I. NEW APPROACHES ARE REQUIRED FOR SYSTEMS CHALLENGES 3 Systems Challenges 3 Systems Innovation 4 Systems Innovation Process 5 II. DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INNOVATION IN TURKEY 8 Disaster Risk Management as a Systems Challenge 8 Systems Map Creation Process 10 Final Systems Map 11 Prototyping the approach 12 III. CONCLUSION AND PROSPECTS FOR THE WORLD BANK 15
CONTENTS APPENDIX: DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT MAP PRESENTATION 17 APPENDIX: EXPERIENCE IN PROTOTYPING DRM SYSTEMS INNOVATION IN TURKEY 26 Turkish Context 26 Turkish Disaster Risk Management Strategy 27 Using the Disaster Systems Map in Turkey 27 Preparation Workshop at University 28 Workshop with Government Ministries 31 Reflections on Workshop with Government Officials 35 Long-Term Prospects 39 APPENDIX: DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS MAP MADE WITH GOOGLE IN EARLY 40 APPENDIX: FINAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS MAP OVERLAID WITH GOOGLE SERVICES 41 APPENDIX: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 42 APPENDIX: PHOTOS FROM WORKSHOP WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 43
today are complex challenges that have multiple causes, involve multiple stakeholders, are embedded in a web of multifaceted cause-and-effect relationships, and contain structural traps in which isolated actions result in sub-optimal systemic arrangements. These challenges cannot be solved using sectoral approaches alone, since such approaches tend to be limited in vision, reducing solutions to policies or actions managed by single institutions or organizations and designed outside the context of the whole. Systems innovation addresses such complexity through a scientific and participatory process which includes systems sensing through the creation of a systems map; systems convening; prototyping; creating collaborative networks; capacity development; scaling; and self-sustaining funding. One clear example of a complex challenge is understanding the disaster risk management system (DRM). DRM is a discipline that involves various stakeholders and multiple institutions at various levels of government combining strategically aligned actions to reduce risk and respond to disasters. The DRM system thus serves as an excellent example of the application of systems innovation. To begin a conversation, Google was collaborated with to develop a general DRM system map. Through such an effort, Google contributed to the development of model and concepts and benefitted from the map to identify high leverage points for its broad crisis and risk reduction work. The map was further elaborated via a series of interviews with topic experts at the World Bank. In its final iteration prior to prototyping in Turkey, the map included several elements: a stock-and-flow diagram representing the subset of areas which are exposed, vulnerable, disaster- hit, responded to, and recovered; the overarching aim of sustainable development; the five pillars from the disaster risk management framework found in the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery’s Sendai Report: risk identification, risk reduction, preparedness and response, resilient recovery, and risk financing. As a whole, the map helped identify three major areas of action: avoiding the creation of new risks, reducing existing risks, and responding more efficiently to disasters.
and utilized in the Turkish context to aid in the development of their national disaster risk management strategy paper. By the end of a workshop with government officials, the utilization of the map demonstrated the promise of systems mapping in particular, and the systems innovation process in general, to convene various government ministries for development of a common vision. Prototyping the DRM System Innovation in Turkey demonstrated the value of the tool and identified several applications for it. For example, this approach facilitates the understanding of very complex systems, provides a neutral environment for discussion of sensitive issues, identifies actors, makes perceptions and assumptions explicit, analyses institutional responsibilities, identifies gaps and needs, and can be used at different government and sectoral levels in the participatory creation of a common vision.
