Learning lab on disaster risk management for sustainable development (DRM-SD): An evaluation

2.1 Disaster and South East Asia

The ten countries in the Association of South East Asia Nations, whose combined population is 622 million, experience average direct economic losses from disasters of US$4.4bn every year, representing “an enormous socio-economic cost” which threatens sustainable development and livelihoods (McElroy, 2016). Damage from disasters is usually more significant and widespread in South East Asia, where a higher number of people live in risk-prone areas, for example, along rivers and coasts that are vulnerable to flooding and storm surges. ASEAN Secretariat News (2016) highlight that from 2004 to 2014 South East Asia contributed to more than 50 per cent of the total global disaster fatalities, or 354,000 of the 700,000 deaths in disasters worldwide. The total economic loss was US$91bn and about 191 million people were displaced temporarily and disasters affected an additional 193 million people. In short, about one in three to four people in the region experienced different types of losses. There was an increase in the rate of disaster mortality from 8 (during 1990 to 2003) to 61 deaths per 100,000 people (during 2004 to 2014) (Lassa, 2015). According to the United Nations Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2014, among Asia-Pacific sub-regions, South East Asia – predominantly Indonesia and the Philippines – was the hardest hit by natural disasters that killed more than 350,000 in more than 500 incidents (Beck et al., 2014). Most recently, the UN’s 2016 Global Climate Risk report identified Myanmar as one of 20 countries in a “conflict–climate nexus”, a combination of severe environmental vulnerability along with pre-existing social fragility and weak institutions (Phyo, 2016).

A study by the Center for Hazards and Risk Research (2005) shows that floods is the primary hazard affecting Malaysia, ranking in the top deciles for most of the western half of the country. Landslides and droughts are also significant, although their effects are limited to much smaller areas in the eastern regions. When weighted by mortality, landslides pose a large risk for the north-eastern part of the country. The hazards affecting the western region are distinctly different than those impacting the eastern areas. According to Cambodia Disaster Loss and Damage Information Centre (2014), the key findings form the analysis report show that Cambodia is prone to flood, fires, droughts, storm, lightening, pest outbreak, epidemic and river bank collapse. In the context of mortality, 2,050 people died from all disaster between 1996 and 2013, and floods is the number-one killer which accounts for 53 per cent of the total number of human lives lost. Meanwhile, Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance (2014) highlighted that Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) is exposed to natural disasters such as flooding, drought, earthquakes, cyclones and infectious disease epidemics. In the past five years, Lao PDR has been affected by severe flooding owing to tropical storms, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions in damages. Forecasts project that the intensity and frequency of natural disasters in the Lao PDR will likely increase because of climate variation and change. Other than that, World Bank (2013) stated that natural hazards in Vietnam have resulted in average annual economic losses estimated between 1 and 1.5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1989 and 2008. For instance, the Typhoon Xangsane in 2006 caused damages of US$1.2bn in the 15 provinces in the Central Region.

ASEAN has a track record of global leadership on cross-border cooperation on disasters’ risk management to build upon. ASEAN has been at the forefront of using international law to attempt to cooperate in DRR and response – the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) is a regional treaty that has been hailed as among the world’s best practice: progressive, comprehensive and, unusually for a disaster instrument, legally binding (Gabrielle, 2016). The objective of AADMER is to provide effective mechanisms to achieve substantial reduction of disaster losses in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets (of member states), and to jointly respond to disaster emergencies through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international cooperation. The ASEAN Community was formally launched in the end of 2015, marking that a significant and greater regional cooperation to achieve resilient and sustainable development is a priority.

The Director of the Sustainable Development Directorate of the ASEAN Secretariat’s Socio-Cultural Community Department, Adelina Dwi Ekawati Kamal, said the region needed to address and adapt to a “new normal” of increasingly extreme and frequent weather events:

The enormous socio-economic cost of such phenomenon not only hinders development prospects and productivity of our peoples, but it also poses a clear and present threat to our stability, environmental sustainability and multi-fold security, especially food security (McElroy, 2016).

