DRR / CCA
Two parallel sessions Day 1

Workshop
Introduction
MODERATOR
Dr. Heru Santoso
Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI)
REMARKS DELIVERED BY :
Dr. Robert Delinom
Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI)
Prof. Jakob Rhyner
United Nations University (UNU-EHS)
Dr. Muralee Thummarukudy
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

• Dr. Doody S. Sudkadri, Indonesian Council on Climate
Change
• Dr. Fabrice Renaud, UNU-EHS
• Ms Marie-Jose Vervest, Wetlands International
• Dr Udo Nehren, Cologne Univerity of Applied Science
Workshop
Introduction
PRINCIPAL MESSAGES
This is a timely meeting as 2015 will bring us a
power package of policy-making decisions: the
Sustainable Development Goals, the UNFCCC Paris
summit and the 3rd World Conference on DRR in
Sendai.
This workshop offers a “thinking outside of the
box” approach and one area where more work can
be done is to consider co-benefits of ecosystem
approaches including health, food and water
security and biodiversity.
We aim to improve understanding of the
importance and economic benefits of the Eco-DRR
approach – we are hopeful that from this
workshop we will be able to improve our tools,
especially in the economic domain.

Thematic 1
Evidence and Economics
KEY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
 What are the different economic decision-making tools for demonstrating the
cost-effectiveness of ecosystem approaches, taking into account the data
constraints?
 What are the current constraints to applying such tools for Eco-DRR/CCA
initiatives?
 What are current best practices or innovative case studies for applying such
approaches?
 What recommendations can be made for developing a methodological
framework for demonstrative cost effectiveness for Eco-DRR/CCA?
DAY 1

KEYNOTE
Going beyond valuation : Identifying policy instruments to promote investments
in ecosystem-based climate adaptation and DRR
Ms Lucy Emerton
Environment Management Group
DAY 1
Thematic 1
One of the main problems has been the undervaluation of
ecosystems. Economists are not accustomed to apply economic
analysis of ecosystems valuation for DRR – Economists are in the
very beginning of understanding how to capture ecosystem
services in general.
Using valuation to make the case for Eco-DRR/CCA is important
in tipping the balance in favour of ecosystem approaches or in
combination with grey approaches. Unless policy makers actually
follow through with actual investments in ecosystems, then we
are making no progress.
Valuation is important, but so what? Valuation is a means to an
end, it is just to inform us - how do we move on beyond
capturing ecosystem values and actually leverage investments?

KEYNOTE
How do geohazards affect mortality and economic losses ?
Prof. Brian McAdoo
Yale-NUS College
DAY 1
Thematic 1
 We need better data at all scales. We need a longer time
window for undertaking analysis. It is important to focus on
small as well as larger disasters but most data sets only
address the large scale disasters.
 We should have a look at the policy maker’s spending budget
and how much is invested in DRR.
 With respect to drought we should considered the temporal
scale for impact analysis. In this regard, the economic losses
may even be higher.
 It is possible to design projects that bring multiple benefits,
including protecting biodiversity, and mitigating DRR and
CCA.

Thematic 2
Decision-making tools
 How is Eco-DRR/CCA operationalized and what tools/methods/approaches
are utilized to implement Eco-DRR/CCA interventions?
 What are main constraints for operationalizing Eco-DRR/CCA, either at project
or programmatic levels?
 How can implementation of Eco-DRR/CCA be improved?
DAY 1

KEYNOTE
The role of natural resource in reducing community risk: Enabling decisions for
comprehensive resilience
Adam Whelchel, The Nature Conservancy
Thematic 2
• TNC focused on quantifying evidence of coastal/marine
ecosystems in reducing coastal risk - but closely linked to policy
and decision making. Examples provided of decision support tools
developed through the Coastal Resilience Network: applied in
eastern U.S.A, Gulf of Mexico
• Need to factor not only existing development and transit but
future economic growth and redevelopment
• Need to improve how we communicate this evidence to
policymakers: “Pre-disaster planning, design and policy is in fact
post-storm prevention”, “Proactive policies increase our flexibility
and avoid future costs”
• Questions we struggle with:
• How to achieve a higher level of confidence regarding Eco–DRR/CCA?
• Tradeoffs - soft, hybird and hard approaches?
• What is applicable and replicable?
• Tools that clarify outcomes of policy? Multi-scenarios that are spatial
and reveal tradeoffs
DAY 1

PRESENTATIONS Living flood in the Mahanadi
Delta, India
Ms Marie-Jose Vervest, Wetlands International
DAY 1
Thematic 2
• Key principles of Partners for Resilience project in India
• Flood risk reduction recognizes value of natural
flows and (pulse) floods
• Ecosystem restoration measures considered with
human-engineered risk reduction interventions
• Landscape approaches integrated with early-warning,
preparedness and response measures
• Livelihood options are diversified & include
natural capital and micro-enterprise development
• Risk reduction plans developed in 126 villages based
on understanding of ecosystem, natural hazards and
livelihood linkages
• Adopted cluster /landscape approach: to link risk
reduction plans of villages located in similar risk
context, and explore opportunities for joint actions
• Individual village plans were compiled at the level of 3
clusters: coastal, central & delta head.
• Implementing improvements to natural capital
(mangrove restoration, river banks), livelihoods, disaster
preparedness, capacity building of people and
institutions,
• Successful in leveraging other funds and initiatives
Cluster Plan
Village
Risk
reducti
on
Plan
Village
Risk
reducti
on
Plan
Village
Risk
reducti
on
Plan

PRESENTATIONS
DAY 1
Applications of environmental
management tools and implementation
of ecosystem-based DRR towards
mitigation from impact of Dec. 04
Tsunami at Kalpakkam: A case study
Dr Sasidhar Palagummi, IGCS, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras
• Kalpakkan township impacted by 2004
Tsunami
• Carried out quantitative impact
assessments – also looked at
environmental impacts/changes
• Developed short and long-term coastal
risk reduction strategy -Human-centered
restoration approaches were carefully
evaluated taking into consideration
various stakeholders’ interests.
• Long-term mitigation measures included:
early warning systems, tsunami protection
wall, green belts and open spaces along
coast, maintaining existing mangroves and
sandbars as natural buffers and for
recreation