CHALLENGES Many societal challenges have been addressed by public institutions using narrowly focused approaches to target isolated problems directly. Social welfare programs may be designed to provide direct services to those in need, taxes may be imposed to curb specific consumption of goods that inflict a negative externality on society, or laws enacted to curtail certain behaviors. Such challenges are often addressed by only one or a very small number of organizations and may be solved using a relatively technical and/or technological approach. Increasingly, however, the challenges society faces are recognized to be, or are actually becoming, more systemic in nature, requiring holistic thinking and the collaboration of multiple parties to arrive at successful solutions. Systems Challenges A system is an interconnected series of elements comprising a whole that exhibits characteristics beyond what can be found by simple aggregation of individual components. The concept of a system can be used to describe the movement and absorption of nutrients in the human body, the interaction of institutions and various other social structures, or even the interaction between social and environmental dynamics. A systemic challenge, therefore, is a challenge which is not confined to a specific, independent part and cannot be solved by narrow, siloed approaches. Systemic challenges typically exhibit the following characteristics: • Multiple Causes: The problem doesn’t arise from any one particular cause, but emerges from the confluence of multiple interconnected factors. • Multiple Stakeholders: Various factors--technical, social, business, financial, political, and environmental--are controlled or influenced by multiple stakeholders • Multifaceted Cause and Effect: The complexity of the problem makes it difficult to untangle cause and effect, and to identify effective solutions. This is particularly the case because systems are constantly evolving and adapting to changing circumstances. • Structural Traps: There are often structural traps which are the result of individual stakeholders taking an ego-centric or myopic approach. Such traps are a kind of sub- optimal equilibrium (e.g. a race-to-the-bottom or tragedy-of-the-commons) and leave individuals with few incentives to change.
approach to change which takes into account the systemic nature of complex challenges. The complexity of a challenge being addressed requires that a scientific, evidence-based approach be adopted. In addition, since systemic challenges are the result of the interconnections among various protagonists, shared understanding among various actors is critical not only to best understand the challenge, but to address it effectively. Thus the approach must be participatory and engage all relevant stakeholders. The relevance of a challenge to multiple system actors and the interconnectedness of the system imply that a collective action approach is needed whereby structural traps can be overcome and the system can be transformed. Additionally, systems are characterized by stasis--an tendency to return to their own equilibrium-- which is an emergent quality arising from the combination of component parts. At the same time, systems often contain high-leverage points which, when tapped, can cause the system to shift to a new equilibrium. Identifying these high-leverage points, then, forms a part of the concordant systems innovation methodology.
process presented in this section details a methodology to transform the approach described above into actionable steps that can be implemented in a variety of contexts. The following graph explains the systems innovation process which includes the following components: systems sensing, systems convening, prototyping, collaborative network, capacity development, scaling, and systems funding. Systems sensing requires that a systemic change opportunity is identified, and stakeholders are interviewed to map the system (the leftmost portion of the map below). These initial steps already promote systems awareness and foster the desire to collaborate across boundaries. The initial map represents a shared understanding of current reality. It highlights the various parts of the system and how they relate to one another and to a larger system and is considered a living document which is owned and refined by the stakeholders. Beyond serving as a mechanism to document shared understanding, the map is also a tool to engage stakeholders, enabling them to peer more deeply into the functioning of the system and identify high-leverage points. Figure 1. Systems innovation process
created, the systems convening must be further strengthened. Here, additional stakeholders meet to form a shared understanding of the current reality, refine a vision to work toward, and identify high leverage points to help them achieve their vision. The process of achieving the strategic clarity associated with systems innovation may be likened to the following figure. At first, efforts to tackle a complex problem over time may reach a group’s or an individual’s initial mental capacity to handle complexity. At this point, individuals or groups may regress to a simplified, silo perspective of the system. Instead, through a systems approach, the group pushes itself to experience greater complexity until it must synthesize the key insights into a simpler yet more holistic understanding of leverage points for engaging the system as a whole. The group’s understanding is acted upon by engaging in systems innovation, whereby relevant prototype projects are selected to engage high leverage points and foster systemic change as well as the necessary learning process. To ensure their successful scaling, projects require the development of an effective collaborative network of champions to effect pervasive change within the system. Figure 2. Capacity to hold complexity and the systems approach
outside assistance to convene and facilitate meetings, it is critical that, in time, the capacity of the participants can be raised such that they can continue to facilitate the process. This capacity building is accomplished through peer coaching, action research, action learning through engagement of key champions, reflection on systems innovation outcomes and ongoing refinement of prototype projects. In time, as prototype projects mature, new ways of thinking and doing are reinforced within a subset of the system and a tipping point is reached. At this point, the most promising projects must be scaled in order to influence larger portions of the system. Finally, it is worth noting how engaging in such a long-term, systemic change approach requires funding to shift from a focus on events, or at best projects, to an ongoing process. For example, traditional funding may focus on the link from prototype projects to a specific systems innovation outcome by targeting high potential projects. Systems-based funding, however, focuses on the entire process by strengthening the quiet convening process, prototype projects, and, critically, the capacity development program.
