coordination & support action

1.
FP7
Coordina,on
and
Support
Ac,ons
KNOW-­‐4-­‐DRR
Enabling
knowledge
for
disaster
risk
reduc,on
in
integra,on
to
climate
change
adapta,on
Kickoff
Mee,ng
Milan,
11-­‐12
June
2013
What
knowledge
are
we
talking
about?
Bruna
De
Marchi
SVT
(Centre
for
the
Study
o
the
Sciences
and
the
f
Humani7es)
University
of
B
ergen,
Norway

2.
Some
s,muli
for
subsequent
group
work
detail:
Discussion
in
groups
to
• main
knowledge
aspects
each
par7cipant
would
like
to
be
considered
in
the
project;
• what
are
the
most
relevant
issues
to
be
discussed;
• what
are
the
main
objec7ves
to
be
met
with
WP1
and
WP2.

3. Why
knowledge
sharing?
Different
-­‐
and
possibly
contradictory
-­‐purposes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More
exchange
of
“data”
Increased
understanding
Improved
management
Integra7on
in
a
systemic
view
Manipula7on
Concilia7on
Partnership
…

4. Knowledge
integra7on
• Is
integra7on
possible/desirable?
• What’s
the
difference
between
integra7on
and
“piling
up”
of
different
types
of
knowledge?

5. Pre-­‐condi7ons
for
knowledge
integra7on
• Recogni7on
that
different
types
of
knowledge
are
embedded
in
different
world
views.
• Recogni7on
that
knowledge,
values
and
beliefs
are
intertwined.
• Awareness
that
risk
and
uncertainty
are
conceived
of
and
dealt
with
according
to
different
“value
systems”.

6. René
Descartes
(Natural
philosopher,
France,
1637)
vs.
Olafur
Grimsson
(Poli7cal
Scien7st
and
President
of
Iceland,
2010)
«
…
we
should
develop
prac7cal
knowledge
(philosophy)
in
order
to
become
masters
and
posessors
of
nature
(maîtres
et
possesseurs
de
la
nature).»
(Decartes,
1637)
“In
modern
socie7es
…
there
has
been
a
belief
that
the
forces
of
nature
can't
impact
the
func7oning
of
technologically
advanced
socie7es.
But,
in
Iceland,
we
learn
from
childhood
that
forces
of
nature
are
stronger
than
ourselves,
and
they
remind
us
who
are
the
masters
of
the
universe.“
(Grimsson
2010)

7. Tradi7onal
and
scien7fic
knowledge
• Incompa7ble
world-­‐views
impossible
to
reconcile
…
OR
• Different
codes
to
represent
the
world

8. • Knowing
beeer,
loosing
more
(White
et
al
2001)
• Mobiliza7on
and
integra7on
of
knowledge
• Gap
with
what
is
known
and
what
is
done
• Monitor
results
of
past
decisions
• Local
tradi7onal
vernacular
science
appreciated
now,
when
it
has
virtually
disappeared

9. “Water
under
the
ground
has
much
to
do
with
rain
clouds.
Everything
depends
on
the
proper
balance
being
maintained.
The
water
under
the
ground
acts
like
a
magnet
aerac7ng
rain
from
the
clouds,
and
the
rain
in
the
clouds
also
acts
as
a
magnet
raising
the
water
table
under
the
ground
to
the
roots
of
our
crops
and
plants”
PORTION
OF
1971
STATEMENT
OF
HOPI
RELIGIOUS
LEADERS.
(ZION
CANYON)

10. (Un)available
knowledge
Men7on
of
the
merits
of
local,
tradi7onal,
vernacular
knowledge
is
recurrent
(and
fashionable)
…
But
unfortunately
…
by
now
it
is
mostly
gone

11. Stone
Tablets

12. Local
knowledge
….
ANEYOSHI,
Japan
—
The
stone
tablet
has
stood
on
this
forested
hillside
since
before
they
were
born,
but
the
villagers
have
faithfully
obeyed
the
stark
warning
carved
on
its
weathered
face:
“Do
not
build
your
homes
below
this
point!”
Mar7n
Fackler,
Tsunami
Warnings,
Wri7en
in
Stone,
NYT
April
20,
2011

13. …
or
tourist
aarac,on?
Considered
“just”
as
ar,facts
of
historical-­‐
cultural
curiosity,
over
the
years
many
of
these
stone
tablets
have
been
moved
to
grounds
where
they
are
more
visible
to
locals
and
tourists.