• Improve people’s understanding of
climate change and impacts on their
lives
• Distinction between rural and urban
Thematic 2
PRESENTATIONS
Climate Ready Communities : what
communication can do
Ms Syarifah Dalimunthe, Research Center for
Population, Indonesian Institute of Sciences
DAY 1
residents
• Current communication initiatives
scare people rather than incentivize
them to be pro-active
• Use of different communication
technologies and tools (e.g. mobile
phones, TV reality shows) to reach
people and promote collective actions
• These approaches can be used for
promoting implementation of Eco-
DRR/CCA

Utilizing PGIS approaches for Eco-
DRR: the experiences of the
Lukaya River Basin IWRM*
National Pilot Project in Kinshasa,
DR Congo
Thematic 2
PRESENTATIONS
DAY 1
Ms Céline Jacmain, United Nations
Environment Programme
• Setting up a participatory watershed
management plan that takes into account
disaster risks
• Participatory GIS engages stakeholders of
the same geographical area (in the
watershed) to collectively take
management decisions based on a better
(visual) understanding of water and land
use issues within the watershed
• Residents built a 3D model of the Lukaya
river basin to scale (1/7500)
• 3D model was used to help users visualize
themselves in the watershed, collect data
on risk, and facilitate dialogue on potential
Eco-DRR activities
• Helped to identify flood prone areas and
discuss possible community-based early
warning systems that can be put in place

Presentation by Mr Naoya Furuta, International Union for
Conservation of Nature
Thematic 2
PARALLEL SESSION I :
Risk drivers and their consequences: how the Pacific has responded through
joint national action plans for disaster risk management and climate change
 Pacific Islands are at high risk. But risk is not high on the
political agenda, and understanding hazards is not
prioritized.
 Many countries are asking integration of DRR/CCA in
water sector (drought)
 Q: Are ecosystem elements addressed in strategy for
disaster and climate resilient development in the Pacific?
Ecosystems not specified enough, although some
successes.
 Advances in Environmental Impact Assessment
regulations for conservation and building back better
after an event
DAY 1

Demand for and uptake of ecosystem-based DRR/CCA research : a framework
for the PEDRR Research Agenda.
Mr Jyotiraj Patra, International Development
Research Centre, Canada
Thematic 2
 Need to understand knowledge-policy linkages, understand
power relations
 EbA systematic review : Lack of quantitative measures of
success and limited use in adaptation policy and practice
 Use partnerships to further strengthen science-policy
linkages
 Develop capacities of researchers – researchers should be
trained in understanding policy processes
 Stress importance of research uptake and generate demand
for research
 Document and disseminate best practices and lessons
 Political approval after a disaster- often there is political
space motivation/action on DRR policies and regulations,
seek to introduce change in post-disaser contexts.
DAY 1

Social perception of climate-related risks for EbA measures in Teresopolis, Brazil.
Mr Wolfram Lange & Mr Christian Pirzer,
Seminar for rural development
Humboldt University, Berlin
Thematic 2
• Social perception at the centre of analysis- lack of
knowledge about Eco-DRR
• Focused on : Why people do not participate in Eco-DRR
projects? How to get individuals to take responsibility.
• Gap in knowledge exists, including in context of own
responsibility in conservation, and how to obtain
resources
• Understanding real vs. perceived risks
• Address focal points, social actors, community leaders,
increased participation
• Community participation is key for EbA and Eco-DRR
• Eco-DRR is implemented through high labour input, no
need for high level diploma (as opposed to grey
infrastructures).
DAY 1

Thematic 2
Assessment and management of flood risks in Nouakchott (Mauritania)
Dr. Ahmed Senhoury, Regional Partnership for
conservation of Coastal and Marine areas in
West Africa
 New city- growing rapidly, below sea level in places, climatic
hazards, groundwater in contact with sea = facing increased
risk of flooding
 Coastal degradation due to many anthropogenic factors
including shoreline modifications, sand dune mining, beach
constructions
 Need for public awareness: Mapped flood risks and their
social and economic impacts
 Measures adopted:
 Reinforcement of the coastal dune by vegetation
 Recovery and transport of sediments
 Achieve adequate sanitation (waste disposal)
 Creation of protected urban areas (humid areas)- with
dual uses eg. Leisure, education, flood absorption
DAY 1

Thematic 2
The role of linking social capital for coastal management in Bedono Coastal Area,
Central Java, Indonesia
Dr. Etienne Turpin, University of Wollongong
 Jakarta development and population growth TOO FAST
 Garbage in rivers- exacerbate flooding. Who to blame?
What to do?
 Can social media be used to give real time information to
relevant agencies and populations?
 How can social media really work for Eco-DRR. Is
landscape change occurring rapid enough to be tweeted?
 Proposed actions:
 Use social media tools to build community resilience
 Start with people on the ground- work up to
government policy makers
 Development of a geospatial intelligence framework:
Next generation decision framework
DAY 1

Thematic 2
PARALLEL SESSION II :
Challenges for implementing Eco-DRR and CCA in urban planning in developing
countries: lessons from Kathmandu, Nepal
Ms. Simone Sandholz, Innsbruck University
 Huge, unorganized development in the city with associated
consequences such as air and water quality, less land slide
protection, decreasing in spiritual and recreational values
 Lack of interactions between the governance levels,
legal jungle, dependency on external development aid
 Lack of green areas
 Ways forward:
 Different entry points for awareness raising on Eco-
DRR in University curriculum (Climate change, disaster
prevention – new generation of policymakers
 Recognizing community based actions
 Increase enforcement of laws/regulations and
decentralization
DAY 1

Thematic 2
Exploring DRR/CCA mainstreaming through policy tools and legislation in India
and case analysis of EIAs in addressing flood disaster in Uttarakhand
Ms Sreeja Nair, National Institute of Disaster
Management, Ministry of Home Affair
 Policy entry points for Eco-DRR/CCA - Disaster
Management, Environmental sectors such as Agriculture,
Water, Climate change
 Lack of coordination and communication (contradictory
and multiple implementing agencies)
 Diverging interests and different powers between
government ministries and agencies
 Some critical issues not considered (e.g. potential
contribution of DRR interventions on community based
adaptation)
 Enforcement and implementation of laws and
regulations needed
DAY 1