Thus, to reduce the adverse impacts of natural disasters, especially on the most vulnerable populations, the ASEAN countries must be able to make their communities more sustainable and more resilient. The ASEAN needs to further strengthen national multi-sectoral coordination, enhance partnerships with civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders and particularly, the cooperation with regional nations within the context of knowledge transfer and CB. According to Anbumozhi (2016), in particular, emerging middle-income economies like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have a great opportunity to receive financing from several sources, including public and private sources and the market. However, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam still need to rely on public financial sources and international funds until they can develop an environment that enables or encourages private sector investment and finance. Thus, south–south, regional and triangular cooperation, therefore, may be expected to play a role in providing an opportunity for these countries to easily access the need capacity in strengthening disaster resilience.

2.2 Capacity building and South East Asia

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines capacity as “the combination of all the strengths, attributes and resources available within a community, society or organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals” and capacity development as the process by which people, organizations and society systematically stimulate and develop their capacities over time to achieve social and economic goals, including through improvement of knowledge, skills, systems and institutions. CB is an ongoing process that equips government officials and other stakeholders with the tools necessary to perform their functions in a more effective manner during all phases of the disaster cycle (White, 2015).

There are a few literature studies available on research and project related to DRM and CB. Scott et al. (2015) higlight that between 2013 and 2015, the IFRC contracted Oxford Policy Management and the University of East Anglia to conduct “Strategic Research into National and Local Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Management”. This review study aims to identify and analyse evidence of CB for DRM and DRR in developing countries. They stated that there is very little academic research that focuses on CB for DRM, and during the team’s searches, only one journal article, published in a peer-reviewed journal, was found that detailed multi-country research analysing CB for DRM in low-income countries. Meanwhile, report by Rajib et al. (2010) highlights the analyses and outcomes of the Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative (CDRI) Capacity-building Program in which the following cities participated: Chennai (India), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Hue (Vietnam), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Makati (Philippines), Sukabumi (Indonesia) and Suwon (South Korea). The CDRI Capacity-building Program was a three-month-long comprehensive and action-oriented programme conducted from February to April 2010 to help city government officials become more aware and to be able to communicate more easily on the current and future potential climate-related risks faced by their cities.

In the context of South East Asia, a study by Petz (2014) was painting a broad-stroke overview of DRM capacity development in ASEAN with a particular focus on the cooperation of ASEAN and National Disaster Management Organizations (NDMOs) in building DRM capacity. Petz concluded that the ASEAN has embarked on an ambitious DRM programme through AADMER, which is one of the few binding single-issue DRM treaties in the world, and he has seen that CB in ASEAN is a multi-level process that includes a large number of stakeholders other than ASEAN institutions and NDMOs, but nonetheless, both are strong drivers of the CB process and their cooperation will go a long way in ensuring that gains are sustainable. The “Disaster Resilience Education Capacity Building in South-East Asia” project draws upon the University of Newcastle’s particular position as a centre for resilience education excellence to build capacity in the ASEAN region (Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam). The project furthers the understanding of regional challenges that result from complex problems generated by natural hazards and human-induced threats. The overarching aim of the project will be to create regional synergies between leading higher education institutions (HEIs) while building capacity in ASEAN countries to proactively address disaster risk and build resilience through education (source: Australian Government website). Specially, in a study on South East Asia countries’ progress, Alcayna et al. (2016) studied on the resilience and disaster trends in the Philippines: opportunities for national and local CB have hilighted that CB is occurring across levels from local to national in the Philippines, but focus is predominantly at the local level where numerous actors and networks are collaborating with communities to identify existing capacities, as well as are providing the opportunity to build infrastructure, which could minimise the impacts of a hazard.

Based on the online search, the authors have a similar issues with Scott et al. (2015). Scott et al. (2015) highlighted that very little academic research focuses on CB for DRM, and there are many resources that identify a need for CB for DRM but do not give any further details on what to do or how to do it. Nonetheless, the literature studies that have been highighted above will serve as support for this study.

2.3 Capacity building and evaluation

An effective CB initiative is one that produces significant implication that contributes to the change. Thus, programme evaluation lets organiser know whether the time and effort they are putting in to their project are worth it. Evaluation is a crucial aspect of the training process, and without it, there is no way to know if the information being delivered was effectively communicated and received. Evaluation refers to a periodic process of gathering data and then analysing or ordering it in such a way that the resulting information can be used to determine whether your organization or project is effectively carrying out planned activities, and the extent to which it is achieving its stated objectives and anticipated results (Martinez, 2005).