early 2014, the systems innovation concept was employed by the World Bank to understand the DRM system in general and then to prototype the utilization of a systems map based on that understanding in the Turkish national context. The experience provides an example of the early phases of the systems innovation process and demonstrates its value and possible applications. Disaster Risk Management as a Systems Challenge Disaster risk is typically understood as the interaction of hazard probability, exposure and vulnerability. Hazards are events arising from natural and/or human processes which significantly affect environmental or social systems. Examples include seismic (e.g. earthquake), flood, drought or forest fire hazards. Exposure often entails the number of nearby buildings and people exposed to the hazard. Finally, vulnerability describes the degree to which such buildings and people are susceptible to being impacted by the disaster. For example, in the case of earthquakes, buildings may be constructed, and thus exposed, in a seismically hazardous zone, yet be retrofitted such that they have lower vulnerability, thereby lowering disaster risk. Managing disaster risk is a systems challenge, as evidenced by the fact that disaster risk is, by definition, an intersection of various elements. Each of the systems challenge criteria elaborated above are examined within the context of disaster risk management below:
disaster risk are not only many, but they are interactive. Those processes that affect exposure, for example, may also affect vulnerability, and vice versa. And in some cases, the causes of hazards themselves--particularly in the case of climate change--are interlinked with causes underlying exposure and vulnerability. MULTIPLE CAUSES: First, disaster risk increases due to a variety of interacting natural and/or man made processes. While in the case of seismic activity man-made processes have generally minimal impact, other hazards such as drought or flood have been found to be increasingly caused by anthropogenic climate change, itself the result of multiple interacting systems and processes. Exposure itself is the result of multiple social, economic, and institutional factors which stimulate population migration and settlement patterns. Vulnerability is similarly the result of cultural norms, legal statutes, as well as financial considerations, all of which contribute, for example, to the raising of buildings with varying capacity to sustain disasters. MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS: Disaster risk touches upon stakeholders at every level and sector of society. Given a disaster experienced within a country, for example, one cannot deny the crucial role played by ministers defining national policies, city mayors or councils defining zoning rules, or the local community members who make building decisions. Disasters do not respect sectoral boundaries. Schools, hospitals, businesses and homes may all be susceptible to damage. All relevant public and private actors are affected. STRUCTURAL TRAP: The fact that thought and action on disasters was focused almost entirely on response and recovery--and still is, to some extent--is an indication of a structural trap. By focusing only on the point at which disaster hits, local, national, and even international actors attend to immediate needs, in a superficially satisfying way, without addressing the underlying causes of disaster risk vis a vis a systemic examination of the three underlying factors of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
to create a visual depiction of the disaster risk causal network began with dialogue. A systems mapping expert and early champions began by discussing how to foster a resilient society using a systems approach. Initial versions of a map were devised in collaboration with experts at Google as a way to explore and discuss various concepts in disaster risk reduction and contextualize Google Crisis Response and Risk Reduction work (see http://google.org/ crisisresponse/). The map was then redesigned for a more general setting. Building upon the efforts of the past, especially the internationally-recognized five pillars from the Sendai Report published by the World Bank’s the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), a series of one- on-one interviews took place with a World Bank DRM expert to elaborate and refine another systems map. The Five Pillars of the Sendai Report (described as risk assessment, risk reduction, preparedness and response, financial protection and resilient reconstruction) were integrated into the version of the systems map created with Google (see Appendix). In time, the map incorporated a stock-and-flow description of exposed, disaster-hit, and recovered areas. The terminology and organization of the map was also refined to reflect what is used by experts in the international community. Then, through a further one-on-one interviews with World Bank disaster risk experts, the map was validated and further refined. The financial section of the map was further elaborated to include, for example, the explicit as well as implicit liability factors. These interviews also revealed three major areas of interest: the avoidance of new risk, the reduction of existing risk, as well as, finally, response and recovery. All together, the interviews not only validated and refined the map, but also lent insight into how the map could be applied in practice. For example, one interviewee raised the idea of applying a sector-specific lens (e.g. education) to the map.