Thematic 2
Demand for an uptake of ecosystem-based DRR/CCA research: a framework for
the PEDRR Research Agenda
Mr. Jyotiraj Patra, International Development
Research Centre, Canada
 Erosion of coastal areas due to sea level rise (up to 3.2
km) causing relocation
 Lack of financial support
 Wetland international concluded that mangroves were
not sufficient, needed integration with other engineering
solution and hybrid solutions
 Measures proposed:
 Building bridges
 Planting mangroves to protect houses and elevating
houses in groups
 Coordination between state and non-state actors
and levels
DAY 1

Towards anticipatory management of forest and peat fires to enhance local
resilience and reduce natural capital depletion
Mr Johan Kieft, UNORCID
Thematic 2
 Peat land largest GHGs sources in Indonesia (40-50%) but also a
source of natural capital (water, biodiversity, carbon) - opened for
agricultural development
 Difficulties in management of peat lands – face increased risk of fires
and floods, land subsidence (from water withdrawals)
 In the context of peat: natural capital depletion and enhanced
disaster risk are results of the same development process
 Applying a green economy perspective – to help focus attention on
social, economic and environmental sustainability for national
development - to change planning behaviour around peat
• Natural Capital Accounting for peat as a tool to make environmental
services tangible:
• As a tool in Strategic Environmental Assessment
• Underpinning GREEN GDP accounting (SEEA)
• Peat land areas should be viewed as a priority to pilot “Green
Planning” - BUT More research needed on links between natural
capital accounting and DRR
DAY 1

Performance based ecosystem restoration for climate change adaptation: a
procedural approach
Ms Sony Baral, IUCN, Nepal
Thematic 2
 Landslide risks in Nepal
 Despite high investments in forest plantations, forest
performance is poor due to lack of technical knowledge
and forest management issues, problems with incentives
 Partnership between Public (technical specification and
standards) private (species selection demand, business
linkages) and communities (management)
 Monitoring for adaptive management
 New performance based payment for plantations (with
communities involvement, no seedling but natural
regeneration, no fencing, incentive payment for
successful re-afforestation, periodic technical support
and mentoring)
 Investing in performance-based restoration give higher
returns and cost effective (in all scenarios)
DAY 1

Day 2
Summary of discussions in day 1
Session IV– Thematic 3 : innovative
institutional arrangements and policies for
Eco-DRR / CCA
Plenary sessions
Session IV – Thematic 3 : innovative
institutional arrangements and policies for
Eco-DRR / CCA
Two parallel sessions
Lunch break
Session V – Thematic 4 : cutting edge scientific
research and technical innovations on Eco-
DRR / CCA
Plenary sessions
Session VI – Breakout Groups for each
thematic areas : part 1
1. Economics 2. Tools 3. Policies ? 4. ????

Ms Marisol Estrella - UNEP
Recap Day 1
Discussion highlights under Thematic 1
• Only direct values of ecosystems were considered by
economists – today increasing acceptance of valuing
indirect values (i.e. Total Ecosystem Services)
• Practice of applying economic tools to value DRR services
of ecosystems is still evolving
• "and so what?" - going beyond valuation - who gains,
who bears the costs? - capture and redistribute values/
benefits to create economic incentives and investments
• Communication – be clear on what , to whom, for what?
• Bottomline is governance – be politically savvy, need to
make a case to get Eco-DRR/CCA in planning and financial
agenda
• Emerging areas of work is with the private sector – eg.
Insurance sector , looking at fiscal and tax incentives
• Issue of temporality – immediate costs vs. Long term
gains, immediate vs long term impacts of disasters
(drought)
• Need better disaster data – assumptions, gaps , small vs
large disasters
DAY 2
SUMMARY OF DAY ONE :

Chocolate challenge!!
Who said that 100 million people
were living within 10km of coral reefs
in Indonesia, India, Philippines
(Answer: Adam Whelchel, TNC)
Recap Day 1
Discussion highlights under Thematic 2
A wide range of tools available:
• Adopt science-based approach to inform decision-making
and policies
• Taking a landscape approach - e.g. clustering of villages
approach
• Multi-hazard approach – work with both climatic and
non-climatic hazards
• Combining participatory with «scientific» approaches
• Hybrid approaches – green combined with gray
infrastructure, harnessing multiple benefits of
ecosystems
• Increased integration between DRR and CCA - but not
necessarily ecosystem based approach!
• Use of social media to give real time information?
• Enhancing role of communities /social actors in
implementing eco-drr/CCA
• Top-down / bottom-up approach is important – emphasis
on local resilience but also addressing risk drivers
DAY 2
SUMMARY OF DAY ONE :

Additional Reflections
on Thematic 1
Valuation of ecosystem services for DRR
Dr. Rudolf de Groot, Wageningen University
 High cost of ecosystem loss, estimation 2.5% per year
 Question: how to value, how to compare against
engineered solutions
 Different ways to measure economic/monetary
values, : market price, shadow price, questionnaire
based, benefit (value) transfer, each with advantages
/challenges, depending on data availability and
specific ecosystem values to be measured
 Can emphasize additional benefits of ecosystem
services beyond hazard protection/regulation
 Need to start seeing money spent in conservation as
investment rather than cost
 Need better information on net-benefits, based on
“inclusive” calculations/assumptions
DAY 2
KEYNOTE

 Why is “scaling-up” of Eco-DRR/CCA needed? (What do
Thematic 3
Institutions & policies
we mean by “going to scale”?)
 What are the key entry points or opportunities at
national and/or local levels for scaling-up /
mainstreaming Eco-DRR/CCA?
 What are the key challenges to scaling up and
mainstreaming of the Eco-DRR/CCA approach?
 What are the supporting elements / “ingredients” for
going to scale? DAY 2