Morariu (2012) highlights that the evaluation of CB is the process of improving an organization’s ability to use this evaluation to learn from its work and improve results. Patton (1987) highlighted that the evaluation is a process that critically examines a programme, and it involves collecting and analysing information about a programme’s activities, characteristics and outcomes. Its purpose is to make judgements about a programme, to improve its effectiveness and/or to inform programming decisions. There is great potential for the learnings from all of the evaluations to be fed back into the existing pool of knowledge to increase the capacity for programme development (Woodland and Hind, 2002).

Preskill and Boyle (2008) describe a model of evaluating CB that may be used for designing and implementing CB activities and processes as well as for conducting empirical research on this topic. Evaluations are needed to test the theories and assumptions on which capacity development programmes are based, to document their results and to draw lessons for improving future programmes (LaFond and Brown, 2003). Khan (1998) highlights that it is not easy to define evaluation and it becomes more complex when one tries to make a distinction between monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (many use the terms interchangeably). In the context of the logical framework concept of a project cycle, monitoring would look at the input–output processes (i.e. implementation), whereas evaluation would examine the output–effect (i.e. project results) and effect–impact (i.e. project impacts) processes. According to Bakyaita and Root (2005), evaluations can be used to link any two parts of the M&E framework (inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes or impact). At the national and subnational levels, where efforts to implement interventions are functional, monitoring of programme inputs (human resources, financing), processes (procurements and supplies, training) and outputs (services delivered by programmes) is also needed for understanding the complete picture of programme activities for improved performance.

There are numerous ways to perform an evaluation of a CB programme (Brown et al., 2001; van der Werf and Piñeiro, 2007). Nonetheless, choosing a method by which to evaluate a training programme presented a great challenge because the success of a training programme depends on the ability of the participants to learn and retain the information presented. Scott et al. (2014) mentioned that the CB objectives are typically hard to measure and require an understanding and appreciation of the changing political and institutional context. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006) highlights many resources which emphasise that outcomes and impact should be monitored in addition to the assessment of operational inputs or outputs as has traditionally been the case with CB, for example, the number of persons attending training (Scott et al., 2014). Scott et al. (2014) stated that the training evaluation forms completed by participants do not lead to an understanding of impact unless there is follow-up with participants and their organisations after they have returned to their working environment.

4.1 Approaches of the CB project

In 2014, the CGSS was awarded a project funding by Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN), Japan, under the research proposal on “Building Capacity for Reducing Loss and Damage Resulting from Slow and Rapid Onset Climatic Extremes through Risk Reduction and Proactive Adaptation within the Broader Context of Sustainable Development”. The two-year (end 2014-early 2016) project on “learning labs” in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Vientiane (Lao PDR) and Siem Reap (Cambodia) successfully involved 120 professionals in total which were from various backgrounds. Participant selection and distribution are important to access the success of the project. Selecting a group of participants with the right academic and professional background and organising a team of resource persons to handle the rigour of the curricular aspects was the key for the success of the training. As the interviews were to be conducted in English, participants were expected to have an adequate working knowledge of the language. Following a rigorous selection procedure, a total of 120 participants were selected representing Malaysia, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia. The selection process involved careful consideration of the applicant’s academic qualifications, professional experience, career background and the overall suitability of the candidate to be a high-quality participant groups for the training.

The material covered in the lectures was consolidated through structured tutorials, and its practical application was accomplished through a suite of hands-on learning activities. The participants worked in teams lead by the resource persons and facilitators throughout the three days presenting their output and ideas at the end of the course. Modules and hands-on activity include topics such as:

• Training overview.

• Development with a Difference.

• Risk and Disaster.

• Pre-Disaster DRM: Discussion of SE Asian climate, Risk Management;

• The Event: Dealing with Disaster.

• Post-Disaster: Disaster Management and Post-Disaster Stage: Response & Recovery – Linking to the Goals of Sustainable Development.

• LFA for Project Management (Risk Reduction Project Design & Implementation.

• AtKisson’s Compass Methodology for Interdisciplinary Climate Risk Reduction Project Management.