disasters, sustainable development, and the Five Sendai Pillars (using red text) Final Systems Map At a high level, the final systems map reflects the relationship among three core elements: the damage from external shocks, the degree to which society is resilient, and sustainable development. The figure below depicts a simple causal map which includes these elements. First, the more resilient society is, the less damage external shocks cause. Second, this damage, in turn, has a negative effect on sustainable development. Third, sustainable development has, however, a positive effect on fostering a resilient society. The first link can be strengthened through resilient recovery from disasters as well as preparedness and response, thus reducing the damage of external shocks. The second link can be mitigated through appropriate risk financing. Additional factors are included in the figure such as the way in which structural and non-structural interventions strengthen the causal link between a stronger resilient society and a diminished susceptible population and infrastructure, which, when combined with external shocks, implies a level of damage of external shocks. The simple causal map drawn above motivates the basic relationship between sustainable development and disaster management as well as the general placement of the DRM Five Pillars.
risk management systems map Prototyping the approach Utilizing a systems approach to address DRM in Turkey built upon the institutional strengths of Turkey that developed after a series of disastrous earthquakes, floods, landslides, and avalanches. In 2014, the Prime Ministry of Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) set out to prepare a “Turkey Disaster Management Strategy Paper” to serve as a guiding document for Turkey’s DRM system. The DRM systems map described above was used for Turkish government officials as a way to lend impetus to the development of the paper. In Turkey, a workshop was held first with an academic audience at the Middle East Technical University to validate the systems map discussed above and explore its utilization the following day with government officials. However, a further elucidation of the relationships is necessary in order to better understand the ways in which the five pillars interact with the DRM system. The following map represents the final version after validation by various experts. A full description on step by step creation of the map is described in Annex 1 (A similar version of the map with Google services laid on top is included as an appendix.)
with government officials to establish shared understanding on the DRM system and engage in a series of exercises intended to develop a shared vision, describe the relevant actors and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the system. The day proceeded with increasingly active engagement by thirteen participants who represented six government ministries (including AFAD). As a result of the day, a shared language was developed as the systems map was developed, conversations between ministries were sparked as questions on responsibilities were asked, and camaraderie developed as participants jointly determined their vision for the system. Figure 5. Map of Turkish institutions identified in the DRM Systems Innovation Map.
in utilizing and elaborating a systems map for the disaster risk management space represented the early stages of the systems innovation process (see highlighted portions of the figure below), and much more can be done. For example, utilizing the same systems map through the lens of a particular sector of society, such as education, could provide a more concrete avenue through which to clarify responsibilities, ensure information flows, and prioritize financing. Further capacity building among consultants elaborating the Turkey Disaster Management Strategy Paper and champions from various ministries can enable a growing number of individuals to be part of the conversation. This is crucial if the systems innovation process is to continue steadily, enabling the various actors to collectively advance the functioning of the system. Finally, Google mapped its products and services this time utilizing the latest version of the map shared in Turkey. The exercise has proven useful for employees within the company as they consider its utilization for efforts moving forward. Figure 6. Phases of systems innovation process engaged with disaster risk management mapping with the Turkish government
system map and the engagement with the Turkish government in elaborating that map represent the early stages of the systems innovation process. An opportunity was identified, an initial map was drafted, systems awareness began to be cultivated among a portion of the various Turkish ministries, and initial steps were taken to convene relevant parties to formulate a shared vision. To further apply a systems innovation in the Turkish context requires the strengthening of the self-convening process with all its implications in terms of developing a shared strategy, elaborating prototype projects, tracking systems innovation outcomes, and strengthening the systems leadership network. Furthermore, a process of scaling successful projects as well as building human and financial capacity will be necessary. The initial forays made by the Turkish government to engage in a systems innovation process by convening multiple government ministries with the help of a well-developed systems map demonstrates the viability of the process. The one-day workshop helped identify potential champions of the approach. This was done by creating a space whereby individuals’ natural interest and capacity with respect to systems innovation could be identified. This first step also demonstrated the feasibility of creating a space in which various municipalities can gather on equal-footing to collaboratively explore the strengths and challenges of the DRM system as well as identify their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to it. A distinguishing feature was the degree to which municipalities engaged in an amicable, constructive dialogue about the health of the system overall--offering a stark contrast to a competitive, self-interested environment which characterizes so many other spaces. The World Bank’s global practice areas provide rich avenues for the application and refinement of the systems innovation process in general. Energy and extractives, for example, as a global practice area, could be analyzed specifically to create a generic systems map which could be utilized to strengthen collaborative interactions at global, national, or regional levels to achieve higher levels of efficiency and reduce the likelihood of tragedy of the commons scenarios.
