1. ANALYSIS OF LONGER-TERM RECOVERY FOLLOWING DISASTERS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Dr. Louis Lebel, Director, Unit for Social and Environmental Research (USER), Chiang Mai University, Thailand llebel@loxinfo.co.thllebel@loxinfo.co.th, louis@sea-user.orglouis@sea-user.org Drawing on new APN project led by Frank Thomalla (SEI) with Win Htut Aung (ADRI), Ham Kimkong (RUPP), Saradhorn Boontaveeyuwat (KU), Bach Tan Sinh (NISTPASS), Agus Nugroho (SEI) and Louis Lebel (CMU) 1

2. Outline A long-term view where disaster are expected Aims of a new APN project on recovery Methodological issues Collaboration opportunities 2 Source: World Bank & Jakarta Post

3. Why a longer-term perspective? important to learn more about recovery phase post- disaster given the likelihood of increasing climate change related disasters in the future it is possible to ‘build back better’ but doing so requires integrated planning that addresses local needs Livelihood restoration Local knowledge and meaningful participation But many recovery processes fail to build resilience Local adaptive capacities Poor coordination and patchy support Promises not kept, plans not followed through Transition from short-term relief to redevelopment ‘botched’ In a long-term view disasters are ‘expected’ 3 APN Study

4. Questions about recovery 1. What are the main loss and damage systems involved in post-disaster recovery 2. What formal promises were made and objectives set for recovery and what role were loss and damage systems expected to play? 3. Did recovery programs and loss and damage systems meet their objectives? 4. What are the greatest achievements and challenges in building disaster resilience post-event over 5-10 years?; 5. What other factors influence the success of interventions? Have interventions increased resilience? 4 APN Study

5. Study design Case studies of major disasters “10” years after, in 5 countries, most likely from : 2008 Cyclone Nargis (Myanmar) 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (Indonesia) 2004 Typhoon Winnie (Philippines) 2001 Mekong delta floods (Vietnam, Cambodia) To potentially inform/reflect on “early” recovery process from: 2011 Bangkok floods (Thailand) 2011 Tohuku earthquake & Tsunami (Japan) 2013 Typhoon Haiyan (Philippines) Follow shared case-study protocol Qualitative methods: review and content analysis of documents and key informant interviews 5 APN Study

6. Method issue 1: Counterfactuals How can you attribute effects to loss and damage systems during recovery? Is the loss or damage in excess of adaptation efforts? What do you compare with what? What are limits of: before AND after? Is it possible to compare locations to strengthen analysis? With and without a particular L&D system? More and less impacted by a disaster? With and without CC adaptation effort? What are good ways to construct ‘counterfactuals’ for studying the recovery processes following disasters? 6 Method issues

7. Loss and damage systems Irrigation infrastructure that reduce risks from drought Climate resilient agriculture that reduces risks Early warning systems Social safety nets that help cope with impacts Informal ‘safety nets’ Humanitarian aid and charity Government relief and compensation schemes Re-development and re-construction projects Integration of disaster risk reduction into development Linking local, national and global systems Micro-insurance and other risk transfer instruments 7

8. Method issue 2: L & D systems How do you recognize “loss and damage” systems? What are useful boundaries? Formal vs. informal systems? Pre-event vs. post-event activities? How do you assess performance of L&D systems? Do they restore or replace livelihoods? Do they restore or maintain ecosystems? Do they contribute to resilient development? Do various L&D systems interact? Can they substitute for each other? Is some overlap and redundancy a good thing? Recovery vs. L&D systems? 8 Method issues

9. Method issue 3: disasters are normal In the long, resilient development-centered, view ‘disasters’ or ‘shocks’ or ‘disturbances’ are normal not extra-ordinary. They are expected. How does ‘acknowledging’ disaster alter way think about development? What does it take to make development ‘resilient’ to climate change related disasters? What analytical frameworks do you need now to explore loss and damages if take the long view? Does it change the questions we should be asking? 9 Method issues

10. Collaboration Op 1: Comparison Comparative studies, meta-analysis and systematic reviews can help further understanding of L&D Structured questionnaire to many L&D researchers about “their” cases Discussed in expert workshops A synthesis article An edited volume of case studies Looking ahead 2 years from now with APN set as starting point…. 10 Collaboration Opportunities

11. Collaboration Op 2: Agenda setting Initial studies on L & D like those represented at this meeting could be basis for designing and “declaring’ a new research agenda Provocative or stimulating conceptual framework Novel and outstanding research questions Link in with Future Earth program Clear relevance for development AND disaster management planning Providing broader perspective on L & D systems to stimulate/inform international negotiations A position, agenda-setting, paper 11 Collaboration Opportunities

12. Conclusion Longer-term recovery processes following disasters are under-studied Loss and damage systems are diverse and likely to play a critical role in the “relief to redevelopment” transition There are significant methodological challenges in studying recovery processes and L&D systems, but also opportunities Apologies. This presentation opened up more issues and questions than it synthesized or answered. 12