1. Strengthening Climate Resilience
UK Consultation
Thursday 27th May 2010 Thistle City Barbican, London
Workshop Notes - Draft
Background
Strengthening Climate Resilience (SCR) is a new DfID funded programme that aims to enhance the ability
of governments and civil-society organizations in developing countries to build the resilience of
communities to disasters and climate change as part of their development work. This programme seeks to
develop a ‘climate smart’ approach to managing disaster risk and development that helps protect society
from the threats posed by climate change. By creating an evidence base of ‘climate smart’ disaster risk
management approaches, the SCR programme will demonstrate to policy makers and civil society
practitioners that integrated approaches to tackling poverty, disaster risk and climate change impacts help
achieve better development outcomes.
Purpose of the UK consultation
The SCR UK consultation provided an opportunity for agencies working on the issue of integrating climate
change into disaster risk management work to learn from others. It aimed to provide the much-needed
space for practitioners, policy makers and academics to share their knowledge and expertise with a view to
improving current and future practice. The consultation provided a space to consider and share approaches
to integration and working together in order to improve disasters and development programming more
broadly. In order to do this, the day was structured into two parts.
Summary of the day
1. Introduction of participants
The UK consultation gathered … experts working at the interface between DRR and CCA. A brief
introduction of participants took place in order to share the different areas of work agencies are engaged
with and the key challenges experts are currently facing in integration processes. The introduction also
provided a space for reflection on the overlaps between the DRR and CC agendas. A summary is provided
below.
Tim Waites, DFID
He highlighted that at present, there is a structural move within DFID aimed at integrating DRR more into
mainstream DFID policy work. However, he identified as one of the key challenge in giving those working in
the humanitarian field a perspective on DRR and livelihood. He is looking at SCR, ACCRA and other NGO
work to see how this convergence of various fields happens at the community level.
Nick Hall, Plan International
He introduced Plan’s work in DRR, which is attempting to integrate climate change into its humanitarian
and development work. Plan’s Disaster Risk Management Strategy emphasizes how climate issues are
affecting disasters-in practical terms this is quite a challenge. A key challenge identified by him is that
personnel are still in the processes of gaining a better understanding of how the climate change agenda
interacts with their work.
Justin Ginetti, UNISDR

2. He briefly shared UNISDR work, which is currently looking at mainstreaming climate change adaptation into
disaster risk reduction and building a base of evidence on this issue, which can then inform international
processes.
Marcus Oxley, Global platform representative
He reflected on the challenge related to getting international policy (such as those made at summits like
Copenhagen) into action. He highlighted that there is a high degree of overlap between CCA and DRR
agendas, however, he sees resources as the biggest challenge to achieving disaster resilience for building
capacity and by synergizing livelihoods, DRR and CC etc.
Melanie Duncan, PhD (also working with CAFID)
She is currently engaged in examining the overlap between DRR and CCA and she shared her interest in
the thinking on DRR and CCA within civil societies and the different frameworks in operation.
Oenone Chadburn, Tearfund
Tearfund is on a continuing journey to integrate DRR into CCA. She highlighted that Tearfund has been
looking at questions of how to integrate food security, DRR and CCA. Tearfund’s work on adaptation has
been stressing on four ‘Is’- a) Integration b) Investment c) Institutional strengthening d) Information. As of
now, Tearfund has focussed on integrating CC into sectors (eg. water) and is now thinking of how to do it
holistically as otherwise development gains are at risk of being undermined.
Sarah Wiggins, Tearfund
Her work focuses on integrating CCA into various sectors of Tearfund (not just DRR but water, food
security, environment). She is specially looking at how to advise national and local governments on
developing a cohesive/integrated approach to adaptation.
Karl Deering, CARE International
He highlighted that there has been substantial progress in integrating climate change adaptation and
Disaster Risk Management at the institutional level in CARE international. This is seen through the
development of various toolkits such as the VCA tool and a number of new publications. CARE is collecting
evidences on the integration of DRR with CC adaptation from the Mekong basin, the SAHEL, Kenya,
Ethiopia and the Andes. CARE is currently focussing on pastorlism, insurance, micro insurance in Asia,
looking at the governance aspect of adaptation to climate change and risk reduction.