map in particular, people can be brought together in a safe environment where a collective investigation of reality can take place. The experience in Turkey confirmed this. Through its effective usage, and in the broader context of the systems innovation process, the systems map can be utilized as a tool for a group of people from various governmental and non governmental organizations to come together to: identify their positions within the broader system, examine their underlying beliefs about how the system operates, clarify each others’ roles and responsibilities, develop a shared vision for change, identify gaps that currently exist to realize that vision, and begin to formulate concrete next steps that can be taken. As in the Turkish context, systems mapping engagements can be carried out to raise systems level awareness and promote systems innovation processes in a multiplicity of contexts, e.g. across national ministries to discuss multi-sectoral coordination, between governmental and non-governmental entities to enhance sectoral functioning, or between national and local level governments to enhance decision-making and implementation processes. Once awareness has initially been raised, other aspects of the systems innovation process should take place, including the development of prototype projects and shared measurement systems, so that actions can be taken within the context of an ongoing change process.That the solution to the world’s That the solutions to the world’s pressing problems require a more systemic, collaborative approach is becoming rapidly undeniable by global institutions and corporations. The challenge lies, however, in refining the methods and approaches to carry such a lofty vision into action. The initial steps taken with the Turkish government represent one among a growing body of efforts across the world to do so, and the systems innovation process described in this paper describes a path forward.
The following pages include a presentation of the version of the systems map shown in Turkey. This was used to introduce a process of engaging relevant stakeholders around DRM using a systems approach. The sequencing of ideas in the following pages represents the way the map was presented to the Turkish government officials and thus facilitated a progressive understanding of all the map components. Simultenously, the map presentation tells a story which informs the motivation for the engagement. It is worth noting that the following map presentation is identical to the way in which the map was presented in Turkey. Upon reflection, however, it was discussed how a more sustainable- development-centered approach would have started with this component first, and in the center, and then showed how the various components branch out.
On the far left a box indicates the stock of all geographical areas. Within these are those areas which may be exposed by disasters. These two stocks are connected by an exposure rate which is determined by a variety of hazards. Further to the right we see how the vulnerability rate determines the number of vulnerable elements within the exposed area. Vulnerable elements include infrastructure, people and the environment. While the exposed area and vulnerable elements are stocks which governments intend to reduce, sustainable development, at the bottom of the map, is one we seek to increase. The connection between disaster and sustainable development will be elucidated over the course of the presentation.
Here we see a continuation of the central stock-and-flow diagram, which forms a kind of backbone of the map. Among the vulnerable elements are those which will be affected by a disaster event via some rate. This and the other previous two rates of exposure and vulnerability are determined by the disaster frequency and intensity. Once a disaster has hit, the area which is responded to depends upon a response rate. This area is then attended to via a recovery rate to determine the area which is recovered.