Managing coastal dunes system for Eco-DRR and EbA along urban-rural
gradients: Experiences from Indonesia, Vietnam and Chile
Dr. Ho Dac Thai Hoang, Hue University of
Agriculture and Forestry, Viet Nam and Dr Udo
Nehren, Cologne University of Applied Sciences
Thematic 3
 Comparison of dunes systems having high pressure by
looking at 3 countries (Indonesia, Vietnam and Chile) and
showing their buffering effects against storms, etc.
 Understanding ecosystem services provided by dune
systems in 3 countries + use of products from dune
systems
 Definition of categories and indicators for the degree of
degradation of dune systems reducing buffer services
 Overall objective: providing degradation status, loss of
dune areas and communicating consequences.
Assessed Legal frameworks:
 Vietnam and Indonesia: Legal frameworks for the
protection of coastal dune systems.
 Chile: bunch of legal frameworks addressing dune
systems in the country (civil code: public use of coastline
and beach front (80 m)) + other legal frameworks, etc.
DAY 2
KEYNOTE

Climate change in Egypt: Strategy for adaptation and DRR
Prof. Aly Nabih El-Bahrawy, Faculty of Engineering,
Ain Shams University
Thematic 3
 Most countries don’t have a strategy for CCA. Egypt has a
national strategy working with 2 scenarios: sea level rise
of 0,5 and 1 m
 Long list of determinants in different areas (social,
economic,...) for CC strategy, many sectors affected and
involved, CC expected to impact strongly on Egyptian
economy
 Strategy aims to increase flexibility of Egyptian society to
deal with CC induced risks
 Mainstreaming of CCA in IWRM plans, presenting key
steps:
 Situational Analysis of the Policy and Legislative
Framework
 Creating Enabling Environment
 Planning and Policy Structures
 Develop Institutional Structures
DAY 2
PRESENTATION

Emerging science-policy institutional opportunities to inform and strengthen
ecosystem-based DRR plans : Insights from the Ghed area of Porbandar in coastal
Gujarat, India
Ms Komal Gokalbhai Kantariya, Gujarat State
Disaster Management Authority
Thematic 3
 Ghed ecosystem in low lying coastal Gujarat is prone to
water logging, problems with salinity, people depending
on livestock. Area is prone to multiple disasters, including
floods and sea-level rise
 Problem: Lack of integrated approaches between areas
and institutions involved, but: emerging opportunities for
eco-DRR in watershed management and irrigation canal
development
 Disaster management policy of Gujarat exists, but limited
scope for Eco-DRR approaches, in pre-and post-disaster,
not mentioned in policy
DAY 2
PRESENTATION

The role of protected areas for DRR – a case study of Sanriku Reconstruction
National Park, Japan
Mr Naoya Furuta, UICN, Japan
Thematic 3
 Technological solutions are not always effective in
disaster risk management. Dual sea wall with 10.45 m
height was developed to prevent tsunami hazards.
However in 2011, this wall failed to protect against the
tsunami, causing fatalities and damages.
 Sanriku Fukko (reconstruction) national park has been
created in response to improved disaster governance.
 Coastline plantations prevented some damage, eg.
helped to keep debris from reaching inland. Tidal flats
reclaimed for agriculture will now be restored as a
response to the disaster.
 The park is used for ecotourism to demonstrate the role
of protected area, coastal green belts in disasters
 The National Resilience Act has been accepted as an
integrative tool, with efforts to take into account
Ecosystem-based DRR.
DAY 2
A forest caught 20 ships washed inland by a 6 meter
tsunami, thereby protecting the houses located behind
the trees

Thematic 3
Protected areas and the risks of climate change in Asia
Pr. Jeffrey McNeely, Thailand’s Department of
National Parks
 The impact of climate change on humans is felt through
impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.
 Protected areas help to maintain options for future, by
conserving biodiversity and supporting ecosystem
services.
 Tropical peat forests valuable for carbon sequestration
and should be conserved, especially in countries, such as
Indonesia, in connection to REDD+ - need to explore how
to combine with Protected Areas and maximizing
benefits for CCA and DRR
 Around 40% of forests are located in protected areas
globally.
• Example of paying for ecosystem services provided by
protected areas: Thailand, protected area supports
functioning of a hydro-dam, whose revenues are
reinvested to manage the protected area.
• Other possibilities for maximizing PA’s multiple benefits:
REDD+
DAY 2

