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 1 Availability of Hazard Data: Priority Hazards

Table 2 Summary of Hazard Assessment Requirements

Table 3 Terms of Reference Guidelines for Natural Hazard Map Suite

Table 4 Workplan for Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments

Table A1 Workshop Agenda

Table A2 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 for St. Kitts and Nevis, a natural hazard / vulnerability assessment prioritisation workshop was held at the Ocean Terrace Inn in St. Kitts from September 13 – 14, 2000. This report summarises the workshop activities and recommendations.

2.0 Workshop Objectives

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 v above.

3.0 Workshop Description

The workshop agenda is presented as Table A1 of the Appendix. Forty participants attended, including representatives from the National Emergency Management Agency (National Coordinator and District Managers), the Ministries of Finance (Economic Planning), Health, Community and Social Development, Labour, Agriculture, Lands and Housing (Fisheries Division) and the Physical Planning Division, Public Works Division, Water Services Department, Electricity Department, Airport Operations and the Protective Services (Fire and Rescue, Police and Defence Force). The Nevis delegation was led by Mrs. Clara Walters, Permanent Secretary, Premier’s Office, and included representatives from the Departments of Tourism, Housing and Land Development, Physical Planning and NEMA (Coordinator and District Managers). Mr. Mansfield Blackwood, USAID, Jamaica and Mr. Steven Stichter, PGDM Project Manager also attended.

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, following a review of simple and detailed methodologies of vulnerability assessments, participants identified the critical facilities for which vulnerability assessments would be conducted under the project and complete part of an actual vulnerability assessment. During the latter part of the day, guidelines for the terms of reference for hazard assessment studies were developed and a workplan for the hazard and vulnerability assessments was completed.

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 St. Kitts and Nevis. 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
• Coastal Erosion
• Flood
• Volcano
• Storm Surge
• Ground Shaking
• Inland Erosion (St. Kitts only) and
• Drought (Nevis only).

It was agreed that hazard assessments would only be conducted for inland erosion and drought based on availability of the relevant expertise.

Table 1 summarises both typical and existing hazard data for seven of the eight priority hazards (earthquake, volcano, wind, storm surge, flood, coastal erosion, inland erosion). Summaries of the hazard assessment requirements for each of the above hazards were developed during the workshop and are presented in Table 2.

The workshop participants agreed that the project should focus on eight of the following types of critical facilities and /or sectors:

• Health
• Utilities
• Transportation
• Agriculture
• Shelters
• Environment
• Protected Services
• Education centres – Schools
• Tourism
• Government Administrative Buildings.

Participants were in agreement that the first six listed above should be included. It was agreed that the local Mitigation Guidance Committee would meet to finalise the eight categories and also to identify the supporting agencies which would be responsible for data collection and database development.

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

1. Schools in St. Kitts
2. Hotels in the Frigate Bay Area
3. Government Facilities in Basseterre
4. Shelters in Nevis
5. Utilities in Nevis.

Terms of reference guidelines for hazard assessment studies for the eight priority hazards are presented in Table 3. A workplan was developed for both hazard and vulnerability assessment studies and is presented as Table 4.

4.0 Workshop Evaluation

A summary of the responses to the workshop questionnaire is presented in Table A2 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 hazard and vulnerability assessment. The performance of the consultant was rated as very good. The participants all felt that handouts were helpful in understanding the workshop material. The large majority rated the physical facilities highly. Many participants felt that the course could have been longer, given the volume of material covered. Based on the wide range of answers of intended use of the information gleaned during the workshop, it appears that clear that the majority of participants understood the concepts discussed.

Suggestion for course improvement include increasing the course length, smaller class and/or group sizes, and ensuring that all the relevant sectors are represented.

5.0 Consultant’s Comments and Recommendations

Comments

1. The workshop was very well attended. The presence of the NEMA coordinators from both St. Kitts and Nevis, the Permanent Secretary -Premier’s Office, Nevis, district disaster coordinators and representation from most sectors were pleasing; the local organisers should be commended for their efforts in this regard;
2. Most of the attendees did not attend the introductory workshop on natural hazards and mitigation planning. In spite of this, there was a high level of enthusiasm and a high quality of discussion during general sessions and group exercises, indicating participant understanding and interest in the subject material;
3. More participants attended than had been anticipated. As a result, the average size of groups (for class exercises) was greater than originally intended. The larger average group size increased the time spent on group exercises;
4. There were minor problems associated with local reproduction of the workshop manual (missing pages) and with the provision of appropriate facilities at the workshop venue (projection screen, small room size);
5. The plan drafter did not attend the workshop. It was pleasing to note, however, that this individual person should be in place before the next workshop in November.