Lindsey Jones, ODI
She was based in Nepal with UNDP working on the national adaptation plan of action (NAPA). Currently
she is involved with ACCRA, where she is particularly at social protection and livelihoods approaches and
its linkages to the DRR and CCA agenda.
Richard Ewbank, Christian Aid (CA)
His work focuses on integrating climate science into development programming at the community level, and
CA is currently taking this approach to 17 core country programmes. He emphasised that DRR is an
excellent entry point for this integration of climate science as risks are immediate at the household level. He
highlighted that a key challenge remains on integrating short, medium and long-term perspectives on
climate change in livelihood work.
Simone Field, Christian Aid
She shared on Christian Aid’s work on risk reduction and livelihoods through adaptation work. Her work
focuses on programme implementation, trying to build capacity within programme staff and partners to
incorporate and integrate climate change adaptation and DRR into long term livelihoods programmes.
Catherine Nightingale, Christian Aid

3. She highlighted Christian Aid’s work in capturing and sharing case studies and experiences which have
been incorporated into the global report and global assessment report forging the link between the
International recommendation and at International policy level and with the practice on the ground and
building upon it.
Jane Clarke, DFID
She shared the work of the Climate and Environment team within DIFID, whose primarily role is to analyze
the global processes and institutions dealing with climate change policy formulation. Within this team, her
role focuses on linking the global the national and the local agendas.
Kelly Hawrylyshyn, Plan UK
She introduced her role as a member of the SCR consortium and coordinates the activities in S.E. Asia, in
particular in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Philippines. In addition, Plan UK along with Save The Children, IDS,
UNICEF and World Vision is also a founding member of the ‘Children in the changing climate’ consortium
which is carrying out research and advocacy work on the impact of climate change on children rights and
also the role of children as an agents of change in adaptation
Christina Ruiz, Christian Aid
She highlighted that there are very good examples to share in relation to DRR and climate change
adaptation integrated approach within CA’s secure livelihoods agenda. However, she made the point that
still much of the integration work is happening at the policy and strategy level while at programme and the
implementation level, there are still few cases. She emphasised that there is a need to share these good
case studies for further advocacy and replication.
Pieter VanDenEnde, Practical Action
He shared Practical Action’s (PA) approach towards integrating CCA and DRR. PA takes and integrated
view bringing together climate change adaptation, DRR and livelihood trough a multi-sectoral approach that
focuses on vulnerability reduction.
John Magrath, Oxfam
He highlighted the wide variety of research Oxfam has carried out in recent years in relation to DRR and
CCA at policy and programme level. The organization has established a DRR and CCA team that is
currently gathering empirical evidences of programmes aiming to integrate both agendas. The organization
has already published several case studies.
Nanki Kaur, IIED
She shared her interests in adaptation planning and in particular in looking at the potential of DRR as an
adaptation strategy.
Jessica Cambourn , Save the Children
She indicated that food security and livelihood approaches are seen as key entry points for DRR and CCA
within Save the Children’ agenda.
Andrew Mitchell, Action Against Hunger
His work focuses on the linkages between children, nutrition and disasters. He highlighted that although
AAH has been for a long time an ‘emergency network’, AAH is now in the process of mainstreaming DRR,
nutrition and conflict in their agenda. Currently, he is developing a ten-year policy looking at the integration
of DRR CCA and natural resource management approaches under a livelihood framework
Emma Visman, Kings

4. Her work focuses on facilitating dialogue between climate scientists and humanitarian development policy
makers. She is currently engaged in carrying out pilot programmes in Kenya and Bangladesh to
demonstrate how climate change science can be used at different levels of decision-making.
2. Group discussions
In the morning, participants were divided into groups to discuss cases where organizations have integrated
climate change considerations into disaster risk management projects, policies and programmes. The
groups discussed integration issues around three main areas indentified for effective integration those are:
1) Developed approaches to tackle exposure to changing extreme events in their disaster risk management
interventions, such as through basing actions on an assessment of local, meteorological and climatological
information.
There was a general consensus among the group about the importance and the need to develop and
strengthen local meteorological and climate information systems in disaster risk management work.
