Transcript - CDERA News Conference, May 30, 2008
By CDERA
Fri, 30 May 2008, 17:34
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our annual dialogue.
I want to begin with an update on some of the things that we discussed at last year’s press conference. First among those was our intention to initiate a disaster risk management strategy for the tourism sector. We’re happy to say that a draft outline of that strategy is now available. It has been the subject of intensive discussion among key sector stakeholders across five countries in the Caribbean. Similarly, we have advanced efforts to establish standards for an ability assessment in that sector.
We had indicated also that we were going to initiate efforts to address out earthquake readiness. You may recall we had a heavy discussion on that, and certainly the events of November 29, 2007, did indicate that our concerns about readiness were well grounded.
Similarly, we have advanced efforts in relation to tsunami early warning. We have initiate a project with the support of USAID/OFDA and we are working to address what we call “the last mile.” That is, how to get the scientific information from the warning centre into appropriate action at the level of the threatened communities. And next year at this time we will be able to show you some of the products and resources that have come out of that initiative.
At the CU itself, we have had an organizational audit designed to give us an opportunity to see what we need to do and how to move from the traditional CDERA programme to be better able to carry forward this comprehensive disaster management programme that the community has embraced so intensively. In that respect, we have been given some indication as to some of the infrastructural and ICT technology, as well as other competencies that can empower us to take the leadership of this very significant regional responsibility that is assigned to us. In fact, I’d like to say a few words about the comprehensive disaster management strategy. This has now been fully embraced by our partners, and we’ve established what we call a coordination council – really a platform in which all the contributors and actors in this programme seek to reflect on how we can rationalize all our resources and our efforts.
A few things have come out of this process that I think are both pioneering and important. The first one is the collaboration between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), to support over the next five years a programme for advancing our capacity at the local and national levels, in respect of implementing comprehensive disaster management programmes, as well as supporting the process of the partnership and sharing through the strengthening of our regional institutions to lead and implement CDM. This is very important, and you will see that have a press release to that effect.
This is the way where we intend the CDM process to result in what we call these collaborative joint initiatives. The benefits are the rationalization of resources, more direct input at the country level, and stronger region- and country-driven initiatives. I will make the point that it is our observation that where we are able to share with our donors our priorities, and they are usually very responsive. And, within the concept of the CDM, I will put it very simply. In 2006, when we looked at the resources provided by the states and those provided by our partners, it was a ration of 1 to 2.5. Going forward to the next three years that ratio will change from 1 to 2.5 to 1 to 8, 1 to 10 and 1 to 11. In other words, this structured mechanism, has allowed for a greater focus in our partners as to how their resources can impact our activities. And I think that was an investment that was worth the while. And I really want to thank all of our partners who have contributed to this process.
As we’ve always said, CDM is not a CDERA Coordinating Unit activity, and therefore we are proud to recognize the partnership of the Caribbean Tourism Organization in these efforts in putting disaster management into tourism activities and development, as well as the Pan-American Health Organization in their contribution to health, the University of the West Indies in education, and certainly the Caribbean Development Bank in relation to financing.
Part of this process also is rationalizing our relationship with the OECS Secretariat, and some of the resources will allow us to put adequate human resources within the OECS Secretariat to ensure that that entity can contribute to our activities in advancing risk reduction in the region. And, by the way, the OECS makes up 50 percent of the CDERA membership, so we see it as a heavy investment in that area.
I want now to move to some of the outcomes of our recently-held 18th Board Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda, and there are a few decisions that I thought it important to share with you. One is the rationalization of the professionalization of disaster management. The members of the Board were concerned about several things, including the high turnover of staff, the perception of the low profile of this profession in the civil service, and hence the desire to move up in other places in order to be adequately recognized in the service and to be compensated. But also to recognize that the emerging disaster legislation is specifically assigning responsibilities to representatives in the ministries, and we thought it was appropriate to address the matter about how to appropriately engage them. And so the Board has made the decision to go forward with these recommendations to the Council of CDERA to address that. It has also embraced a mechanism for the implementation of the recommendations of the CDERA audit, and specifically this looks at how we can articulate our structure to more efficiently manage the resources and manage our programmes, enhancing our ICT infrastructure to more actively engage interaction with our stakeholders, as well as more sharing of information in a timely way. We also addressed ways for enhancing the early warning systems for hurricanes and other hazards, and in particular we noted that the upgrades to the radars in the region should be finished by August this year, and recognize the need for our meteorological officers and services to more actively use that information to advance our warnings to our threatened communities. We welcome the invitation from the Caribbean Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology for us, that is emergency managers, to pay a very regular, come-visit dialogue on new developments. And we thought that this dialogue, when it occurs before a hurricane or other threat can significantly advance the gaps that were hitherto identified for information sharing between the meteorologists and the national disaster offices.
We were also introduced into what we called a benchmarking tool, being piloted within the OECS, which allows us to really say where it is we are starting and provide some indicators as to where we need to go. Six countries have experienced the application of the tool, and they were very supportive not only of the application of the tool but also of the process and the product. In those countries we have seen the awakening of what I call the political consciousness of the need for action to change that loss scenario that is at country level. Clearly, the Board recognized that while there is a need to enhance it, it should be rolled out with the appropriate modifications as a regional CDM tool, and we are going to move in that direction. Suffice it to say that I think it gives the assessed country not only an indication as to where it stands, but it allows us to answer in the future one of the questions that you always ask me: “How does X country compare with Y?” We think that next year we’ll be able to answer that in a very, very objective way for all the countries, and that kind of rational analysis is very often a trigger for national action.