At this point in the map we see initial impacts between disasters and sustainable development. When a disaster occurs in an area which is exposed and is vulnerable, a population is affected. This is especially trying for the most vulnerable populations which increases poverty, itself also leading to increased vulnerability, thus representing a negative feedback loop which disasters can exacerbate. Through such a cycle, social development is hampered. Disaster also decrease environmental and economic development through, for example, the destruction of the natual and human-built environment. All three of these forms of development are needed to strengthen sustainable development.
The first of the pillars elaborated by GFDRR is risk identification. This requires information about the hazards of various types, the exposed area, as well as the vulnerable elements. In addition, if a sustainable development agenda is strengthened, then DRM is strengthened, improving risk identification. As risks are better identified, the probability of losses are estimated which informs the second Sendai pillar of risk reduction. This is done via structural and non-structural mitigations which decrease exposure and/or vulnerability rates. Structural mitigations include, for example, retrofitting buildings or changing building practices since these reduce the vulnerability rate. Non-structural mitigations include purposeful arrangement of physical objects within a building to reduce vulnerability. The map also notes how social protection may mitigate the poverty cycle. On the bottom of the map we see other connections of DRM to sustainable development. A portion of vulnerable elements are considered resilient. If these increase, then environmental, social, and economic development increase, which, in turn, strengthen sustainable development. Economic and environmental development often have opposite effects on environmental destruction which has an increasing effect on the vulnerability rate.
As the pillar of risk identification is strengthened, preparedness and response becomes more effective, which improves the response rate. Similarly, recovery proceeds more intelligently, thereby lifting the recovery rate. A post-disaster needs assessment is designed to improve recovery. An additional element on this map is the connection between the recovered area and the degree to which it becomes resilient. Of course, the recovered area becomes part of the complete area so that the stock and flow becomes a cycle.
To the degree that the disaster rate is increased, the physical liability increases, which in turn affects the fiscal liability for people and institutions. Fiscal liability is also increased through greater measures to enhance preparedness and response as well as recovery efforts. Both kinds of liabilities essentially form part of what are often called contingency liabilities. One aspect of these contingency liabilities is the explicit liability which the government assumes. For example, a disaster area may be hit and the government assists affected citizens which costs a great deal of financial resources. This explicit liability has a negative effect on the government’s budget for capital expenditure, a budget which would have otherwise contributed to sustainable development efforts. Such a budget is also utilized for preparedness and response as well as recovery efforts.
Contingency liabilities can also be implicit. Such liabilities affect the system through the disincentive to reduce existing risk which negatively affects private decision making. For example, suppose a government has a track record of fully paying the costs of recovery after every disaster. To the extent that citizens rely on such funding, they may assume progressively less responsibility to reduce their own risk. This is a critical element because effective private decision making can reduce the exposure and vulnerability rates by, for example, avoiding building practices which encourage flooding in a large area or by moving into homes which are less exposed, respectively. Private decision making is informed by education and communication efforts by governmental and non governmental agencies as well as by private insurance which is fueld by strengthening the fifth GFDRR pillar of risk financing. Risk identification critically supports risk financing which in turn also decreases contingency liabilities.
In observing the system as a whole, three areas can be discerned. First, there are all of those activities which fall under the area of eliminating the creation of new risks. Second, there are those activities which seek to reduce existing risks. Finally, there are those which are intended to respond to disaster.