However, participants felt that there seems to be a gap between the existing climate forecasting/predictions
and early warning systems and the understanding of climate change by local governments, communities
and NGOS/INGOs. Some of the key debates, good practices, lessons learned and challenges shared
during the meeting are highlighted in the following below.
- Developing and strengthening early warning system and tools. One participant shared a case
from Zimbabwe where, for example, there seems to be a huge gap between what is predicted and
what actually happens in terms of weather pattern and variability on the ground. Due to this inaccuracy
in weather forecasting the local communities, particularly farmers, are sceptical about the climate
science and its added value in securing their livelihoods. Therefore, the integration of climate science
into disaster risk management work needs to find the right entry point at community level. Another
example was shared from Malawi, where there seems to be a better seasonal forecast and community
mobilization. In South Malawi, for example, flood risks programmes with enhanced early warning
system are being implemented in 22 flood prone districts and the programme is helping communities to
build localised rain gauze for the rainfall data collection and recording system. Another participant
shared a case from Uganda, where the weather forecast has not being accurate for the past two years
and it has led to loosing community trust in the provided information. In spite of this, the local radio
services are now engaged in community awareness programmes by communicating seasonal forecast
to the locals. This type of engagement has proved to be effective in reviving the community trust with
local weather services. Examples from East Africa were also discussed. One participant argued that
the weather forecasting has been accurate to some extent and the early warning is particularly strong.
In this specific case, the design of an early warning tool included tools such as satellite imaging for
rainfall prediction and the usage of EU-Fuse. In all, this has provided a real advantage in gaining clarity
on the ground.
Participants also discussed the operational challenges of developing early warning systems. For example,
in Indonesia, a country that has a highly decentralized government structure, ensuring effective flows of
communication across four levels of government poses a tremendous challenge. Another example was
shared from Nepal, where due to the difference in ground variation/topography providing accurate climate/
weather forecasting to local communities presents a huge challenge.
Overall, participants agreed that there is a need to develop short term (seasonal) and long-term weather
forecasting to strengthen early warning system. Community mobilization does play a key role in developing
and strengthening community based early warning tools/systems for its effectiveness and sustainability.
- Incorporating local community’s knowledge/participation. All participants highlighted the need to
incorporate community’s local knowledge in the development of climate science/seasonal forecast.

5. This will complement and boost up the community’s confidence in relying/using the produced
information. Participants also emphasised that the use of climate science needs to be practical and
applicable at the local community context. According to group, although there is a need for climate
science at the community level, this would require incorporating communities traditional norms for
better ownership and building/gaining trust. There was an agreement that it has become an imperative
to build linkages among/across communities in order to build effective communication systems.
- Multi-Hazard Early Warning was identified as a key measures to deal with climate change along with
capacity and vulnerability assessment tools that address multi-hazards scenarios. For example, one
participant mentioned that there has been lot of work ongoing in the Met office in El-Salvador and
cyclone warning centre in Miami in terms of developing and strengthening Multi-Hazard Early Warning
system and tools. Participants felt that next steps towards development of multi-hazard early warning
systems should on food security issues, which depend on rainfall, wind pattern and seasonal forecast.
Participants also agreed that the dominant top-down approaches that still persist in several countries
present a bottleneck for integrating local farmers’ knowledge into institutionalization processes. This was
identified as a key challenge that needs further advocacy efforts.
Another point raised by participants was that DRR and CCA programmes need to address climate risks at
the grass root level through comprehensive planning. Examples shared included Vietnam, Cambodia and
(Laos Mekong River) where DRR programmes are taking into consideration cross boarder risks and human
mobility. A participant pointed out that in Ethiopia and Bangladesh some programmes are already working
on mainstreaming ecosystem and livelihoods thinking into community based risk reduction programme. In
Uganda, for example, the maintenance of water levels has contributed in securing local communities
livelihoods.
- Advocacy to policy change and funding. Participants highlighted the need to provide technical
advice to Mets offices in order to develop robust data collection and management systems. At present,
in most cases, the Ministry of Environment deals with climate change issues and Met offices are at
times sidelined. One participant share the case of Tajikistan, where in spite the existence of a strong
civil society network and human resources/expertise the lack of participation at the strategic
developmental planning and process is a major constrain for mainstreaming processes. However,
participants agreed that in many cases policy makers and politicians do not have the required
knowledge about the climate change issues and that civil society are engaged in fulfilling this gap
through advocacy work.
