Issues from the CDM Institutional Reviews CDM Dialogue, Barbados March 2006

1. Issues from the CDM Institutional ReviewsCDM Dialogue, Barbados March 2006 Ian C King Project Manager, UNDP CRMI

2. In support of the CDM, UNDP supported the institutional reviews in 5 countries Barbados & Grenada (2004) Bahamas, St Lucia and Turks & Caicos Islands (2005) Focus on institutional framework for disaster management, including the collaborative arrangements Institutional Reviews

3. DM arrangements based on 1940’s model and mainly focused on relief and response Collaborating institutions also have legal responsibilities for some aspects of DM, primarily preparation and mitigation DM mechanism adequate including training and simulation but participation not adequate Sector planning at a very low level, substantial work necessary in assessment and planning within the main economic sectors Barbados Summary of Findings

4. The more pertinent tasks would include: Increasing the awareness of CDM by circulating the CDM framework to relevant stakeholders; Circulating the Cabinet approval of CDM to stakeholders; Assessment by the participating institution of how their current mandates and programmes fit into/support the CDM framework; Preparation and circulation of a Working Document showing the relationship between the current national policies and efforts and the CDM framework; and Hold a national consultation on CDM to generate a common understanding of the process and language; determine the gaps, needs, activities, responsibilities, and timetable for action. Barbados - Recommendations

5. Additional legislation necessary for evacuations More needs to be done in mapping hazards, vulnerable and high risk areas (on-going). Commitment seen in private and volunteer sectors, but concerns raised regarding some public sector agencies Capacity building and restructuring necessary in NEMO ESCs not adequately functioning Attention necessary in shelter management, evac planning, PE and training CDM not reflected in practice St Lucia Summary of Findings

6. NEMOs next steps should therefore be to: Make adjustments as necessary to proposed strategic action plan Implement sections of plan that do not require additional resources Seek technical assistance from CDERA or other sources for plan implementation St Lucia - Recommendations

7. Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Assessments commenced DDME’s responsibilities exceed their capability DDM position has not sufficiently attractive to maintain staff Inadequate legislation National strategic plan for CDM not developed nor associated activities implemented Little awareness of follow-up of earlier (2002) CDM consultations Turks and Caicos Islands - Summary

8. DDME’s next steps should therefore be to: Make adjustments as necessary and adopt proposed strategic action plan; Immediately implement sections of plan that do not require additional resources; Seek technical assistance from CDERA or other sources for further plan implementation. TCI - Recommendations

9. Lack of HMVA for critical sectors Lack of formal establishment of the NEMA and the NDC PE & Training not existing but was in process of being developed National CDM strategic action plan did not materialise after 2002 Bahamas - Summary

10. NEMAs next steps should therefore be to: Make adjustments as necessary to proposed strategic action plan Implement sections of plan that do not require additional resources Seek technical assistance from CDERA or other sources for plan implementation Bahamas - Recommendations

11. IR 1 – Stronger regional and national institutions promote CDM. Largely seen in the reviews that the NDOs have not been restructured and strengthened There are indications of some regional institutions have been strengthened to meet CDM challenges (i.e. UNDP, CDB) but not clear this has been fully translated into national institutions or data and research institutions Overview of IR Status - 1

12. IR 2 - Research, education and training support CDM There are several examples of Hazard Mapping and Vulnerability Assessments, largely in pilot activities, however, it is not clear that these are informing the decision making process Effective and accessible mapping and warning systems still not consistently seen Education – both public and academic as well as training activities were still lacking Overview of IR Status - 2

13. IR 3 - Regional institutions and donors incorporate CDM in their own programs and promote CDM to their national members/clients Seen evidence of promotion of the CDM Private sector including finance and economic sectors still not prominent Overview of IR Status - 3

14. IR 4 - Preparedness, response and mitigation capability is enhanced and integrated DM legislation was seen as lagging at time of reviews CDM management plans may be developed but not tested Seen that EOC facilities not all fully equipped Mitigation measures not fully developed Funding available for upfront costs not evident in the scale Overview of IR Status - 4

15. IR 5 - Hazard information is incorporated into development planning and decision making HM & VA not incorporated into the EIA process (CDB/DMFC leading this process) Policy and decision makers were obviously informed, but have they deepened their commitment? Overview of IR Status - 5

16. Review progress on CDM Plan development and operationalisation Strengthening & restructuring of NDOs along with wider adoption of roles by critical stakeholders Public education critical Continued development of education programs Wider involvement of private sector and civil society Priority at all levels to HM & VA and need to both see some coordination of various elements and incorporation into planning and investment processes Greater support to mitigation activities Development of tools for DRR mainstreaming in existing national strategies and policies Some Priority Areas of Attention