1. Introduction
2. Workshop Objectives
3. Workshop Description
1. Hazard Prioritisation and Data Needs Assessment
2. Priority Critical Facilities and Needs Assessment
3. Vulnerability Assessment Exercise
4. Terms of Reference Guidelines and Workplan
4. Workshop Evaluation
5. Consultant’s Comments and Recommendations

Table 1a Availability of Hazard Data: Earthquake Hazard
Table 1b Availability of Hazard Data: Storm Surge Hazard
Table 1c Availability of Hazard Data: Flood Hazard
Table 2 Summary of Hazard Assessment Requirements for Priority Hazards
Table 3 Critical Facility Categories and Supporting Agencies
Table 4 Terms of Reference Guidelines for Natural hazard Map Suite
Table 5 Workplan for Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments

Table 1 Workshop Agenda
Table 2 List of Participants
Table 3 Results of Workshop Evaluation

1.0 Introduction

As part of the Post-Georges Disaster Mitigation (PGDM) Project, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Organisation of American States (OAS), is assisting the Government of Antigua and Barbuda and St. Kitts and Nevis with the development of natural hazard mitigation plans (NHMP). In fulfillment of Task 7 of the NHMP workplan, a natural hazard / vulnerability assessment prioritisation workshop was held at the Royal Antiguan Hotel in Antigua from August 16 to 17, 2000. This report summarises the workshop activities and recommendations.

The objectives of the workshop were:

1. To identify the priority natural hazards for which hazard assessments will be performed under the project;
2. To conduct a data needs assessment for the hazard mapping exercise, including the identification of hazard information gaps and recommendations to fill these gaps;
3. To identify the critical facilities for which vulnerability assessments will be performed under the project;
4. To conduct a data needs assessment for vulnerability analysis of critical facilities, including the identification of information gaps and recommendations to fill these gaps;
5. To develop guidelines for the terms of reference for identified hazard assessments;
6. To develop a workplan to complete the tasks identified in ii to vi above.

The workshop agenda is presented as Table 1 of the Appendix. Twelve participants attended the first day of the workshop while 20 attended on the second day (See Table 2 of Appendix). Representatives from the National Office of Disaster Services (NODS), the Development Control Authority, the Ministries of Health, Tourism and Environment (Tourism Division), Labour and Home Affairs, the Antigua and Barbuda Public Utilities Authority, the Transport Board, the Government Information Service and the St. Vincent de Paul Society attended on both days. Representatives from the Ministries of Agriculture (Fisheries Division), Tourism and Environment (Environmental Division), the Insurance Sector, the Antigua and Barbuda Red Cross and the Caribbean Conference of Churches attended on the second day only.

The first day of the workshop was devoted to a review of hazard assessment methodologies, the identification and prioritisation of natural hazards and a data needs assessment for prioritised hazards. On Day 2, the methodologies for conducting simple and detailed vulnerability assessments were reviewed. This was followed by a data needs assessment for identified critical facilities at risk, and an exercise on vulnerability assessment. The latter part of the day was devoted to the development of guidelines for the terms of reference for the hazard assessment studies and a workplan for hazard and vulnerability assessments.

3.1 Hazard Prioritisation and Data Needs Assessment

In order to identify the natural hazards for which hazard assessments would be performed under the project, participants conducted a formal prioritisation exercise to identify the natural hazards of critical importance to Antigua and Barbuda. The prioritisation exercise employed a methodology which ranked the hazards on a relative ranking scale according to their probability, frequency, area of impact and magnitude. Using this methodology, six priority hazards were identified, viz.:

• Wind
• Storm Surge
• Drought
• Ground Shaking
• Flood
• Coastal and River Erosion.

Tables 1a to 1c summarise both typical and existing hazard data for three of the priority hazards (storm surge, earthquake and flood). Similar data on wind, drought and erosion hazards were not generated, as the relevant information was not available by the dates of the workshop (See Section 5.0). Summaries of the hazard assessment requirements for each of the six hazards were developed during the workshop and are presented in Table 2.

