reuben sinange presentation at the climate and land degradation workshop,

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,

Arusha, 11-15 December 2006

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

IntroductionBasics• 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 economies

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

0 100 200 300 400 500 Kilometers

N

EW

S

KENYA HIGH POTENTIAL & ASALS

High Potential Area

ASALS

Legend

Drylands: ~ 88%Population: ~11m Poverty Levels: >65% Land Use Conflicts - Many

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, businessAll have a role and weakness in the current and previous arrangements

EWS: former Kenyan model – <1980

UN/IOs? Gov. of Kenya Inst.

Nat FSEW Tech Committee

Nat. FSEW committeePSs

NGOs/ GOs?

District FSEWS

Cabinet

EWS: former Kenyan model – 1980&90s

UN/IOs

Global EWS

UN Org.

Gov. of Kenya Inst.

Nat FSEW Tech Committee

Nat. FSEW committeePSs

NGOs/ GOs

NGOs/GOs

NGOs/ GOsOCHA -

WFP

District FSEWS

Nat. Disaster Mgmt Centre

Cabinet

EWS: Current Kenyan model

UN/IOs

Global EWS

UN Org.

Gov. of Kenya Inst.

Nat Sector Group committees

Nat. FSEWS Committee (PSs)

Kenya FS Working Group

NGOs/ GOs

NGO/ GOs

NGOs

NGOs/ GOsOCHA -WFP

District Sector Groups

Nat. Disaster Mgmt Centre

Cabinet

Strengths & Challenges of the EWSs

StrengthsThe 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 EWSAn 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 DEWSDEW 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

• Coordinated activities & ownership of EWs

• Strengthened partnerships with s/holders

• Improvement in environmental governance

• Reduced impacts of environmental disasters

Expected impacts from the legal and institutional reforms

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