Opportunities & Challenges in sustaining Community based Eco-DRR approach in
the mangrove forests of Indian Sundarbans
Mr. Rajarshi DasGupta, Graduate School of Global
Environmental Studies, Kyoto University
 After Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004, mangroves were
regarded as a DRR solution. But economic benefits
poorly understood.
 Study area: India Sundarbans is exposed to tropical
cyclones and other disasters
 Embankments built as an engineering solution but they
are often damaged and therefore ineffective.
 Mangroves are important for community resilience and
post-disaster recovery. Conservation and management of
mangrove forests allows for community participation,
together with forest department and civil government.
 Study promoted approaches to social-economic
sustainability, since economic incentives are generally
limited, but also looked at environmental and
institutional sustainability.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Ecosystems as places and homes to reduce risk
Dr. Keith Morrison, PaCE-SD, University of the
South Pacific, Suva, Fiji
 Risks include for example the increasing urbanization and
poverty from migration due to anthropogenic climate
change.
 Adaptive capacity has been presented as a denominator
of vulnerability.
 Exposure includes natural stress, but also unjust stress,
including unjust governance, inequity or dysfunctional
governance.
 Tension between management theory and community
experience has been recognized, not considering role of
the cultural traditions.
 Traditional knowledge views ecosystem as home and
place.
 Communities can self-organize to create own governance
structure leading to adaptive co-management.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Governance of disaster risk as governance of social-ecological systems
Dr. Urbano Fra Paleo, University of Extremadura
 Current policies and management do not take into account
interaction within social-ecological systems, they are divided
rather than integrative.
 High level of complexity between local, regional and national
levels, with different interests in managing disasters.
 However, it is changing with horizontal communication as
people can exchange information on associated risk.
 Disasters are not only natural or technological but combined,
therefore higher connectivity between policies is required.
 Interaction between natural system and social system is not
managed in an integrated way.
 Science dimension changed as well as creating the risk but
also coming with solutions to the risk.
 Some disciplines ignored the traditional local cultural
knowledge of the risk.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Innovative institutional arrangements and policies for Eco-DRR and CCA
Dr. Hendri Yuzal, University of Hawaii at Manoa
 What is important is building an institutional capacity
that creates resilient institutions
 Capacity development is important to create resilient
institutions by making them flexible.
 Factors such as transfer of knowledge and skills,
matching right polices with appropriate legal authority
are elements of capacity for adaptation.
 Example of good institutional approach and successful
recovery process is Aceh (Tsunami 2004) disaster, where
a coordination agency was quickly put in place.
 On the other hand, response to Typhoon Haiyan
reflected limited institutional capacity which led to very
slow response and recovery.
 These institutional arrangements have implications for
financing adaptation; the challenge is to measure
effectiveness of financial flows.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Initial status and profiles of identified eco-towns in the Philippines
Dr. Ruth Guzman, Rizal Technological University
 Implementation of climate change action plans at the
local level will be through ecologically stable and
economically resilient towns – “Ecotowns”
 Ecotowns will be a planning unit comprised of a
municipality or a group of municipalities located within
or in the boundaries of key Biodiversity Areas (sensitive
forest, coastal and marine ecosystems, small islands,
food baskets) and are highly vulnerable to climate change
 Ecotowns could be the basis for helping local
governments link CCA and DRR in their policy planning
and provision of public services
 Main objective is to enable municipalities become
climate change resilient and also economically and
ecologically sustainable
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Community-based climate proofing and comprehensive site development pilot
programs in Aurora Province, Philippines
Mr. Oscar Carraso, IDC Environment & Livelihood
Development Foundation
 Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) in the Philippines is introduced to
support biodiversity conservation and as a barrier against natural
disasters, where the concept of Eco DRR / CCA can be integrated in
the forestry sector.
 Zambales mountains especially the Mangatarem forest remains one
of the important biodiversity areas and serves as a barrier to natural
disasters.
 Division of forest management zones: Strict Protection Zones,
Production Zone, Special Use Zone.
 The technical working group (TWG) to formulate the Critical Habitat
Management Plan (CHMP) in August 2012.
 Technical Working Group workshop in UP Diliman and formulated
the planning module for CHMP.
 The critical habitat planning process involves: situational analysis,
cross visits, management planning, public consultation, planning
and adoption approval.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

The legal and institutional framework for effective wetlands management to
reduce disaster risk and adapt to climate change in the eastern Free State of
South Africa
Mr. Johannes Amate Belle, University of the Free
State
 Conservation and management of wetlands in South Africa needs a
legal framework (including special Act & Policy on wetlands
conservation) to better promote wetland conservation in the context
of DRR and CCA.
 Study includes examining and comparing the laws and institutional
arrangement related to the management of wetlands at international,
national and provincial level with the aim of identifying the gaps in
the national legislation on wetlands.
 The methodology for the study includes study of national and
international agreements, evaluating wetland programmes and
conducting interviews with wetland/environmental experts
(thematically analyzed).
 Several international frameworks agreements including the Ramsar
Convention (1971), CBD, Agenda 21, UNFCCC were identified along
with national legislations including Act 108 of the Constitution of
South Africa, National Environmental Management Act (1998).
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Can Japan introduce Eco-DRR to its highly artificialized coasts ? Huge sea wall
construction plan and amendment of the Sea Coast Act after the Great Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami
Prof. Satoquo Seino, Kyushu University
 A rich country (i.e. Japan) shows a strong preference on
large scale hard engineering coastal structures such as
high, extended sea walls because the Japanese people
(traumatized by tsunami) want hard structures over
anything else.
 Local fishermen are very aware and are traditionally
connected to the buffer functions of natural sand bars.
 Alternative (eco-)solutions to live securely are limited in
densely populated areas.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

Rebuilding with resilience: Towards a child-centered and ecosystem-based DRR in
Post-Yolanda Philippines
Ms Maya Lyn C. Manosoc, UNICEF
 After a disaster, there is an opportunity to rebuild with a
higher degree of resilience than before the disaster.
 Eco-DRR is identified as key approach to long-term
disaster prevention and mitigation in the new UNICEF
Programme; they seek for technical support and advise
on how to implement this.
DAY 2
Thematic 3

 What (i) evidence exists and (ii) research is required to understand better the role of
ecosystems when dealing with low-frequency, high-magnitude hazards?
 How can research on Eco-DRR/CCA be carried out to be relevant at multiple spatial
scales?
 How do we improve our knowledge on the role of Eco-DRR/CCA for “creeping
hazards”?
 How do we design an empirically solid process by which impacts on ecosystems and
their recovery can be measured?
DAY 1
Thematic 4
Cutting edge scientific research
and technical innovations

Ecosystems for reducing landslide risk toward eco-safe roads in Nepal
Dr. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland
Thematic 4
 Unplanned, poorly constructed road development funded
by private individuals and overseas remittance, causing
erosion and increased risk of landslides
 Economic loses for local communities due to road damages
or failure
 An interdisciplinary approach is important to better
understand all the factors. It is important to build
ownership. Lots of local knowledge available (community
mapping). State of art combined research combined with
community based knowledge. Good scientific models but
how to communicate results.
 Communicating knowledge to policy makers is key.
 Photos can help to communicate (bleeding mountains)
 Need for economic analysis
 EcoDRR evidence poses challenge: How to generalize? Eco
DRR is very much local, making it difficult to generalize
DAY 2
KEYNOTE :

Assessing and visualizing vulnerability of ecosystem services within the
framework of environmental security strategies.
Dr. David Vackar, Global Change Research Centre,
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Problem/Question:
 Integrated access to global change impacts on environment
security in Czech Republic
 Challenge: Vulnerability of Ecosystem Services (various
types of information)
Methodology/Approach:
 Spatial grid of hazards
 Spatial overlay of disaster risk to find hotspots (flooding,
invasive species, etc.).
Results/Conclusion:
 Visualization of vulnerable hot spots of ecosystem services
 Total risk assessment
 Develop database of ecosystem service value
DAY 2
KEYNOTE :
Thematic 4

