Organization of American States/USAID - Post Georges Disaster Mitigation (PGDM) Project
in Antigua/Barbuda and St. Kitts/Nevis 

Banking & Insurance Sectors
Draft Agenda for Second Roundtable at St. Kitts - April 4, 2001

A. Review of Vulnerability Reduction Action Plans Selected at 1^st Roundtable Meeting (Jan. 18 in Antigua)

Bankers and Insurers agreed to joint action plans to:

1. Establish Effective Cooperation – Bankers/Insurers/Construction Professionals & Trades-people.
• Harmonize Criteria.
• Revitalize respective trade associations with missions to progress vulnerability reduction.
2. Achieve Effective Dissemination, Application & Enforcement of Building Codes – including:
• Layperson friendly standards & classifications common to all users - including ‘Risk Assessment’ benchmarks useable for upgrading vulnerability reduction categories.
• Certification and licensing of engineers/inspectors & construction trades.
• Useable Hazard Mapping.
• Compliance by/with Development Control Authority (DCA).
3. Upgrade Public Awareness on Vulnerability Reduction cost/benefits, methods & procedures.

Additionally, the Bankers called for an action plan to:

4. Reduce Reliance on the Insurance Mechanism – insurance being currently perceived as too expensive and inflexible.

Note: The ordering of the action items has been inverted from the 1^st Roundtable meeting Report to allow more logical sequencing for the 2^nd Roundtable discussions.

B. Agree a Common Project Management Approach

The 1^st Roundtable reckoned several groups would contribute to the design and implementation of vulnerability reduction programs.

The following were initially identified:

Additionally, during the planning and programs’ design phases, coordination will need to cover:

• Construction Professionals
• Construction Trades People
• Government Agencies e.g. the Development Control Authority (DCA).

Later, as the vulnerability reduction programs are implemented, a wider coordination effort appears likely to be needed, e.g.

• Donor Agencies for solicitation of support resources
• Municipalities & Communities
• Media (TV, Radio, Newspapers etc.).

Therefore we could usefully discuss the need for, and the approaches to, establishing a common Project Management framework for adoption by participants. This would provide us with a modular capability by which each participant’s contribution would be neatly slotted into the overall effort. Having a common project approach will facilitate understanding and communication as well as permit common yardsticks for monitoring and reporting on progress. Attachment I is a discussion proposal for such a common Project Management approach.

Attachment I

Discussion Proposal for a Common Project Management Approach

Each participating entity would be requested to follow a common project management format containing :

1. Statement of Purpose. A concise description of the project (or sub-project) purpose – an example could read:

2. Key Objectives. These will be those goals directly supporting the Purpose. They should include measurable performance criteria for their attainment. Examples could include:

3. Key Relationships Here should be listed those entities & people closely related to the project. This serves as a working reminder for consultations and communications on progress. As an example, these could be formatted as follows:

4. Project (or sub-project) Report This contains summary project information and the progress status. It is a useful tool for all project participants especially project leaders, supporters and key relationships. It is also valuable for giving progress reports to donor agencies providing project resources. A suggested format is:

Project/sub-project Title ____________________                        Date__________

Project Leader(s) __________________________

* ‘Resource Requirements’ should include People, Skills, Money, Time, Equipment, Systems etc.

Project Progress Report