We also had an update on the Caribbean Capacity Reinsurance facility, and you remember last year we raised the idea of its introduction and we spoke specifically about some of the challenges that we saw might be there. Well, the 2007 hurricane season, especially Dean, would have given us the capacity to see how that would have worked, and you would have heard the number of challenges the impacted countries raised – Jamaica, Dominica and St. Lucia – in relation to the timeliness of intervention and whether or not they were eligible for benefits, the concern about the trigger for accessing those benefits, and we were glad to get a presentation on the response to these challenges, and I want to be very clear and read them to you, and we have been advised on the experiences of 2007 that this facility will now lower the premium rate by 10 percent so you can get more cover for the same money. It will also provide an opportunity for a 15-year attachment for hurricane coverage; that means that you can get your coverage sooner. You recall that the challenge with Jamaica last year, that in spite of the damage, they were not able to qualify. The coverage limit has also been raised from 50 million to 100 million. And, finally, the claims procedure has been simplified to allow for quicker payments; if you’re qualified and you are drawing in the CRIF resources, it will be 14 days, and if you’re withdrawing from the resources of the reinsurance facility for CRIF, it will be 28 days. I am sure that you will agree with me that these changes will be certainly beneficial to these countries, and what it speaks to is the benefits of dialoguing and expressing our concerns in this and any area, but particularly in the area of risk transfer.
We also had a chance to address the issue of post-disaster assessments. We recognize that this in many ways is still a challenge, and we agreed that we will all work to ensure that external and internal parties, be they extra-regional and regional parties, will use the common methodology and we are very strong on using that methodology of the UN-ECLAC, and we’ve agreed that we will promote the training at the various regional and national levels to ensure its full utilization.
There are some other developments that are taking place in the region with respect to disaster management that I think is important to fly. I referred earlier to the radars that are being developed in Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Belize; there are a number of them. And my opinion is that this is going to bring more significant improvement in the potential forecast so that when they say it’s going to rain in a particular place, you can reasonable expect that, and I will expect to see a greater expectation of forecast realization.
I also want to mention the safe hospitals programme launched by PAHO, which is very important for our critical facilities to be ready and available during times of crises. You saw what happened in China, and the whole issue of the structural integrity and resilience of our critical facilities, such as schools, hospitals and whatever, must be a centerpiece of our development focus. And not the facilities, but their abilities to provide the services when they’re needed most are what must underpin how we institute these entities in the pursuit of development. And that is why this link between disaster risk reduction and development is so critical.
The Caribbean Development Bank has also initiated a review of its disaster policy and this is all in an effort to better align itself with the CDM process. The University of the West Indies has started to staff the Disaster Risk reduction Centre, and the point I’m making here is this CDM programme, this CDM agenda, is now being owned by the region, the region’s institutions, and very soon by our communities.
The 2007 hurricane season, what did we learn? It is clear to us from that experience, as it has always been, that there is a very great diversity in the capacity to respond in those Participating States, and so we are looking at our response strategies to better reflect this, in how we structure our deployment resources. We’ve had several discussions with our development partners within the context of the Eastern Caribbean Donor Group, and we are committed to collaborating with these countries in response to impact situations.
The earthquake event in November 2007, we have felt several earthquakes since then. Almost every two weeks, in Eastern Caribbean we feel earthquakes of different intensities, indicating that there is clearly a need for more intensity in those efforts. We believe that the Earthquake Readiness Programme, supported by the Government of Austria, will start that process. It will not solve or address all the problems, but we are in the process of doing an assessment of all the countries to see where the highest need of capacity development is in relation to the risk, and we will collaborate with the Seismic Research Unit in their research to address that.
With the support of the IDRC we are working again with the University of the West Indies, through the Seismic Research Unit, to look at the different kinds of ICT tools, that is telephone, Palm Pilots and those kinds of resources that can allow us to get information from impacted communities to the national disaster office or other points of information as to the nature and breadth of the impact of an earthquake event. In other words, we are using more of the new technologies to expedite our ability to assess and provide appropriate information on an impact on our communities.
Going forward with our activities in 2008, we have already started what we call our increased readiness actions, here at the CDERA Coordinating Unit we have exercised our communications plan, we are also exercising our activation facility called the Regional Coordinating Centre, and we are dialoguing with the Regional Security System in relation to the more effective use of the disciplined forces in support of disaster events – we are already heavily dependent on that and we are working to improve that situation given our recognition for the potential for catastrophic-type events.
Based on the experiences last year, we have asked the countries to look very closely at their own capacities and to be clear in their minds as to which category of hurricane they best prepared to deal with. There is nothing wrong with that kind of recognition, as it allows all of us to have an earlier and better opportunity to define how we can support.
In the coming days we will be having a discussion with the UN family, through the UN system, to consider how we can have a smooth interface between the regional system and the international response mechanism. We believe that the Myanmar, what people call Burma, situation will not and should not result in this region, because we already have a system that draws on regional resources as a first point of call and we have a protocol for upscaling to an international system. This is a very important part of the regional response mechanism, which I think is under-recognized and under-valued. The “neighbourhood” mechanism of CDERA is the first point of call; if it is clear that our neighbour’s resources are inadequate, then we go out. And how we upscale that to the UN system is a point that we think is always in need of continued discussion, especially in the light of the humanitarian reform efforts that are taking place within the UN community.
And so I would like to summarise by saying that we have made some progress in advancing the implementation of CDM. We are not complacent because we recognize that our capacities in managing seismic risks are to be advanced. But we think that the ownership is coming home and that the efforts, though highly diversified at country levels, are moving in the right direction.
Thank you very much.