INNOVATION IN TURKEY Turkish Context Turkey is among the countries which are most exposed to disaster risk in the world due to its tectonic, seismic, topographic and climatic characteristics. Seismic risk is the most critical risk of Turkey. The country experiences one earthquake per year on the average with a magnitude of 5-6 in the Richter scale. In terms of exposure, 95% of its territory, 70% of its population and 76% of its industrial facilities are located on first and second degree seismic zone (source). The UN estimates that over 2 million people and 6% of the GDP are exposed to earthquake risk in Turkey in any given year. Today, the country ranks ninth globally in terms of human losses due to earthquakes. But other hazards such as floods, avalanches, landslides and fires also contribute to Turkey’s overall risk profile. Earthquakes and other events not only cause great human casualties but also bear significant impact on the country´s economic growth. Since 1930, more than 75,000 people lost their lives due to earthquakes. Most recently, the 1999 Marmara Earthquake resulted in over 18,000 deaths and an estimated direct loss over 20 billion USD (around 8% of that year´s GDP). And the 2011 Van Earthquake, occurring in a more sparsely populated and less industrialized area, did result in over 600 deaths and cost 2.5 billion USD to the public sector alone. Although less documented, floods, landslides, and avalanches have also caused thousands of deaths in Turkey in the last century. Looking towards the future, factors such as rapid and unplanned urbanization trends which increase population and asset concentration, ill-conceived investment programs and growing industrialization within densely populated areas, unprecedented demographic shifts and, expected changes in climate may contribute to further increase disaster impact. Turkey has scaled up its institutional set-up to enable not only better equipped emergency response to a variety of natural and human-induced disasters, but also strengthened disaster preparedness through the establishment of the Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) in 2009. AFAD’s establishment Law No. 5902 had the expressed aim of resolving coordination challenges between agencies within the disaster mitigation and emergency response system. AFAD´s establishment is a critical turning point in Turkey’s history, highlighting the intention to shift from crisis management to risk management. With the issuance of AFAD’s Five Year (2013-2017) Strategic Plan published in 2012, Turkey has signaled its intent to pursue a more integrated, institutionally coordinated and far-reaching vision for tackling the complex challenges of disaster management and risk reduction. It is very significant to observe that the Strategy outlines an integrated four element program addressing mitigation, preparedness, response, and reconstruction to multi-hazard risks.
support from the World Bank, the Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) aims to initiate a National Disaster Risk Management Program (NDRMP) to promote a long term and systematic approach based on the DRM five pillars described in the Sendai Report. The NDRMP will serve as an enabling platform for preparing, coordinating and implementing DRM policies and practices among various stakeholders. Ultimately, the NDRMP will help AFAD reach out and better work with various sectoral ministries, national institutions and local administrations for systematic DRM. In particular, the platform will help AFAD share its strategic vision for DRM and mainstream DRM into their sectoral policies and investment programs. In order to support the Government with the design of the Program, the proposed activity will support AFAD to prepare a “Turkey Disaster Management Strategy Paper” (TDMSP). The TDMSP will be the guiding policy document of Turkey´s DRM System. It will guide AFAD´s existing Disaster Response Plan and its soon-to-be developed Disaster Recovery Plan and Risk Reduction Plan. This document will also provide a strategic framework for all actors in need of developing a disaster and risk management (DRM) related policy, plan and/or activity. Finally, the TDMSP will serve as reference for DRM plans elaborated at regional, provincial and/or local level. Development of the TDMSP is intended to be done utilizing a participatory and systemic approach. For these reasons, utilization of the systems innovation process described above-- including development of a disaster systems map for Turkey--shows particular promise. For this reason, the World Bank collaborated with a systems innovation expert to explore utilization of the process with Turkish government officials. Using the Disaster Systems Map in Turkey The nascent stages of utiziling a systems innovation approach in the Turkish governmental context took place between March 31 and April 4 in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Prior to arrival, the systems modeler/facilitator became acquainted with the Turkish context by reading documents summarizing the country’s experience with DRM as well as other documents detailing recent interactions the World Bank has had with country ministries to explore further assistance in the same vein. Upon arrival to Turkey, the system modeler interviewed a resident World Bank staff as well as a disaster risk expert in the Middle East Technical University (METU) to validate the model and discuss its utilization by government officials. The latter discussion was of particular value as plans were made for the two workshops held, first in the METU and the second at the World Bank office in Ankara, Turkey.