Issues around funding and planning for adaptation were also discussed among the participants. On the
funding side, concerns were raised about the funding constraints and the need for local governments,
communities and NGOs to work together for effective resource mobilisation. Few examples were shared on
how NGOs, agencies and governments are already working together in developing innovative ideas to tap
and mobilise resources. One participant shared the example of WFP and FAO who are currently working
with the climate science community to mobilize resources. On the planning side, participants also
discussed the need to strongly advocate community-based risk mapping and planning vis-à-vis large-scale
infrastructure reallocation and planning by governments. One participant shared a case from Matagalpa,
Nicaragua, where community based risk mapping was used to reallocate 14 houses in a secure place
through on GIS mapping.
In all, there was an overall consensus on the need to develop ‘climate friendly’ development programmes.
Community Risk Assessment was highlighted as the way forward for integration of climate change
adaptation. Participants also shared the concern over the re-branding of ongoing DRR programme vis-à-vis
climate change adaptation within existing policies. The funding opportunities available coupled with the
lack/limited knowledge and technical expertise in climate change adaptation at the national level could be
the impediment in the integration process. Participants highlighted the importance and need of a well-

6. defined Climate Change Adaptation Framework for better synergy and harmonization. For example, one
participant shared a case from Nicaragua where in the last ten years there have been innovative ideas in
dealing with climate change at the national level. Example such as historical analysis by the Met
department is providing in-depth analysis for effective forecasting. Another example shared was on
community based planning programme in India, where through advocacy work, DRR and Climate Change
Adaptation is being integrated in the ongoing development work. The BRAC Bangladesh could be another
good example of DRR/CCA integration within the ongoing development work.
Key Challenges identified by the participants were:
1. Need to develop climate friendly development programmes.
2. In certain countries, i.e Zimbabwe, Uganda, local climate services are very weak in providing timely
and accurate information to the local communities. This has lead to scepticism at local level, rejecting
the weather forecast.
3. In countries like, Nepal with difference in ground variation and topography, pose a great challenges in
providing accurate climate/weather forecasting
4. There is a great variation between the global climate models and the actual weather pattern existing on
the ground. There is a need for robust regional, national and local climate models.
5. Dealing with several levels of government poses huge challenge in the communication flow and
reaching down to the community level and vice versa.
6. The dominant top-down approaches do not engage civil societies groups into development-planning
processes. Better coordination and partnerships need to be developed in order to have significant
contribution in country’s strategic development process.
7. Out of total 20 billion funding for CC only 6% is allocated for adaptation, which is highly insufficient.
The funding constraint for climate change adaptation is a concern for all and it needs to be addressed
by the donor/funding agencies.
8. There is a concern over the re-branding of ongoing DRR programme vis-à-vis the CCA within existing
policies.
2) Used interventions to manage disaster risk to also promote capacities to adapt to climate change, for
example by helping communities to be more flexible, share learning self-organize etc.
The main discussion focused on the Principles/Components/Characteristics of Adaptive Capacity.
Effective Institutions. In the group, there was general consensus on the need for effective institutions to
support the integration of climate science into disaster risk reduction and here the example of the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies collaborating with Columbia
University to integrate climate information in national society frameworks for effective seasonal forecasting
was discussed. This collaboration between the two institutions led to the launch of an appeal for funds
before a disaster had occurred in West Africa and led to the stock-piling of relief material before the
disaster actually occurred. Another element that was discussed with regard to this but which shares an
overlap with the next point was that institutions aiming to build adaptive capacity need to be seen as
transparent and legitimate in order to effectively engage communities.
Community Awareness for Building Demand. There was discussion about the need for a two-way flow
of information between communities and the climate science community. The flow of information to
communities was seen to be critical for the generation of demand for building adaptive capacity to climate
change and related problems; this information was also seen to be critical to the process of garnering
support from the local government; and in certain cases to convince farmers of the extra effort that they
needed to put in to deal with impending/ongoing crises. The communities in turn should be able to feed
information and insights up to the policy-making community too by defining their priorities and making their
perceptions of acceptable risk clear. Apart from climate information, it was also felt that communities should
be made aware of the economic benefit/viability of initiatives aimed at building adaptive capacity.

