Emergency Capacity Building ECB Project A collaborative effort
Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) Project A collaborative effort of the Interagency Working Group on Emergency Capacity (IWG)
Interagency Working Group (IWG) -7 Member Organizations CARE International Catholic Relief Services (CRS) International Rescue Committee (IRC) Mercy Corps (MC) Oxfam–GB (OGB) Save the Children–US World Vision International (WVI) - Emergency/Humanitarian Directors & CEOs
The Emergency Capacity Building Project An activity of the Interagency Working Group on Emergency Capacity (IWG) Funded by: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($5. 12 m) and Microsoft Corporation ($1 m) Two-year time frame: ending 31 -Mar-07 Four initiatives: 1) Staff capacity, 2) Accountability and Impact Measurement, 3) Risk Reduction, 4) Information and Technology Requirements
Overarching Principles of the ECB Project l l l Benefits intended for the entire humanitarian community. Committed to transparency and sharing of research with as wide an audience as possible. Efforts not duplicative – will work through or with existing bodies or networks to build synergy and reinforce those efforts.
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction “the key to putting us all out of business”
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Context “only 4% of the estimated $10 billion in annual humanitarian assistance is devoted to prevention” and yet “every dollar spent on risk reduction saves between $5 and $10 in economic losses from disasters” - Eric Schwartz, The Boston Globe, 23 rd March 2006
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Goal ECB Overall Project Goal: To improve the speed, quality, and ultimate effectiveness of the humanitarian community in saving lives, improving the welfare, and protecting the rights of people in the emergencies ECB 3 Initiative Goal: To improve capacity for risk reduction among IWG agency staff, affected communities, and local and national authorities
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Outcomes & Results Outcomes l IWG agencies will have implemented a variety of promising community-based DRR projects in at least 3 pilot countries, and disseminated the results widely l Targeted local communities in the 3 pilot countries are better prepared to respond effectively to disasters l Local and/or national authorities in the 3 pilot countries, and/or at least 1 academic institution are more aware of DRR principles Results l Models and promising practices for disaster risk reduction designed and tested in three pilot countries l Hands-on training package for program staff and community members in disaster risk reduction l Advocacy initiatives piloted in three countries to promote the acceptance of and commitment to disaster risk reduction principles by local and/or national authorities and other key stakeholders
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Strategic Approach l “Don’t reinvent the wheel” l A listening and learning approach that embraces innovation l Focusing on collaborative and value-added work l Building effective local-level partnerships, and engaging extant risk reduction initiatives, networks, and resources l Make a better case for investment in preparedness to donors
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Action Areas Research/ Review Pilot Projects Training Advocacy
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Field Focus …. . 3 pilot countries l Ethiopia (led by SC-US) - 20+ years of emergency program experience l Guatemala (led by Mercy Corps) - Post-Hurricane Mitch & CAMI work l Indonesia (led by CRS) - Post-tsunami recovery N. B. All 3 pilot countries have been subject to emergencies during 2005/6.
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - 9 field pilot projects ($630, 000 total) Ethiopia (led by SC-US) 1) CRS: Flood risk mitigation (Dire Dawa Admin. Council & Shinile Zone, Somali Region) 2) Mercy Corps: DRR strategies in CARE's, CRS' and MC's operational areas (W & E Harrarghe) 3) SC-US: "Writeshop" project for a Handbook on Disaster Risk Reduction (with IIRR) 4) SC-Canada: Sensitization workshop Guatemala (led by Mercy Corps) 1) CARE & Mercy Corps: Strengthening preparedness and risk reduction capacities (Senahú, Alta Verapaz and surrounding communities) 2) CRS: Community & municipal strengthening of risk management & disaster preparedness 3) Mercy Corps & SC-US: Integrated Risk Management as a Tool for Reduction and Mitigation of Disasters (Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán, Nahualá, San Lucas Tolimán y Santiago Atitlán) 4) Oxfam-GB: Strengthening emergency preparedness capacities (Nuevo Amanecer, zona 21, Guatemala City) Indonesia (led by CRS) 1) Mercy Corps: Community-based disaster risk reduction capacity building, with KOGAMI (Padang, W. Sumatra)
Initiative 3: Risk Reduction - Learning Greatest Benefits of Collaboration: l Advocacy - focus on raising the bar l Support - communities of practice l Innovation Most Significant Learning: l Build on existing knowledge & experience l Integrated community-based approach l Advocacy for increased DRR resource investment l Connect 1) HQ with field; and 2) intra-agency coordination and learning
What Have We Learnt? l l l TIME: Time spent in setting up collaborative processes should not be underestimated. TRUST: Trust is essential – nothing moves forward without it. FIELD UP: Buy in from the field is key for sustainability. LARGE INVESTMENT: Organizational learning requires a large investment of staff time. INTRA-AGENCY BUY-IN: Engagement by senior management and across departments is critical.
What Next? ECB Phase II!
For further details, please check out http: //www. ecbproject. org Thank you!
- Slides: 16