• Project Planning for Risk Reduction.

• World Café Activity on DRM-SD.

• Case study 1: The International Experience.

• Case study 2: The National Experience.

The workshops addressed DRM-SD issues by connecting risk to climate impact, vulnerability of exposure units and the role of adaptation in enhancing capacity to address risks. The thrust was on ways to progressively reduce risk to acceptable levels; levels that, if realised as disaster, will be within the capacity of the communities to manage without considerable adverse losses and damages. The specific highlight of the learning lab involves:

• Discussion of South East Asia climate trend and scenario with focus on climatic extremes.

• Definition of terms, risk equations, disaster trends, climate change and disasters, population, urbanization and DRM, Malaysia and DRM.

• DRM-SD cycle: Risk management side (before the event) – Prevention and Preparedness; the role of mitigation, adaptation and readiness; the role of science and technology for DRM.

• DRM-SD cycle: Disaster management side (after the event) – Response and recovery; the role of relief, restoration and recovery; closing the loop for resilience building, especially for the most vulnerable; sustainable living and human well-being.

The central focus of this unique training is personalised instruction and hands-on learning. The context of the learning lab also highlighted the uniqueness of the project’s approach in factoring SD consideration in all four major phases of the DRM loop – prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. Benson (2016) highlighted that the disaster risk poses a significant risk to sustainable development. Likewise, disaster risk is exacerbated by lower levels of human development. By implication, there is scope for mutually supportive actions, both to strengthen disaster resilience and to advance sustainable development. These synergies need to be explicitly recognized and effort taken to ensure they are realized. Besides, this project is tailored to address closely the capacity needs of linkages between climate change adaptation (CCA), DRR and loss and damage (L&D). de Guzman et al. (2014) highlight that there is a significant overlap of concepts and shared goals between DRR and CCA, especially in the context of L&D. As climate change brings a series of disaster and societal impacts to vulnerable countries and communities, it is also putting development at risk owing to L&D.

To enhance analytical skills and professional knowledge of development practitioners in specific areas of DRM-SD, seven different tools has been successfully applied in the learning lab. These tools are DRM-SD model, the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA), World Café, Mind maps, AtKisson Compass, Conflict Management and System Thinking. The details of the tools are discussed later in the section.

4.2 Feedback of the CB project

Each training programme should be evaluated by obtaining feedback from the participants to enable the organiser to assess the effectiveness of the training conducted, and good suggestions from participants can be incorporated in the courses to be organised in the future. Based on demographic data, it was found that 70 per cent male participants attended the CB. Apart from that, it was also recorded that 40 per cent of the participants were university staffs and researchers, 42 per cent were officials and directors from governmental bodies/ministries, while 18 per cent were from the non-governmental organization (NGO). In the context of Workshop content, 22 and 69 per cent participants, respectively, were very highly and highly informed about the objectives of this workshop. Conversely, the other 8 per cent believed that they were moderately informed. The majority of the participants (93 per cent) conjectured that the workshop has fulfilled their expectations, while 5 per cent presumed that the workshop moderately met their expectations. The workshop content was found to be highly job-relevant according to 93 per cent of the participants, while 7 per cent of the participants felt that the content was moderately relevant.

In terms of workshop design, 29 per cent of the participants agreed that the workshop objectives were very highly comprehensible. More than half of the participants believed the objectives were favourably clear, while the other 10 per cent believed the objectives were moderately clear. In terms of learning experience, the workshop activities were stimulating for 91 per cent of the participants. The activities in this workshop provided extremely sufficient practice and feedback for 16 per cent of the respondents, while another 75 per cent considered that the activities were satisfactory. According to 8 per cent of the participants, the difficulty level of the workshop was very highly appropriate, while 64 per cent of them considered the difficulty level was highly appropriate. Only 26 per cent of the participant regarded the difficulty level as moderately appropriate. The predominance of participants (79 per cent) agreed that the pace of this workshop was appropriate, while only 21 per cent of the participants concurred that the workshop pace was moderately appropriate.

