1. KNOW-‐4-‐DRR
"
Enabling
knowledge
for
disaster
risk
reduc=on
in
integra=on
to
climate
change
adapta=on
«
Kick-‐
of
mee=ng
11th
–
12th
June
Task
2.1.
Mapping
innova=ve
exchange
of
knowledge
to
support
DRR
John
Norton/DWF
2. • This
task
will
consider
eight
case
studies
to
which
the
project
partners
have
par=cipated
in
the
recent
past.
• If
need
be
we
can
add
to
these
and
we
will
welcome
sugges=ons
about
cases
that
might
contribute
to
the
study
and
its
results.
• The
cases
provide
examples
of
successful
and
unsuccessful
process
of
decision
making.
• We
will
assess
how
knowledge
has
been
available
to
different
actors
in
the
stakeholder
‘chain’
in
each
case.
Did
this
enable
different
stakeholders
to
act
and
contribute
to
disaster
risk
reduc=on
or
to
climate
change
adapta=on.
If
not,
why
not?
• The
assump=on
put
forward
in
the
project
proposal
is
that
too
oUen
knowledge
is
fragmented
and
stuck
in
different
compartments.
We
shall
be
considering
if
this
was
the
case
and
what
the
consequences
were.
How
could
this
have
been
avoided.
3. Yesterday,
we
discussed
two
broad
areas
per=nent
to
the
mapping
the
exchange
or
flow
of
knowledge
that
contributes
to
DRR.
• The
importance
and
some
of
the
difficul=es
of
transforming
informa=on
into
knowledge
that
can
lead
to
ac=on
by
key
stakeholders.
• The
poten=al
consequences
that
stakeholder
do
not
all
share
the
same
priori=es
and
perspec=ves.
4. Some
considera=ons
• There
are
gaps
between
knowledge
(informa=on)
held
be
different
actors
for
DRR
and
CCA;
• The
knowledge
route
does
not
necessarily
imply
a
two
way
flow
of
informa=on.
• The
local
stakeholders
view
and
experience
might
not
be
really
taken
into
considera=on;
• That
approaches/and
related
knowledge
held
by
one
stakeholder
group
may
not
be
available
or
even
useful
to
other
stakeholder
groups.
• That
knowledge
and
the
ability
to
act
on
it
may
be
actually
blocked
by
a
variety
of
internal
or
external
factors,
which
might
include
vested
interest,
poli=cs,
lack
of
money,
other
priori=es,
and
so
on.
These
are
some
of
the
issues
that
underlie
the
suggested
approach
to
the
mapping
process
6. • We
propose
to
draU
and
share
with
you
a
mapping
process
that
considers:
– the
DRR/CCA
issues
that
each
case
has
been
trying
to
address;
– the
actors/stakeholders
involved
and
their
role;
– the
links
and
flow
between
different
stakeholder
groups
in
the
informa=on
&
knowledge
sharing
process;
– the
type
of
knowledge
and
informa=on
that
has
been
developed/
made
available;
– how
it
has
been
communicated,
by
whom,
and
how
this
has
been
received
by
other
stakeholders
and
made
use
of
in
the
decision
and
ac=on
process;
was
it
useful
and
used?
– the
degree
to
which
knowledge
and
the
ability
to
act
on
it
has
contributed
or
not
to
reduce
risk
and
the
reasons
for
this.
– the
possibili=es
that
other
processes
could
have
changed
the
outcome.
How?
7. • In
prac=cal
terms
it
is
suggested
that
the
assessment
of
the
cases
will
involve
• (a)
the
project
partners,
• (b)
the
external
stakeholders
who
par=cipated
or
were
involved
in
the
case
studies.
• On
a
case
by
case
basis
we
will
together
consider
how
this
consulta=on
could
happen.
•
•
•
•
•
I
suggest
that
for
each
case,
we
have
at
least
three
mapping
assessments:
one
by
the
partner
who
provided
the
case
study,
one
by
another
partner,
and
one
by
DWF.
We
will
then
share
these
results
with
all
of
you
for
sugges=ons
and
commentary.
What
do
you
think?
8. • The
output
for
this
task
will
be
a
Document
on
decision
making
processes
and
the
flow
or
not
of
knowledge
to
those
who
need
to
act
on
it.