Recommendations

1. Notwithstanding ii above, the consultant continues to recommend, that, within the constraints of availability of resources, as far as possible, the same participants should attend future workshops;
2. For future such workshops, where new material is generated during the workshop for use on subsequent days, secretarial support should be provided at the workshop venue.

Table 3: Terms of Reference Guidelines for Natural Hazard Map Suite

Table 4: Workplan for Hazard and Vulnerability Assessments

APPENDIX

Table A1: Workshop Agenda

Facilitator: Dr. Cassandra Rogers

9.00 – 9.45 Opening Ceremony

10.00 – 10.15 Introduction, Review of Definitions

10.15 – 11.15 Review of Hazard Assessment Methodologies

11.15 – 12.30 Hazard Prioritisation

1.30 – 2.00 Hazard Prioritisation (cont’d)

2.00 – 3.00 Data Needs Assessment for Prioritised Hazards

3.15 – 4.00 Data Needs Assessment for Prioritised Hazards

8.30 – 9.30 Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies

9.30 – 10.15 Identification and Prioritisation of Critical Facilities

11.15 – 12.15 Vulnerability Assessment Exercise

1.15 – 1.45 Vulnerability Assessment Exercise

1.45 - 2.30 Terms of Reference for Hazard Assessments

2.45 – 3.45 Workplan

3.45 – 4.00 Closing Ceremony

Table A2: Results of Workshop Questionnaire

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: 4.1
• Availability of computers: n/a
• Utility of course assignments and exercises: 4.1
• Relevance of the course to your job: 4.1
• Duration of the course: 3.5
• Course instructor/presenter delivery and understanding of material: 4.9

2. Were the handouts helpful in improving your understanding of the course material? 4.4

3. Was the course helpful in improving your understanding of natural hazard / vulnerability assessment: 4.6

In your current job?

4. Did the course meet its objectives? 4.5

5. How would you rate the course on an overall basis? 4.5

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

• The hazard maps can be used to make better situation assessments when implementing projects
• To properly advise the commencement of new projects
• To educate and inform my juniors on the importance of knowing about natural hazards and the critical areas that are vulnerable
• To develop vulnerability assessments for all fish landing sites on island
• A greater understanding of hazards would help to reduce vulnerability in the water sector
• The information was of great source of knowledge to me; to educate my fellow workers
• The information would be passed on to other staff to enable a better working understanding of the process of disaster mitigation
• The information would assist in teaching communities of the importance of vulnerability assessments

7. How could the course be improved?

• Smaller class size
• Smaller groups for class exercises
• Inviting the relevant/proper expertise to the course
• By conducting the course over a longer time period
• Need a little more time for amount of material covered
• Having the course more regularly
• Local organisers should take more time to ensure that the correct information/handouts is given to participants
• Spend more time on exercises
• Include field trips
• By having the same set of people attend the workshop so that the program can move forward at a more acceptable pace
• Bring in top management as well as so they could understand the issues/concerns and give the necessary support

8. Add any additional comments here.

• Very relevant and informative
• This is my first time to such a workshop and I found it both very important and very beneficial. It was pleasure to be on this workshop and I have learnt a lot about natural hazards and mitigation processes
• Thanks much, it was a world of experience to be on this course and I look forward to the next one
• Overall the course was good except for few minor problems
• The same participants should attend future workshops; this would make follow through a lot easier
• Lengthen the course to four days
• Course content was of very high standard
• Course was very enlightening; have gained quite an appreciation of the requirements for natural hazard and vulnerability assessment
• Overall workshop was great and timely
• Thanks for the privilege of improving my knowledge base and to better appreciate the (project’s) plan for the development of my country, and for sharing the value of what we now have
• Great to have been part of this interaction. I wish the project success.