In the context of workshop implementation, 89 per cent of participants are well received on the objectives of the workshop and only 11 per cent achieved moderate objective accomplishment According to 66 per cent of the participants, the knowledge garnered from this workshop was highly useful, while 29 per cent stated that the knowledge gained was very useful. Only, 5 per cent of the participants found that the knowledge gained was of moderate usage. Majority of the participants (64 per cent) were of the opinion that the workshop was a good way of learning the content, while 31 per cent were of the opinion that the workshop was the best way of learning. Meanwhile, 5 per cent of the participants were moderately convinced by the statement.

Prior to participation in the programme, participants’ level of understanding was assessed and identified. About13 per cent of the participants possessed a very low understanding level, while 16 per cent had a low understanding. Meanwhile, 52 and 19 per cent participants, respectively, possessed medium- and high-level understanding. After the programme ended, the percentage of participants who possessed very low and low understanding had declined sharply to none. In addition, the percentage of participants who possessed medium understanding has slightly increased to 26 per cent. An incredible increment from 19 to 52 per cent of participants who developed high understanding after joining the programme was also witnessed. Meanwhile, 22 per cent of the participants achieved a very high understanding.

In the last section of the survey, participants are welcome to voice any opinions and recommendations to improve the learning lab. Several opinions and recommendations were raised throughout the four-in-country learning lab as follows:

• The DRM-SD learning lab is a new way of introducing stakeholders to different types of methodologies and approaches in dealing with disasters.

• The learning lab should be organized more frequently to expose stakeholders to DRM-SD.

• The introduction of many tools used in the learning lab is new for us and this learning lab is a good approach.

• The lab should be extended to a five-day lab instead of a three-day one owing to time constraints for each given tasks and hands-on activity.

• World Café discussion method was found to be very effective in exchanging and sharing ideas.

• The CB was an interactive and innovative approach by organisers and facilitators in making the learning lab more lively and attractive.

• Learning lab should consider providing workshop materials in bi-language (English and respective country’s language) as communication barrier may exist.

Feedbacks from participants are a vital step towards identifying the flaws and improving of programme for the benefit of the institution, company or process concerned. High-performing organisations seek and use data and feedback to continually assess and improve their work, and sometimes behind such efforts are supportive grant makers that embrace the unique role they can play in helping grantees make effective use of information (Morariu, 2012). Although feedback received from the evaluation phase may be positive or vice versa, the data received will tell organisation which effort to maintain (at least) or requires improved. Welsh and Morariu (2011) further added that organisation that are adept at learning from mistakes and adapting to new challenges are more likely to be successful.

4.3 Implications of the CB project

The authors highlighted the major primary outcomes of the project which has links with international DRM cooperation. From the case study project, the study indicates that the cooperation among ASEAN countries will bring several beneficial outcomes, and should be promoted as a collaborative approach for DRM capacity-building projects. This study is intended to support the realisation of the potential synergies and cooperation in actions to strengthen disaster resilience through the CB project. Importantly, this study was highlighted the south–south, regional and triangular cooperation and higher educations’ role as a part of outcomes for the project implementation.

The south–south approach is the exchange of resources, skills, expertise and knowledge between developing countries. South–South cooperation is a broad framework for collaboration among countries of the south such as in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, disaster and climate change. South–South technical cooperation can take different and evolving forms, including capacity development, knowledge sharing, exchange of experiences and best practices, training and technology transfer (Amorim et al., 2014). Recent developments in south–south cooperation has taken the form of increased volume of south–south trade, south–south flows of foreign direct investment, movements towards regional integration, technology transfers, sharing of solutions and experts and other forms of exchanges (United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, 2015). South–South approaches have become popular for CB project in recent years and developing country governments tend to prefer south–south arrangements for CB stating that providers have a greater understanding of contextual issues (Scott et al., 2015). Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2009) highlighted that the south–south cooperation also fosters developing country leadership and ownership of the disaster risk.

The project had two key significance within the context of south–south cooperation. The first was to facilitate knowledge exchange between countries of the ASEAN region and to provide them with opportunities to learn about different approaches to synergise the element of DRM and SD. The second objective was to provide CB for designing risk reduction project which stakeholders could be implemented the approaches. The south–south cooperation continues to expand, and through this project, it is clearly indicated that Malaysia as an emerging economy nation is playing a more active role in the disaster risk capacity of their own countries and that of the countries around South East Asia. Besides, this project is a part of initiatives by Malaysia in mainstreaming south–south cooperation through the DRM capacity development which aligned with Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Malaysia will contribute to enhance and promote the south–south cooperation for CB in synergisation of DRM-SD for the benefit of South East Asia and in support of the agenda of Sendai Disaster Framework and SDGs.

