1. Knowledge, tools and methods
Successes
Govt buy-in required some negotiation, flexibility
Multi-sectoral govt cooperation
Interdisciplinary
Community participation
Multiple stakeholders
Dialogue between scientists and comms w common ground
Communication betw stakeholders
Nagging and pushing stakeholders (strategic repetition,
evidence-based advocacy)
Build on existing work
Scientific based
Political support
Ecosystem and livelihood link
Local and national govts collaboration
Land use planning for long term sustainability
Desertification and drought management
Project assessment with ecosystem perspective
Demonstrable outcomes

2. Successes, cntd
• Learning
• Knowledge networks
• Insts established and enhanced capacity
• Better picture of challenges, policy gaps
• Initiatives to fill gaps
• Innovation
• Targeted and useful tools
• Improved understanding betw stakeholders
• Shelter belt in Bangladesh
• Ecosystem and community resilience
• Participatory approaches
• Country-driven processes

3. Tools
• GIS
• Statistical analysis
• Participatory methods

4. Obstacles
• Shifted objectives
• Data availability
• Expertise and cost
• Time and money!
• Change in donor policies
• Differences in data
• Long- term risk reduction and local buy in
• Benefits take a long time to manifest
• How to guide policy makers on best tools and approaches
• Working w traumatised comms
• Funding issues
• Comm between stakeholders and within govt
• Terminology betw scientists and others
• Coordination

5. Obstacles, contd
• No data available or accessible
• Lack of expertise
• Political and legal boundaries
• Perceptions
• Lack of holistic views and tools
• Cultural differences
• Comm at all levels
• Interdisciplinary boundaries
• Difficulties in assessing vulnerability
• Misfit betw policies and scientific results
• Difficult to replicate and upscale ecosystem management projects
• Corruption
• Lack of understanding of ecosystems
• Different sets of objectives about ecosystems
• Short term interests, where ecosystem management requires long-term visions
• Difficulties in introducing sustainable ag. Management
• Overlapping policies
• Vulnerability due to recurring events

6. Obstacles, contd
• Donor policies post-disaster make it difficult to advocate for ecosystem-related
funding
• Environment-specific projects and funding (GEF) often do not have a DRR
component
• Ecosystem management not always part of immediate post-disaster concerns as this
is a considered more long-term
• Ecosystem damage is often not reported
• Perceptions and awareness about ecosystems is often not there
• PDNAs (ECLAC) are often not used
• Whether ecosystem concerns are included may depend on the type of hazard
• Dichotomy betw humanitarian and prevention type projects – however there is a shift
toward early recovery and build back better
• Political points with humanitarian projects and funding
• Guidance on mitigation and prevention is not adequate and specific and links with
ecosystem based management and risk assessments
• Risk assessments, values and upscaling integrated projects w. Ecosystems is difficult
• Lack of govt capacities to deal with these issues
• Lack of hard evidence and to establish critical linkages for need to include ecosystem
based strategies for DRR

7. Driving forces
• Hazard affected communities
• Livelihoods improvement and rehabilitation!!
• UNDP small grants programme (donor)
• Sustainable livelihoods
• Local needs
• Policies (international agenda) (both pos & neg)
• Water quality
• Hazard events!!!
• INGOs
• Threat to infrastructure
• Govt
• Multiple uses of ecosystem, entices more involvment
• Corporate agenda

8. Driving forces, cont´d
• Cost effectiveness of ecosystem services
• Holistic approaches
• Increased perceptions of risk
• Memory of recent disaster
• Increased risk in exposed areas
• Ecosystem degradation!
• Climate change and increased awareness are forcing more integration of
DRR and ecosystem management
• Actors and policies
• Science influence on policies
• Environmental restoration
• Disaster funds available
• International pressure
• Paradigm shift toward prevention and mitigation – ecosystems part of this?
• ISDR Hyogo framework for Action – Action point 4 – Sustainable
development

