Transcript INTEGRATED PLANNING for DRYLAND DEVELOPMENT The …

Improving NAP Implementation
through Effective Use of Early
Warning
Using experiences in the
IGAD sub-region
Reuben Sinange
Presentation at the Climate and land degradation workshop,
Presentation overview
• Introduction – basics
• Conventional EWS for food security, working wit challenges
• Case study – successes and failures
• Evolving an LD/ Environment EWS – an emerging trend
• Challenges in the implementation of NAPs
• Conclusions and way forward
Introduction
Basics
• Desertification occurs in the dry-lands mainly due to
deleterious activities of man and climatic factors incl.
climate change & droughts.
• It is the insidious & continuous reduction of
productivity of lands for man’s basic needs in food,
wood, timber, fiber and water.
• Droughts & other extreme events exacerbate &
dramatize the problem: extent of degradation;
vulnerability of the poor; fragility of national
Introduction - Basics (cont.)
Processes that lead to reduction of land productivity:
 Climatic factors -Climate change, droughts
 Over-cultivation -Extensive-intensive conversion to cropland
 Overgrazing
-Overstocking, lose of cover, topsoil, fertility
 Deforestation -Removal of plants for crops, fuel, shelter
 Dehydration
-Overuse, wastage, inter-basin transfers
Ideally these are the processes or whose indicators that should be
monitored as part of FSEWS, EIS or EEWS. However, current EWS
focus on climatic factors for food security.
Characterizing the conventional FSEWS
Definition for the conventional FSEWS could be:
• Programme of record taking on agricultural and climatic factors or indicators for
detecting trends & predicting droughts and food situation – deficits and surpluses.
Objectives of this FSEW are to
• Record, analyze, predict and indicate magnitude of a deviation from the normal
situation on a timely basis in order to help make judgments on possible impacts on
food and nutrition for the people.
Principle of a FSEWS
• Records must be on same parameters, taken regularly, using same approaches,
methods and standards for timely predictions.
Scope of FSEWS
• The system includes complete arrangement for the flow of data and information
from collection to dissemination to end users. Ideally it should also include legal
and institutional frameworks for the EW that link up strongly with those for
mitigation, prevention, response and rehabilitation.
FSEWS in the Region: Existence
A review shows that there exists many EWS in the
region with different thematic & geographic
scopes. Most are focused on food security
•
•
•
•
•
Global systems – FAO-FSEWS, WMO
Regional systems – FEWS, ACMAD, AGRYMET
Sub-regional systems - SADC-DMC, ICPAC
National systems – most countries have their own
Sub-national systems – Ethiopia, Kenya
FSEWS in the Region (cont.): Improvements
There is evidence that these EWSs are working and are bound to
improve for the following reasons:
• There is a need for EWSs at all levels as long as the hazards exist.
• Concepts, definitions, mandates and frameworks are clearer
• The science and technology tools continue to improve:
– Remote sensing, frequency of images, spatial and spectral resolutions, costs
– GIS for analysis, representation and effective communication
– ICT: voice (telephone, conferencing); data (e-mail, internets, GIS); video; electronic
media (television, radio); communication satellites
• There is a sense of a reduction in blame games and controversies
in relief and rehabilitation responses in IGAD ms in recent years.
. These are indications that the systems have improved and
are working
FSEWS in the Region (cont.): Challenges:
At each level these EWSs have experienced unique challenges incl:
• Data quality and reliability by various institutions – methods
• Source legitimacy and credibility issues of some stakeholders
• Weak institutional set up and lack of capacity;
• Poor communication networking in the country;
• Lack of co-ordination among the stakeholders involved in EW;
• The EW results and products not released in a timely manner;
• Use data & relief food for political expediency and profiteering.
IGAD Sub-region case study
KENYA HIGH POTENTIAL & ASALS
N
W
E
S
Legend
Drylands:
~ 88%
Population:
~11m
Poverty Levels:
>65%
Land Use Conflicts - Many
0
100
200
300
400
500 Kilometers
High Po tential Are a
ASALS
Main stakeholders of EWS in Kenya
• Met Dept. – State of climate and env.: Why still in MoT&C?
• MOA – Extension staff reports, used for planning – not for EW
• NCPB – National “granary” –stocks & stock movement, business
• CBS – national statistical office
• DRSRS – Env. Info and capabilities for rapid assessments
• Districts – ground level info & indicators to droughts & famines
• OP – Ultimate decision maker
• UN org. – developmental and humanitarian affairs
• NGOs and GOs – Humanitarian affairs, business
EWS: former Kenyan model – <1980
UN/IOs?
Gov. of Kenya Inst.
District FSEWS
Nat FSEW Tech Committee
Nat. FSEW committee
PSs
Cabinet
NGOs/ GOs?
EWS: former Kenyan model – 1980&90s
UN/IOs
Global EWS
UN Org.
Gov. of Kenya Inst.
District FSEWS
NGOs/ GOs
NGOs/GOs
Nat FSEW Tech Committee
NGOs/ GOs
OCHA WFP
Nat. FSEW committee
PSs
Cabinet
Nat. Disaster
Mgmt Centre
EWS: Current Kenyan model
UN/IOs
Global EWS
UN Org.
OCHA WFP
Gov. of Kenya Inst.