Regional organisations have become increasingly active in DRM and this reflects a broader growing trend of intensifying regional cooperation (Petz, 2014). Multilateral and regional organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) have significant roles to play in advancing disaster cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. A whole-of-society approach, involving comprehensive strategies, initiatives and mechanisms developed within the frameworks of regional organizations will prove an invaluable way for nations to collectively share information, knowledge and resources (Ear and Campbell, 2012). The countries should also agree on linking specific risk reduction objectives or issues with broader goals of regional development owing to the nature of transboundary impacts of disasters. According to Bethke (2009), regional cooperation can be a significant enabler for CB, supporting peer learning, knowledge management and the exchange of good practice (Scott et al., 2014).

Within the project context, this project had successfully gathered the involvement of five ASEAN countries, namely, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Loa PDR and Thailand (one of the speakers). The project will contribute to Malaysia’s progress to get involved in networking activities for strengthening regional cooperation thought joint CB measures and regional events which will contribute to addressing common challenges and interests. In fact, the regional cooperation between Malaysia and other South East Asian countries which aligned with the spirit of ASEAN moves towards a disaster-resilient ASEAN Community. As the region journeys forward in forging the ASEAN Community, the field of disaster management continues to face challenges and opportunities brought about by increasingly complex disasters and the evolving humanitarian landscape (Anbumozhi, 2016).

Triangular cooperation involves “southern-driven partnerships between two or more developing countries, supported by a developed country (ies) or multilateral organisation(s), to implement development cooperation programmes and projects” (Wang and Banihani, 2015). Triangular cooperation consists mainly of technical cooperation aimed at CB and takes place mostly in the same region where both emerging donors and beneficiary countries are located (Ashoff, 2010). This project strengthens triangular cooperation through Asia-Pacific Network (funder – multilateral organisation), CGSS@USM (organiser) and other South East Asian nations (participants). CB interventions should be designed with equality in mind, where actors are partners in a shared learning journey rather than one party being the expert provider of knowledge to the other (Lucas, 2013). The partners involved in triangular cooperation benefit from the constant exchange of information and knowledge sharing on DRM-SD, and networking that takes place during any triangular activity.

On the other hand, the project also supports the crucial role of HEIs or university in advancing skilled human capacity in the disaster risk domain and supporting disaster CB at all scales. Holloway (2015) stated that the DRR is an integral element of sustainable development and that HEIs play central roles in advancing knowledge and human capital developmentally. HEIs and universities need to share experiences with and transfer knowledge to other HEIs, public and private institution and communities on the implementation of DRM CB to enrich the knowledge base and identify better ways to design projects. In this context, the concept of university social responsibility evolves from the concept of corporate social responsibility, incorporating new issues about the university’s relationship with society, such as the revision of the curricula in light of socioeconomic and environmental challenges that we face today (Vallaeys, 2014). Within the higher education context, such projects promote and enhance the collaborative work among academics and professionals (public and private) in ASEAN. The involvement of four universities as the main collaborators, government and private sector disaster managers, and the community groups make it a proactive engagement than the “event-based reactive approach” of the present. Thus, strengthening partnerships, risk reduction project development, specialised CB, documenting current approaches and recommending better approaches for improved policies are integral to the training.

The DRM-SD CB project has shown a practical and significant implication of collaborative partnerships to strengthen capacities of DRM among professionals from ASEAN members. There will also be a set of secondary outcomes from this project which are:

• A group of well-trained DRM professionals will have a clear understanding of the connection between CCA, DRR and L&D and their overall linkages to national development and in particular to the broader concept of SD.

• Increased regional ability to plan and implement climate adaptation projects, participate meaningfully in international conferences where national interests need to be highlighted, more local people need to be trained, academic curriculum at all levels needs to be influenced, climate documentation and publication need to be increased and there need to be leaders in climate change disaster risk management, all will lead to reduced losses and damages.