7. Learning and Sharing of Solutions. One possible route of building adaptive capacity was seen to result
from the effective sharing of solutions, which may have worked. Some participants shared certain
examples of initiatives from countries such as Burkina Faso, which had led to communities dealing with
climate change, and related issues better but not many knew of these outside the specific contexts in which
they existed. Similarly, it was understood that this sharing of solutions would add new dimensions to the
understanding of adaptive capacity and one participant shared a case from Malawi where when women
were asked about how they would like to build their adaptive capacity, they said that the best way of doing
this would be to start a ‘creche’ in the village which would allow them to devote more of their time to
livelihood generation activities which would in turn make them more resilient to the exigencies of a
changing climate.
Working Across Levels and Sectors. There seemed to agreement on the idea that adaptive capacity
results from engaging at multiple levels. This was evidenced through, for example, the Local Adaptation
Plans of Action where local capacities are being matched to national priorities. Also, it was seen that due
to the complexity of the climate change problem, adaptive capacity could only be built through taking a
multi-sectoral approach where work doesn’t happen in silos but there is engagement across areas on work.
Key Challenges identified by the participants were:
- There were a number of challenges in the process of building adaptive capacity that were outlined.
- Bringing scientific data to the community in a form that is accessible by them was seen to be
difficult.
- There seemed to be a lack of clarity on mechanisms and processes of transmitting community
priorities to policy makers.
- There is no clear understanding on effective learning and sharing may take place to support the
adaptive capacity building process.
- There is a lack of evidence about the efficacy of tools which aim to build adaptive capacity or help
communities adapt to climate change.
- Helping communities deal with climate change requires that varied civil society organisations work
cohesively in a particular country but there is no clarity on how this synchronisation may be
achieved. There are also a number of unanswered questions around the accountability of civil
society organisation engaged in initiatives of climate change adaptation.
- Ways and means of building demand in a community for initiatives that build adaptive capacity
were also not well documented.
3) Jointly tackled the drivers of poverty and vulnerability as part of their disaster risk management work.
Participants highlighted that hazard risks are an integral part of development. Consequently, it was
highlighted that DRR is less events and more process focused. It is based on a continuous assessment of
vulnerabilities and risks and involves many actors and stakeholders. However, disasters are still perceived
as a short-term investment and DRR is still not recognized as a critical pillar for sustainable development.
Participants highlighted the need to infuse solid socio-economic evidences for DRR and CCA as long-term
investments for development planning.
The main discussion focused on the following:
Lack of access to information and participation in decision-making. The participants agreed that lack
of access to information is still a critical barrier to address underlying causes of vulnerability. Participants
agreed that DRR practitioners still act, in most of the cases, as ‘brokers’ of information. However, few
Examples were shared among participants about successful programmes that had increased communities’
participation in decision-making at local and district level. Examples included community–based activities
where the locals were able to participate along side government officials as the direct stakeholders of the
programmes. For example, one participant shared a programme in Orissa, India, where the mobilization of
the lowest tiers of the government along side the creation of disaster management committees at the grass

8. root level had facilitated the integration of DMP in development planning processes. In this case, the local
committees negotiated with the local government the release of funds to build water catchment systems.
Other examples included efforts to bring children to represent decision-making. Participants highlighted that
DRR interventions can facilitate the ‘creation of a local entity with a collective voice’.
Participants highlighted that several factors influence the success of DRR projects influencing policy at
local level. In particular, local communities often lack the resources and institutions that allow them to
participate in decision-making in order to address socio-economic issues that cause vulnerability.
Participants agreed that DRR initiatives work best when integrated into wider disaster prevention and
sustainable development programmes, rather than when used as stand-alone projects. Few examples were
shared, like one from Nepal, where district development plans have integrated DRR in development
planning and district funding.
Natural Resource Management. Examples were also shared about the critical links between DRR
activities and the agricultural and water sectors. Participants agreed that DRR could provide ‘win-win’
scenarios through structural and non-structural mitigation. One participant share a case from Peru, where
the construction disaster-proof irrigation channels, reservoirs and the installation shallow tube wells had
improved the levels of water availability. This type of intervention has proved to be highly successful. There
was an overall agreement that systematic analysis (cost-benefit) of DRR interventions in natural resource
management (i.e food security) are largely missing.