Bid data : a new tool for disaster reduction policies?
Mr. Giulio Quaggiotto, Global Pulse Indonesia
DAY 2
KEYNOTE :
Problem/Question:
 Problem: Data on important ongoing events/disasters are
outdated or very limited. Big data could be a solution.
 Using real-time social media and big data (telephone
networks, movements, connections, etc.) for policy making
> “policy makers don’t have to ask the citizen anymore”
 Various case studies/Examples of big data applications:
 Real time traffic information and forecasting
 Test real-time information on floods through tweets
Results/Conclusion:
 How to use the data? How to value this data?
 How to give the big data back into community?
 How to communicate for policy makers?
 Communication tools to policy makers are important.
Thematic 4

A role for geo-information in Eco-DRR
Mr. Bart Krol, Faculty of Geo-Information Science
and Earth Observation, University of Twente
DAY 2
KEYNOTE :
General statement:
 Why do we use Geo-information? What measures to
reduce risk? Where to implement the activity?
 Modeling: Using spatial-temporal tools
 Spatial decision support system for changing hydro-metrological
risks
 Example: “The planning kit” tool in the Netherlands
Results/Conclusion:
 Geo-information can be used for spatial temporal
modeling (to understand what has happened at a certain
time, e.g flooding). Help also to understand future flood
scenarios.
 It is necessary to compare the implementation result with
the model.
 Q&A: Geo-information can be used not only for water
related questions also for forest interventions, etc.
Thematic 4

DAY 2
THEMATIC 1 : Evidence and Economics THEMATIC 2: Decision making tools
Group Discussions (Part I)
THEMATIC 3: Institutional arrangements
and policies
THEMATIC 4: Research and innovations

DAY 2
Group Discussions (Part I)

Summary of discussions in day 2
Session V – Thematic 4 : cutting edge scientific
research and technical innovations
Plenary sessions
Session VI – Group discussions : breakout
groups for each thematic areas part 2
1. Economics, 2. Tools, 3. Institutional arrangements and
Policies, 4. Research and technological innovations
Lunch break
Session VI – Group discussions : breakout
groups for each thematic areas part 3
Session VII – Science-Policy Panel Debate
Challenges and solutions for mainstreaming Eco-DRR/Eba
in development policies . Day 3

Dr. Adam Welchel, The Nature Conservancy
Recap of Day 2
Key highlights:
 Ongoing uses and degradations of dunes system globally
– need a status of degradation/loss
 Complexity of policies around ecosystems –
redundancies, overlaps, limited or indirect protection
 Strategic analysis of existing regulations, policies and
laws (Egypt)
 Country scale vulnerability assessment of ecosystem
services is possible and needed for environmental
security
 Ecosystems are homes and places for people – exposure
to change creates adaptive capacity
 Leveragability and applicability of pilots to a larger scale
DAY 3
SUMMARY OF DAY TWO :
Baa baa saa baa baa… who remembers the
meaning ?

What can water do for DRR and what can DRR do for water ? Uncovering joint
objectives in DRR and water poverty reduction
Dr. Zita Sebesvari, UNU-EHS
 Raising linkages between water availability and
vulnerability to hazards.
 The coastal dune system in The Netherlands : an example
of multi-functional use: for flood protection, drink water
supply, conservation, and recreation.
 In the Mekong delta in Vietnam, coastal dunes provide
services of flood protection and seasonal harvesting of
water for water supply.
 The possibility of joint water and DRR efforts may give
increased options and synergy.
 One issue was raised about human interventions in water
sector that increases disaster risk, e.g. construction of
dams in rivers which lead to saline intrusion in coastal
sand dunes? (McNeely). The speaker acknowledged this
as an issue and pointed out that dependence of perched
water tables for water supply was not sustainable.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

Ecosystem-based strategies to increase local communities resilience to climate
variability
Dr. Giacomo Fedele, Centre for International
Forestry Research
Knowledge gap exists about:
 social vulnerability in forest areas and
 related adaptation options.
Additional knowledge is needed about;
• social-economic systems in forest areas:
• how do people deal with climate variation, and
• how do they handle expected changes?
• what are links between land use management and
provision of ecosystem services ?
The methodological approach was to use the five “capitals”
to unpack the root causes. Problem so far is that the
adaptation theme is only since recently on the agenda.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

Building with nature for erosion protection in Indonesia
Ms. Etwin Kuslati Sabarini, Wetlands International
Indonesia
 In her presentation Etwin Sabarini introduces an example
of a mixed technical (hybrid engineering, aka ‘building
with nature’) and advocacy approach in dealing with
coastal erosion of 700 m – 1 km (2003 -2012): trapping of
sediment and subsequent natural mangrove
rehabilitation
 Addressing problems of aquaculture interrupting the
balance between coastal erosion and sedimentation.
 Structural (hard engineering) interventions have shown
to increase wave height and interrupt tidal process and
decreasing accretion of sand and sediment, thus
promoting erosion.
 The key lessons were that involvement of communities,
government participation over the long term is vital for
success.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

The relative importance of forest than other land uses in controlling local climate:
result of a preliminary study
Dr. Heru Santoso, Indonesian Institute of Science
 Heru Santoso discussed the importance of forests as
compared to other land uses in controlling climate.
 Using old satellite datasets (LandSat 1976 and 2001)
selected based on availability of supporting data, he
noted that there was an annual 5% loss in forest cover
mainly as a result of conversion of forest to settlement.
 Large gaps (up to 40% missing) in climate data was a
challenge.
 Feedback from local communities indicated that they
were very aware on the link between climate and forest.
 A disaster is often also a non-direct cause of ecosystem
degradation, e.g. in the case of cyclones affecting forest
areas; where ecosystems located outside a disaster-affected
areas can be affected because of over-extraction
of trees and building material needed for reconstruction
in the neighbouring disaster affected area.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