14. Subs,tu,on
vs.
integra,on
“Scien7fic”
informa7on
erasing
tradi7onal
knowledge
instead
of
building
upon
it.
The
case
of
L’Aquila
earthquake
(2009)

15. Knowledge
and
informa,on
• Knowledge
is
different
from
(and
more
than
informa7on
• Informa7on
is
based
on
knowledge
• Occasional
informa7on
may
be
assimilated
rapidly
-­‐
but
it’s
hardly
effec7ve
if
it
is
not
grounded
in
knowledge
of
the
addressee
(e.g.
US
Na7onal
Parks
warnings
and
instruc7ons)
• Knowledge
acquisi7on
(including
awareness)
is
a
long
term
process

16. • Interests
to
be
considered
to
grant
par7cipa7on

17. • Knowledge
–acquired/produced
and
disseminated-­‐
always
linked
with
stakes
(interests):
what,
what
for,
for
whom
• E.g
provide
informa7on
(supposedly)
based
on
scien7fic
knowledge
in
order
to
reassure,
prevent
panic,
etc.
• Different
narra7ves
about
decisions
taken
AND
inten7ons
undermining
them

19. GetReadyBerkeley
No
One's
Prepared
Un,l
Everyone's
Prepared
hep://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/disasterresistant/

20.
WP
1
Who
knows
what
about
disaster
risk
and
mi,ga,on
• Objec,ves
:
This
WP
is
aimed
at
sharing
among
the
partners
the
most
systema7c
possible
view
of
the
main
factors
that
characterize
today
the
knowledge
development
and
sharing
process
within
and
across
the
four
social
groups,
comprising
scien7sts,
public
sector,
private
sector,
and
the
civil
society.
The
final
outcome
of
this
WP
is
a
common
paper
represen7ng
a
shared
and
agreed
upon
reference
of
what
are
the
crucial
issues
to
explore
via
the
coordina7on
ac7vi7es
and
to
be
achieved
in
terms
of
knowledge
management
for
improved
decision
making
in
DRR.

21. WP1
Outputs
A
summary
on
the
main
findings
related
to
shortcomings,
barriers
and
bridges
related
to
the
exchange
and
sharing
of
knowledge
among
and
across
the
different
groups
will
be
developed
…
A
second
output
of
this
WP
will
be
the
delinea7on
of
the
process
and
the
criteria
to
iden7fy
the
most
relevant
stakeholders
and
how
they
will
be
asked
or
invited
to
par7cipate
in
the
different
coordina7on
ac7vi7es.
The
knowledge
mapping
deriving
from
the
previous
summary
will
serve
as
a
basis
for
a
sort
of
“social
network
analysis”
iden7fying
the
type
of
links
exis7ng
among
the
various
stakeholders.

22. WP
2
Mapping
knowledge
and
informa,on
flows
through
the
coordina,on
ac,vity
among
stakeholders
of
different
social
groups
• Objec,ves:
In
WP2
knowledge
across
social
groups
and
stakeholders
will
be
mapped
so
as
to
understand
how
decision
making
process
is
taking
place
and
what
are
the
main
obstacles
into
more
effec7ve
sharing
so
that
decisions
are
using
available
knowledge
and
in
the
mean7me
acceptable
to
the
“civil
society”
at
large
and
par7cularly
to
the
communi7es
that
must
implement
such
decisions.