Environment. It was recognized that there is still a gap in linking disaster risk reduction with environmental
management. For example, participants discussed that many VCAs do not include environmental
considerations. The DRR sector needs to engage with the environmental community, and perhaps, CC
presents an opportunity to do so. For example, it was suggested that the DRR and the CCA agenda should
be coordinated through environmental screening procedures. Participants emphasized that training and
capacity building of DRR practitioners is key to the integration of these concepts into DRR interventions.
Disasters. Participants also discussed the critical role of DRR in post-disaster situations. Participants
identified the need to rethink the humanitarian transition work in order to reduce long-term vulnerability. For
example, there was a discussion about the critical role that markets play in emergency situations.
Understanding how markets are functioning and disrupted in emergencies is critical to any analysis of
hunger, and to food and livelihood security. One participant share an example where emergency market-
mapping tools have been developed in order to conduct rapid assessments of market systems in the first
few weeks of a crisis. Its purpose is to improve early response planning so that resources are used
effectively, and so that opportunities are not missed to bolster future recovery in the local economy.
Cash transfers were also suggested as a potential mechanism to build a continuum from emergency, to
livelihood support to development. Participants highlighted the need to provide empirical
evidences/analysis of the effectiveness of cash transfer programmes to reduce risk from disasters, in
particular, cost-benefit analysis.
In all, the discussion concluded highlighting that in order to tackle the underlying causes of vulnerability
through DRR programmes there needs to be a wide recognition and support of the critical role risk
reduction plays to achieve the MDGs. The Climate Change agenda may provide a window of opportunity
for it.
Key challenges and questions shared with the rest of participants:
- To what extent can CCA/DRR create stimulus for development injustice? Can CCA provide
opportunities to address the underlying causes of vulnerability and how?
- How does CC change the time continuum of DRR? Suggestions were made on the need to take
incremental approaches to DRR interventions. For example, in flood risk reduction, structural and
non-structural measures should be implemented with an incremental approach and disaster
management plans revisions timing may need to be revised.

9. - How much can we expect or think in the same time continuum? A major challenge discussed by
the participants was the need in bringing in long-term vision in at the community level. One
participant suggested that perhaps incremental approaches, from DRR to adaptation, should be
the way forward. That is, focusing on social drivers rather than structural measures and working
towards ‘win-win’ approaches.
- Although the integration of DRR and CCA is well recognized in theory, confusion still remains at
implementation level. There is the need to develop practical guides, programmatic applications on
how to do that and peer-to-peer country sharing.
- Does CC change our demographics/social grouping?
In the afternoon, the Strengthening Climate Resilience ‘climate smart approach to disaster risk
management’ (draft version) was introduced to the participants. This was shared with participants as a
means to stimulate discussion. Through working groups, participants were asked to interrogate its use,
relevance and applicability to their own work - making recommendations for improvement where necessary.
Key recommendations identified were:
1. Keep it Simple. Participants felt that there is too much text in the present framework and that the
academic language used needs to be more practical and user friendly. Structure and presentation
need to be simplified in order to focus and address different level of actors and groups effectively.
2. Keep it Focused. First, it was felt that the framework was very broad and included a large agenda.
Many participants felt that far too many points had been linked with DRR and that DRR was being
employed as an entry point for looking at a vast range of issues that were possibly beyond its capacity.
This led one participant to ask, is it the mandate of disaster risk reduction to address all development
issues? It was felt that perhaps, instead of DRR attempting to work towards these ideals, the
framework should suggest that the DRR community should actively form coalitions with other initiatives
in order to work in sync with them.
3. Keep it clear. Another point of general agreement was that the current framework does not provide
background information on how to use it and thus, it is very difficult to conceptualise its operation and
to employ it usefully for a particular purpose. Also, in extension to this point, there was a lack of clarity
about whether this framework aims to make DRR climate smart or is it aiming to make communities
resilient to climate change.
