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

adessoukossivi@yahoo.fr

2. Marcus OXLEY England GNDR Executive Director, Secretariat, London

3. Eyram AMENYENOU Togo APAD-International eyramamen29@yahoo.fr4. AMEGNIGNON Koami

FrancoisTogo Réseau de

journaliste environnementaliste (Network of environmental journalists)

francois2950@gmail.com

5. Andy Agbein King Senegal Shalom shalomsenegal@yahoo.com6. Ahmed Sekou Diallo Mali AFAD sahmediallo@gmail.com7. Mrs. KOUYATE Mali8. Charles BAIMEY Cote d'Ivoire JVE Côte D'ivoire charlesbaimey@gmail.com9. Serge DJOHY Benin sergedjohy@gmail.com10. GOMOU Francois Guinea

(Conakry)Inapd10@yahoo.fr

11. Fideline Mboringong Cameroon s/c buhgaston@yahoo.com12. Adama GNANOU Burkina Faso gnanoussa@yahoo.13. Eloi OUEDRAOGO Burkina Faso14. KENECHUKWU Onukwbe Nigeria Kene.onukwube@gmail.com15. Eme ATAKPO Nigeria emeatakpo2008@yahoo.com16. Kalilu BANJA Gambia kaabanja@gmail.com17.18.19.20.21.22.

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