Ecosystem-based approaches towards reducing drought risks for small-scale
farmers
Dr. Fabrice Renaud, UNU-EHS
 Using systems set in place by WASCAL, the role of small
dams in Burkina-Faso as a sustainable intervention to
deal with multi-faceted drought risks was questioned.
 This increased frequency of droughts in many areas of
sub-Saharan Africa is affecting coping mechanisms
already in place; especially in the face of expected
tripling of populations by 2100.
 Several examples of adaptation such as planting pits,
contour bunding and organic agriculture were described.
 To adapt, new mechanisms and adaptation strategies
have to be found by and with communities in drought
affected areas.
 More work needs to be done by researchers in the area
of Sustainable Land and Water Management in relation
to DRR.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

Ecosystem-based approaches and eco-technology to reduce risk of fish kills and
ecosystem disaster in Lake Maninjau
Dr. Cynthia Henny, Indonesian Institute of Sciences,
Research center for Limnology
 Weather variability (e.g. heavy rain, strong winds),
following cool periods leads to lake overturn, this
phenomena presented by Cynthia Henny and the
consequent rise of anoxic and H2S saturated water, is a
main factor for fish mortality in Lake Maninjau,
Indonesia.
 Fish deaths have severe impacts on the fish cage
aquaculture with major losses to the fish farmers.
 Water pollution and eutrophication caused in part by the
fish farming activities (which are beyond the carrying
capacity of the lake) has led to a marked drop in the local
tourist industry.
 Solutions include limiting the number of fish cages, use
of floating wetlands as fish attracting devices and
experiments with machinery to mix water are being
planned.
DAY 3
PRESENTATION
Thematic 4

PRESENTATION :
Ecosystems and disasters: Resilience in a Changing
Climate and the Eco-DRR Master’s course
 News: in addition to already existing material a case
study source book will become available soon. Workshop
participants are invited to consider implementing the
Eco-DRR graduate course in their university course
programme.
 Experience from Ghana: applying the course for post-graduate
teaching
 The MOOC project in development aims to reach many
more interested people worldwide (1 million in the next
5 years); targeted audience consists not only of students,
but also of policy makers and others interested in Eco-
DRR. Visit www.themooc.org
 Workshop participants were requested to help promote
the MOOC worldwide.

DAY 3
Group Discussions (Part II)

DAY 3
THEMATIC 1: ECONOMIC EVIDENCE
Ecosystem based approaches to DRR and CCA
are often under-valued and under appreciated.
This group discussed solutions to the issues of
providing economic evidence to policy makers
to support the decision making process for
investment in ecosystem based disaster risk
reduction.
In order to be practical and policy relevant,
economic valuation needs to be targeted to
answering specific decision-making issues.

DAY 3
Economic Valuation needs to start with:
- Identifying stakeholders, including DRR and
CCA managers and other decision makers that
have an interest and impact in Eco-DRR
- Identifying the strategic entry points in the
decision making process to mainstream Eco-
DRR .

DAY 3
Take home messages :
 One of the main challenges in economic valuation is quantification of the risk
reduction service provided by ecosystems, and the factors and causality of their
variability
 Effective economic analysis considers scenarios for decision making on both grey and
green risk management and climate change options
 There is a need to synthesize and share best practices.
 Some practical experiences of applying economic approaches to Eco-DRR are not in the
public domain
 Economic analyses need to go beyond valuation to also identify the incentives,
disincentives and finance that are required to implement and leverage eco DRR.

DAY 3
First step: brainstorming on tools and methods for Eco-DRR…
How can we categorize?
Group Reports
THEMATIC 2: Decision support tools
Hazard Geogr. Region Tools/Methods
Landslide SE Asia
Mekong Delta
…
Risk mapping
Landslide modelling
???
Flood … …
Drought … …
… … …

Second step: Analysis based on our group knowledge
Ecosystem category I:
Mountain forests,
vegetation on hillsides
Ecosystem category II:
Wetlands, riverine
Ecosystems
Ecosystem category III:
Coastal ecosystems
(mangroves,
saltmarshes, coral
reefs, sand dunes)
Ecosystem category IV:
Dryland ecosystems

DAY 3
Group Reports
What is the difference between
approach, tool & method?
Help!!!! We need better terminology!!!
How to handle different type of tools
(decision making, analyzing,
management)
We need to differentiate!!!

DAY 3
Group Reports
Types of available tools & methods
• General tools, such as (P)GIS
• Specific tools for ecosystems environments,
such as guidelines for mangrove mangement
• Eco-DRR tools
• EbA tools
• Decision making tools
• Analyzing tools
• Management tools

Management
tools
Analyzing
tools
Decision
making
support tools
/methods
Ecosystem
catergory
Mountain forests,
vegetation on hillsides
Wetlands, riverine
Ecosystems
Coastal ecosystems
(mangroves, coral reefs,
saltmarshes, sand dunes)
... ... ...
... ... ...
... … ...
Dryland ecosystems ... … ...

DAY 3
Group Reports
How can the implementation of Eco-
DRR/CCA be improved ?
 Awareness rising with respect to Eco-DRR benefits
 More evidence what is working / not working in Eco-DRR
(better scientific basis); where is implementation efficient
(prioritization)?
 Better funding /financing for Eco-DRR / EbA project /
programme implementation
 Guidelines for Eco-DRR implementation (step-by-step)
 Capacity development of policy makers and planners
 Better linkages: Eco-DRR as a part of CCA (national) strategies
/ policies / schemes / programmes
 Stronger focus of Eco-DRR in Hyogo Framework of Action
 Include Eco-DRR/EbA in development plans (different levels)
 Incentives for land owners to implement Eco-DRR
 Involvement of private sector
 Include Eco-DRR in legal frameworks (find entry points)
 Involvement of communities / capacity building
 Eco-DRR education / knowledge transfer

THEMATIC 3: Policies and institutional
arrangements
What does scaling up Eco-DRR/CCA mean to us?
- Moving from projects to programmes
- Concept becomes part of practice (norms, behaviour)
- Concept becomes part of policies /legal frameworks
- Multiple levels of governance
- Integration of common priorities
- Knowledge generation + sharing + mgmt
- Advocacy
DAY 3
Group Reports