4. Make it sector specific. One participant raised the concern about DRR sector specific interventions
i.e schools, hospitals. How does one align the ongoing programme with the multi-sectoral approach of
the present climate smart framework?
5. Provide guidance. There was a suggestion for making guidelines and a booklet along with the
simplified version of the Framework for its easy interpretation for practitioners and field usage.
6. Be creative. Participants felt that the framework, as it stands now, uses language and structure that is
distinctly ‘northern centric’. It was felt that it could benefit from new and more imaginative ways of
conceptualising the issue and communicating through the use of images etc. An example of a pull out
sheet distributed along with the longer Hyogo Framework Document was cited as a potentially useful
example.
7. Make it dynamic. There was a general agreement that the Framework’s adaptability needs to be
dynamic somewhat similar to the Livelihoods Framework and need to have multi-sectoral outlook
addressing issues such as climate risk to water and sanitation, Food security etc. Also, the existing
language needs to better reflect other development trajectories.

10. 8. Bring-in the Environmental Management perspective. Participants highlighted the need to embed
ecological sensitivity into the framework. It was suggested that environmental organization such as the
WWF should be consulted for environment feasibility etc. The participants felt that the framework
should focus and prioritise livelihoods, building resilience and climate change and its better linkages
with the environmental organizations.
9. Be strategic. One of the participants drew attention to work already going-on in the field and
highlighted the need to analyse few of the questions such as:
• Why/how the organizations would take/use this Framework?
• What/when is the entry point?
20. Tackle Coordination issues. Another issues raised by one of the participant was in terms of
coordination: there are so many line Ministries responsible for DRR - which poses great challenge for
coordination - how is this addressed in the framework?
21. Provide case studies. It was felt that there is a need to set standards for adaptation. The last column
should provide case studies of successful implementation.
22. Provide a clear direction and purpose. Participants were confused about the final objective of the
framework. Questions such as: is it to be used for programme planning? or is it just a toolbox for
implementation? What about maintaining and enhancing quality of the existing programmes? were
raised by several participants.
23. Specify levels of intervention.
24. Ensure Community inputs. There was also a concern about the amount of communities input into
the framework. Is it capturing community learning/knowledge?
Finally, few suggestions were made in relation to the structure of the framework:
- The DRR and CCA aspects should be clearer and help in identifying overlaps and additional
activities . How are DRR & CCA coming together? Need to clarify.
- There was another suggestion that column filling the right hand-side of the box perhaps could
have some mini examples/case studies on demonstrating multi-sectoral approach in DRR/CCA
such as climate/health linkages etc. and lesson learned for better clarity and understanding of the
concept.
- It was felt that adaptive capacity is an entity that is cross cutting and should not be seen as
separate from the other sets of columns. One participant that adaptive capacity was the central
element that made DRR climate smart.
- Few participants felt that probably two pillars are enough for the framework to rest on.
- One participant suggested removing the first column of the framework (descriptive section) – in
order to keep it simple and clear.
- Few participants suggested that a ‘basic package of choices’ (minimum required activities) or a
hierarchy of objectives (i.e triangle and progression, Short term versus Long Term?) should be
provided.
- What if the answer is no? (to the questions posed in the third column) then, where do ‘I’ go?
- A suggestion given by participants was that the framework should be question driven and less
descriptive.

11. Annex 1: Agenda of the Consultation

12. Annex 2: List of Participants
Name Organisation
Andrew Mitchell Action Against Hunger / ACF
Oenone Chadburn; Tearfund
Sarah Wiggins
Marcus Oxley Global Platform representative
Karl Deering CARE UK
Yasmin Mc Donnell Action Aid
Jessica Camburn Save the Children
Jason Garratt World Vision
Nanki Kaur IIED
Justin Ginnetti (Accepted) UN ISDR
Tom Mitchell, Katie Harris, IDS
Paula Silva
Tim Waites DfID
Jane Clarke
Kelly Hawrylyshyn and Plan International
Nick Hall
Cristina Ruiz / Richard Christian Aid
Ewbank/
Simone Field
Emma Visman Kings
Jessica Cambourn Save the Children
Lindsey Jones ODI
Melanie Duncan UCL/CAFOD
John Magrath Oxfam

13. Annex 3: Strengthening Climate resilience – Framework discussed by participants