3.2 Priority Critical Facilities and Needs Assessment

The workshop participants agreed that the project should focus on the following types of critical facilities:

• Medical
• Schools
• Shelters
• Government Buildings
• Infrastructure
• Utilities
• Tourism and
• Agriculture.

As many of the sectors responsible for the identified critical facilities categories were not represented at the workshop, it was not possible to detail existing data on relevant critical facilities, nor identify data gaps. It was agreed that Mr. Phillip Harris of the Development Control Authority would be responsible for this task. Several supporting agencies and / or individuals agreed to be responsible for data collection and database development, once the data gaps were identified. These are indicated in Table 3.

3.3 Vulnerability Assessment Exercise

Participants were divided into four groups. Using the detailed methodology discussed, each group conducted a vulnerability assessment of one of the following critical facility categories:

1. Schools in Antigua
2. Shelters in Antigua
3. Hotels in South Antigua
4. Government Facilities in St. John’s.

4.4 Terms of Reference Guidelines and Workplan

Terms of reference guidelines for hazard assessment studies for the six priority hazards are presented in Table 4. A workplan was developed for both hazard and vulnerability assessment studies and is presented as Table 5.

4.0 Workshop Evaluation

A summary of the responses to the workshop questionnaire is presented in Table 3 of the Appendix. Participants rated the course as good or very good, and felt that the course had met its objectives and that it was very relevant to their jobs. All rated the course highly in terms of its success in improving their understanding of natural hazards and hazard mitigation planning. The performance of the consultant was rated as good or very good. All of the participants felt that handouts were helpful in understanding the workshop material. The large majority rated the physical facilities highly. Many participants lamented the fact that representatives from key sectors did not attend the workshop and expressed the need for the same participant from each sector to attend the series of project workshops, for purposes of continuity. Two participants wondered whether the poor attendance was related to late advertising.

The consultant notes the following:

1. Task 6 of the project workplan required a subcommittee of the local mitigation committee to collate and compile all available data on hazards and resources at risk. This information was to be made available to the consultant over the period August 14 and 15, for evaluation of data quality and suitability for hazard assessment, and for preparation of summary tables as key input to the workshop. This task was not conducted. Accordingly, over the period August 14 and 15, the consultant generated summary tables (Tables 1a to 1c) of hazard information utilising limited data available at the NODS office and based on the consultant’s knowledge. Accordingly, the tables are not complete. In addition, although a few participants brought relevant hazard data (maps etc.) to the workshop, there was no opportunity to rigorously evaluate data quality or suitability.
2. The workshop was poorly attended. Although there are likely to be several reasons for this, several participants indicated that they had been informed of the meeting only two days before.
3. The absence of representatives from key sectors at the workshop limited the depth and quality of the discussion.
4. More than 65% of the participants who attended this workshop did not attend the first workshop on natural hazards and mitigation planning. There was at times a clear sense that some of these participants were unable to grasp the workshop objectives in their full context, even though this was reinforced several times during the workshop. It was obvious that those participants who had attended the first workshop clearly understood the issues and implications involved, and thus made the most valuable contributions to the discussion.
5. The apparent lack of understanding of the workshop objectives and the purpose and process of the mitigation plan may also be related to attendance on the second day only and to late arrival to sessions.
6. On both days sessions started more than 30 minutes late.
7. The plan drafter did not attend the workshop.

The following are recommended:

• It is advisable to send out notices of the workshop at least three weeks in advance and also to follow up with reminders.
• A system should be put in place to permit the team players to be regularly updated on ongoing and planned workshop activities. This may be in the form of meetings, email listing etc.
• Notwithstanding the scarcity of technical resources, for purposes of continuity, as far as possible, the same individual should be identified by each sector to participate in all aspects of the project and to attend all workshops.
• The consultant remains concerned that the continued absence of the local plan drafter at project workshops may have an adverse effect on the quality of the final mitigation plan.