DAY 3
Group Reports
arrangements
Policies
Multiple
levels of
governance
(multi
stakeholders)
Investments
Programs/
Plans
Knowledge
systems
Budgeting
Identified main areas for intervention with
respect to scaling up and institutionalizing
Eco-DRR/CCA

arrangements Four key themes explored :
Policies heterogeneous governmental structure influencing the policy making
process
Investments There is a limited awareness in the private sector
There is limited human capital
Elaborated protocols on eco-DRR limited or non-existent
Planning and programming There are competing policy and budgeting agendas
Budget for this type of work from international and national would be a
challenge
Knowledge There is a diversity of languages and knowledge behind the concept
There is not a universal concept of ecoDRR/CCA, and a working group
that could come up with a universal accepted term that policymakers
can recognize is recommended
There is not a minute message about eco-DRR with specific audiences in
mind to convey the right message
DAY 3
Specialists in eco-DRR are not common Group Reports

DAY 3
Group Reports
arrangements
Why do we need to scale up/institutionalize Eco-DRR/CCA?
- Needs are growing
- Can be cost-effective
- More sustainable – provides multiple benefits with or
without disasters
- Generally self-maintaining/ self-renewing
- Can involve local communities
- Science-based (includes local knowledge)
- Multi-functional – can address more than 1 hazard

DAY 3
Group Reports
THEMATIC 4 :
Four research priorities identified :
Research question 1
The returns on structural interventions have reached the limit of their cost
effectiveness. The EcoDRR approach can be a more sustainable option and have
multiple benefits for the community.
To use the EcoDRR approach effectively, researchers need to understand:
• The limits of EcoDRR under different circumstances and situations;
• The potential of mixed structural and EcoDRR (hybrid) approaches;
• The efficacy of native vs non-native species in EcoDRR

DAY 3
Group Reports
THEMATIC 4 :
Research question 2
For EcoDRR to attract greater attention from policy makers, scientists need to
upscale their knowledge to :
• Generate more evidence that EcoDRR operates at different spatial and
temporal scales;
• Provide decision support mechanisms for policy makers and researchers to work
together to prioritize attention at the appropriate government level (by
identifying key drivers, timeframes, and points of entry)

DAY 3
Group Reports
THEMATIC 4 :
Research question 3
In order to be more proactive in dealing with disasters, we need to consider developing
EcoDRR approaches in a wide range of contexts. The scale of a disaster will vary
considerably depending on where and when it occurs. In order to develop effective
protection of populations we need to build capacity and preparedness and embed these
in communities and relevant institutions.
To do this, science needs to consider:
• At what scale do measures need to be implemented to provide adequate protection
for communities
• Can solutions developed at one scale be applied more generically to bigger areas (by
upscaling or replication)
• What are the environmental and social conditions that are needed for EcoDSS to
work?

DAY 3
Group Reports
THEMATIC 4 :
Research question 4
To fully understand the needs of communities and ecosystems for protection against
disasters, we need to work with practitioners and policy makers. To effectively
address what is needed, the community must first define the nature of the disasters
which are likely to occur, the local impacts they may have, and the potential for
recovery.
Scientists need to:
• Develop methods and tools by which recovery can be measured to provide
evidence that EcoDRR can provide an appropriate solution;
• What robust measures of evaluation can be developed to demonstrate the validity
of EcoDRR approaches?

DAY 3
Panel Debate
PANELIST:
Ms Syamsidar Thamrin
Climate-Change BAPPENAS
Mr. Arif Wibowo, Head of Division for
Climate Change Vulnerability, State
Ministry for the Environment of Indonesia
Mr Yusak Oppusunggu
USAID
MODERATION:
Ms Imen Meliane

Science-Policy Debate: Challenges and solutions for mainstreaming Eco-DRR/EbA in
development
Moderator: Are you considering ecosystem-based measures? How do you perceive added
value?
Ms Thamrin (BAPPENAS):
• Right approach, but difficult to implement (a lot of coordination)
• Lack of data and information on small scale; need for additional information on local level
• Useful if scientific basis, but better with concrete recommendations
• Effects of Eco-measures difficult to imagine
Mr Wibowo (State Ministry for the Environment of Indonesia):
• Already national commitment in Indonesia, but need for how to make it happen
• Need of scientific based information
• How to accelerate mainstreaming?
• Challenge of translating indicators into action
• Often science far away from guiding policy
Mr Oppusunggu (USAID):
• Current practice is focused more on disaster response
DAY 3
• USAID considering a holistic programme including Eco-DRR/EbA

development
Moderator: How is the process of considering eco-measures? How important is CBA?
• Always linked to food supply, poverty reduction because better chance of being approved
• Commitment should be implemented as soon as possible
• Need of instruments how to choose options, how to prioritize with which indicators?
• Need to centralize scattered information in Indonesia
• How to mainstream in the local planning?
Moderator: What is the impact of future urban development? Interaction with private
sector?
• Need to evaluate if there is impact to transportation sector, what is the vulnerability?
• First instrument is EIA
• Up to now no linking to ecosystems
DAY 3
• Included only in the response to disaster
• CocaCola involved in water source protection

development
How to deal with overexploration of natural resources (case of mining in Kalimantan)?
• Adressing livelihood priorities in presenting alternatives
• Better regulation and law enforcement
• Need for indicators and EIA as guiding tools
Normally Eco-measures need long-term thinking. What kind of institutions needed?
• Stronger national guidelines needed
What is the forum for science-policy integration in Indonesia? Or a desired one?
• Indonesian IPPC
• Already a lot of fora, but not for CCA and DRR, but need to identify the right experts
DAY 3

DAY 3
PANELIST:
Many Thanks to everybody !

Dr Fabrice Renaud – UNU
Dr Karen Sudmeier- University
of Lausanne/UNEP
Marisol Estrella – UNEP
Dr Udo Nehren – Cologne
University of Applied Sciences
Imen Meliane – The Nature
Conservancy
DAY 3
And to the organizers too !

Photo documentation bogor workshop 14 november 2014

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Photo documentation bogor workshop 14 november 2014

Similaire à Photo documentation bogor workshop 14 november 2014 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Photo documentation bogor workshop 14 november 2014