9. Actors
• Schools
• Local comms
• Local orgs
• Forest comms
• INGOs NGOs
• Pressure groups
• Civil groups
• Legal liability (e.g. Mayor responsibilities)
• Regulations
• Media
• Developers
• UN
• National and local authorities
• Donors
• Private sector

10. Approaches
• Quantitative scientific combined with local stakeholders for a risk
assessment
• INGO facilitator betw govt agencies and comms
• Interdisciplinary
• Economic analysis (long-term benefits)
• Regulatory
• Convening right stakeholders
• Livelihood restoration
• Roundtables, training
• Build into existing projects to other DRR, livelihood and ecosystem
components
• Better scientific basis
• Multi-stakeholder approaches
• Participatory comm approach

11. Achievements
• Increase in local awareness
• Locally driven process
• Interagency cooperation and collaboration
• Changed mindset of local authorities and buy-in
• Influence govt planning process
• Sustainable water resources mgmt
• Upstream-downstream stakeholder dialogue
• Acceptance to include ecosystems in DRR project
• Traditional knowledge
• Restoration of ecosystems (shelter belts and)
• Enhanced capacity to enhance forest capacities
• Local govt was influenced
• Improved human security
• Managed climate risks
• Joint action plans
• Reduced fires (est. Of nurseries)
• Improvement of ministerial capacities

12. Achievements, contd
• Enabling conditions for ideal risk mgmt
• Agreement among actors
• Risk perceptions
• More awareness about watershed mgmt strategies
• Improved relations betw stakeholders
• Identified contributions to resilience and drivers of risk
• Agroforestry intro
• Comm based forestry
• Water and sanitation projects
• Coastal protection
• Inst of fire management in govt structures
• Fire crews trained
• Scientific papers
• More effective fire management
• Institutionalizing processes

13. Outputs
• RiVAMP, a replicable methodology
• Risk maps
• Experimentation
• Agreement among actors

14. •
Perfect project
Grassroots-driven – bottom up
• Multi-stakeholder participation and support!!
• Govt, private sector, NGOs
• Communication strategy between stakeholders and external stakeholders
• Clear exit strategy!
• Clear objectives
• Long-term political buy-in
• Manage conflict of interest
• Improve liveihood and ecosystem resilience
• Ecosystem baseline and monitoring
• Perfect data about everything
• Ensure ownership
• Sustainable, long term impacts
• Dynamic
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Understand nature of problem
• Clear concepts
• Transparency through independent party, responsiblity, committment
• Traditional knowledge

15. Perfect project, contd
• Results-based
• Balanced
• Unlimited funding!
• SMART objectives
• Sufficient time
• Adaptive management
• Flexibility
• Interdisciplinary
• Strong research component
• Good practices
• Perfect outcomes!
• Upscalable results
• Problem-oriented
• Disseminated results and community-owned
• Short, medium, long term impacts
• Paris declaration : being aligned with national policies and priorities
• Ecosystem mgmt needs to be integrated within Ministries

16. Perfect project, contd
• Possible entry point for integrating
ecosystem concerns in humanintarian
projects and build back better

17. Other tools and approaches
• Exposure of a country to hazard events is often not mentioned in
country assistance strategy
• Ecosystem based strategies need to be mentioned in country
assistance strategies, country environmental assessments, which
are currently being developed because of Paris declaration
• National plans (i.e. Nicaragua human development plan) need to
include disaster risk
• Lack of national awareness of risks due to „natural hazards“ and
esp. linkages to ecosystem services
• Lack of inter-ministerial coordination
• Mid-term reviews are also entry points for introducing DRR and
ecosystem strategies
• Infrastructure devt can and should build in resilience measures
• PDNA is another opportunity for integrating DRR in reconstruction
• Use PDNA to introduce ecosystem based strategies but what is
needed is a clearer picture of what exactly can be introduced and
implemented
• Vision 2030 – nothing is mentioned on DRR, an important document
that guide donor actions

18. Synthesis
• Initiative for more evidence on ecosystem-
based links with DRR
• A plethora of tools but need for more
specific guidance on which tools should be
used
• Links between livelihoods and DRR are
often overlapping and interlinked