TABLES

Table 1a: Availability of Hazard Data – Earthquake Hazard
[SR – suitability rating]

Data Gaps

Table 1b: Availability of Hazard Data – Storm Surge Hazard

Table 1c: Availability of Hazard Data – Flood Hazard

* Responsible for data collection and database development

Table 4:  Terms of Reference Guidelines for Natural Hazard Map Suite

Table 5: Workplan for Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments

APPENDIX

Table 1: Workshop Agenda

Facilitator: Dr. Cassandra Rogers

9.00 – 9.45 Opening Ceremony

10.00 – 10.15 Introduction, Review of Definitions

10.15 – 12.15 Hazard Prioritsation Exercise

1.15 – 3.00 Needs Assessment for Hazard Data

Review of Typical Hazard Data

Review of Available Data

Data Gaps

3.15 – 4.15 Needs Assessment for Hazard Data (Cont’d)

8.30 – 9.30 Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies

9.30 – 10.15 Needs Assessment

Data Availability

Data Gaps

10.30 – 12.15 Vulnerability Assessment Exercise

1.15 – 2.30 Terms of Reference for Hazard / Vulnerability Assessments

2.45 – 3.45 Workplan

3.45 – 4.00 Closing Ceremony

Table 2: List of Participants

August 16 and 17, 2000

In an effort to improve the quality of subsequent courses, please answer the following questions.

Please use the following rating system to answer all questions, except question 6, 7 and 8.

1 = Very Poor; 2 = Poor; 3 = Fair; 4 = Good; 5 = Very Good; n/a = not applicable.

1. How would you rate the following:

• Physical Facilities: 4.3
• Availability of computers: n/a
• Utility of course assignments and exercises: 4.2
• Relevance of the course to your job: 4.2
• Duration of the course: 4.0
• Course instructor/presenter delivery and understanding of material: 4.8

2. Were the handouts helpful in improving your understanding of the course material? 4.3

3. Was the course helpful in improving your understanding of natural hazards and hazard mitigation planning: 4.0

In your current job?

4. Did the course meet its objectives? 4.2

5. How would you rate the course on an overall basis? 4.3

6. Do you intend to use this information directly in your current job? Explain.

• To bolster our GIS attribute database
• To use the information to identify vulnerable areas and allow us to be better prepared in delivering relief work
• For effective mapping of hazards of a specific nature and geographic location
• In inspecting building for insurance management / steps taken to manage hazards is considered desirable risks
• Yes, in planning internally
• To bring about an awareness among my colleagues to the importance of this subject area
• No, not directly
• Will be useful for forward planning and for predicting future trends
• The information gathered will act as a stronger variable in planning and approving physical developments within the country
• The planning aspect would be used in my job situation. The methodical manner in which we arrived at our objectives was very impressive.

  7. How could the course be improved?

• Having more invitees from the various groups and agencies attend
• Slow the rate of explanations
• Ensuring that responsible participants from the various sectors/agencies attend; also for consistency, making sure that the same participant attends
• By having better sectoral representation so the needs and interests of all ministries and sectors would be included
• The coordinating agency must take the responsibility to ensure that all relevant participants attend
• More time necessary to follow through with the various exercises
• More handouts, especially of they are illustrative
• Provide more examples? of similar projects undertaken and completed
• Don’t know; Course was good.

  8. Add any additional comments here.

• Did not attend on the first day but what I gleaned on the second day has given me a greater insight into the factors involved in hazard assessment
• Could poor attendance be related to the advertising of the event. I believe that a better turnout could have a positive impact on the meeting
• I recommend that permanent secretaries and ministers of government be briefed on the project and that they designate the appropriate technical person to the project. Persons would be designated for continuity. Also encourage permanent secretaries and ministers of government to request regular updates from the designated focal point. Activities of the project would then be a part of the Ministry’s or department’s work programme
• Every effort should be made to ensure the participation of all stakeholders
• Greater participation by all sectors would provide greater opportunity for information sharing as well as sharing of workload
• More advanced notice of such a critical workshop may be useful.