District Sector Groups
Nat Sector Group committees
Kenya FS Working Group
NGOs/ GOs
NGOs
NGO/ GOs
NGOs/ GOs
Nat. FSEWS Committee (PSs)
Nat. Disaster
Mgmt Centre
Cabinet
Strengths & Challenges of the EWSs
Strengths
The EWS uses a variety of sources and thematic data sets incl.:
• Rural economy indicator
• Human welfare indicator
• Environmental indicator
Challenges
• Competing sources, consistence & quality of data & information;
• Inadequate dissemination of EW messages to vulnerable groups;
• Insufficient/ slow response to emergency calls. Responses used to
come too little too late;
• Lack of legal framework for coordinating the EW agencies;
• Some districts are taking a food security oriented programme.
Nationally the orientation is still largely famine prevention and
relief - fire fighting. How can it be given developmental mandate?
Trends towards environmental EWS
• With the experiences gained in the FSEWSs, why has it
taken long other environmental hazards like desertification
to have a similar EWS setup?
• An EEWS (eg DEWS) would simply be an improvement
on existing environmental monitoring system. An EWS
has the additional requirements of being regular,
predictive and timely.
•
• All data and information required for FSEWS will be a
subset of the EEWS.
What would be the additional requirements?
Trends towards environmental EWS
An EEWS would be an extension of an EISs or environmental
monitoring system. An EWSs has the additional requirements of
being regular, predictive and timely.
Definition of EEWS – (Desertification EWS):
•
Long-term programme of record taking on status & conditions of environmental resources, parameters or
indicators for detecting trends & predicting environmental hazards.
Objectives of EW are to
•
Record, analyze, predict and indicate magnitude of a deviation from the normal situation in order to help
make judgments on possible impacts on environment, property, food and nutrition of the people.
Principle of EW
•
Records must be on same resources, parameters or indicators, taken regularly, using same approaches,
methods and standards for timely predictions.
Scope of an EEWS
•
The system would include complete arrangement for the flow of data and information from collection to
dissemination to end users. Ideally it should also include legal and institutional frameworks for the EW that
link up strongly with those for mitigation, prevention, response and rehabilitation.
Parameters, indicators for DEWS
DEW parameters & indicators can be selected from the following:
• Primary causes of LD:
– population pressures; economic performance; changing lifestyles
• LD processes themselves:
– cultivated areas; productivity; stocking rates; timber & fuelwood usage; water resources usage
and diversions; sedimentation;
• Manifestations of LD:
– rainfall and temperature changes; vegetation cover & composition; soil fertility, gullies & silt
loads, sand dunes, dust storms; water levels; losses in biodiversity; fuelwood scarcity etc.
• Impacts of LD:
– Soil desiccation; food security/ famines; prices of food/wood; health – (effect of inadequate
nutrition, medicine and water); poverty levels; lose of livelihoods;
The choice must be made carefully in consideration of simplicity, representation,
costs, measurability, consistence. What will be the challenges to have system
working?
NAPs Objectives & Challenges
Main Objective of UNCCD/ NAPs is to
• Prevent, reduce, rehabilitate, reclaim, conserve & sustatinably
manage drylands. NAPs are the vehicles for implementing UNCCD
Main challenges in 10yrs CCD implementation:
• Inadequate awareness, advocacy and knowledge
•
Inadequate use and transfer of science and technology
• Inadequate institutional and legal frameworks
• Inadequate resources for fixing the challenges
• Inequity in international markets for drylands products
What a DEWS can do for NAPs
Resulting information from DEWS would address:
• Knowledge and up to date and accurate information for
awareness, advocacy
• Plans for preventing, reducing, rehabilitating, reclaiming,
conserving and for sustainable management of drylands will
based on reliable and consistent information
•
Would maximize on existing and working technologies inc ICT
Main challenges will be policy frameworks:
• Similar policy, legal & institutional challenges currently
experienced by FSEWS
Expected impacts from the legal and
institutional reforms
• Coordinated activities & ownership of EWs
• Strengthened partnerships with s/holders
• Improvement in environmental governance
• Reduced impacts of environmental disasters
Reasons for optimism
• Constitutional and legal reform processes
everywhere
• ICT continues to improve even for remote areas
• Willingness to decentralize decision making
• MTEF planning system may provide resources
• Active civil society
JUSTIFICATION
• Disasters are an expensive and growing problem
• Timely and accurate warning empower people to take actions,
reduce losses, speedily respond, & recovery more effective.
• Science is providing more frequent & accurate warnings.
• Current warning delivery systems have inherent limitations
• Technology can deliver warnings targeted at people at risk
• Warnings are primarily issued by Government entities,
• Improvement of current systems depend on all stakeholders &
governments.
CONCLUSIONS
• Despite certain persistent challenges, EWSs are now delivering
fairly well in the IGAD sub-region: responses are more rapid;
little political interference;
• Information and knowledge is power for timely early warnings
and disaster management and long term planning for disaster
risk mgmt. There is a need to enhance this area under the
EWSs
• There is a disconnect between data and information sources of
the EWSs and information users. Data providers in EWSs are
not disaster risk managers, national development planners
(MoPND) due to weaknesses in policies governing EWSs.
Way forward
• Agree on the minimum parameters and data set
necessary for DEWS and justify the setting up
of DEWS
• Advocate for legal and institutional
arrangements for the collection, dissemination,
and use of information for DEW in the line of
CBSs. This will cater for all environmental
concerns including food security. Sensitization
and advocacy can be through the national
disaster management committees.
Thank you