of the first workshop, held at the METU on 2 April 2014, was to validate the systems map with local experts and to explore its utilization, along with the broader systems innovation approach, with government ministries the following day. Several professors and students attended the workshop. In particular there were three participants from the World Bank, two outside consultants (including the systems innovation facilitator), three students working in the disaster management center at the Middle Eastern University, a few professors from the same University, and one individual from the Emergency Support Foundation. Agenda The following describes the agenda1 as it transpired with the university faculty and staff (the purpose for each item is included on the right side): I. Introductions & Expectations Begin to create a safe and enjoyable space; Forming collective intention for the day; Gain familiarity and credibility in systems mapping and systems innovation approaches/tools II. Map Walk-Through Introduce and validate a version of the disaster risk management systems map; Building their awareness of DRM via: the five pillars, the relationship to sustainable development, the importance of avoiding new risk III. Vision Identify those key elements of a resilient society in Turkey IV. Relevant Actors See oneself on the map in order to make the map relevant; Seeing how they relate to each other to identify how they currently work with each other; Recognize the importance of engaging missing stakeholders in the future V. Strengths & Weaknesses Identify strengths and weaknesses to inform a strategy paper VI. Check-Out Identify the key insights on the content, process, and value of the approach. 1 The original agenda included an exercise towards the end of the day to identify leverage points in the system in order to achieve the vision described by the group. However, this element was not included due to time constraints.
by university faculty and staff Meeting Output By the end of the day, the map had been slightly modified to include “good governance” which many academics felt was of pressing concern. Beyond this addition to the map, the exercises undertaken by the group yielded the following information associated with the map: relevant actors, vision for the system, as well as strengths and weaknesses of the various linkages and components. Discussion Overall, the day proceeded with active engagement by all participants. As the map was reviewed, the facilitator elicited people’s participation by asking questions to motivate the elucidation of new portions of the map as well to ask for examples for map elements. Participants readily shared examples and asked questions of each other in order to understand the system better. Such discussion raised topics to include on the map such as good governance which arose after participants discussed the overlaps of various areas such as risk financing and recovery.
as listed by university faculty and staff Meaningful discussion proceeded based on brief vision statements created in groups of four or five. As an example, the question of volunteering stimulated a conversation about the limitation of conventional western-centric metrics to capture an accurate notion of the volunteering force available in Turkey since few individuals register with organizations (the conventional metric) but many are willing to volunteer in a time of crisis. Conversation was often kept practical through the elucidation of the implications of the connections on the system map. Such conversation naturally developed and was very light and encouraged participation. Such a participatory environment was evinced when one of the professors suggested keeping those sticky notes pertaining to vision up on the map while those depicting relevant actors were also being put up--in this way facilitating correlation of the two.
the workshop, participants in the room were asked to share their impressions and thoughts about how things may be modified for the following day with participants from government ministries. In general, the map was well received. One participant said “[the map] contains all the topics that were mentioned and [while] it seems complicated but [it is also] very clear to me.” Many could see how the map could be used as a convening tool and another noted that it helped see the whole picture. In terms of specific suggestions, a few participants felt that it would better to spend more time utilizing the DRM map and spending less time introducing the concept of systems mapping in using the fisheries example in the beginning. Several also resonated with the idea of reviewing the map through the particular lens of a sector such as education to help make the implications more concrete for government officials. Finally, it was mentioned how the Turkish context could provide a showcase for such a systems approach since it faces many kinds of disasters. Workshop with Government Ministries The purpose of the second workshop, held at the World Bank office on 3 April 2014, was to validate the systems map with government ministeries and to explore the utilization of a systems innovation approach to stimulate collaborative governance around the multi-sectoral issues of DRM. A total of 15 individuals participated in the workshop including 3 from the World Bank, 2 outside consultants, and the rest from six different government ministries including AFAD. Agenda The day proceeded similarly to the prior day with university staff and faculty except that the “relevant actors” and “vision” exercises were swapped in their ordering. Meeting Outputs By the end of the day, there were no substantive changes to the systems map. However, much like the day before, discussions through the exercises yielded the following information superimposed over the system map: relevant stakeholders, vision for the system, as well as strengths and weaknesses of the various linkages and components. The following maps represent the results of the exercises to overlay participants’ perspective on the system actors, vision, strengths, and weaknesses across the map.
a willingness to participate. For example, during introductions, when individuals stated their expectations for the day, several indicated that they were looking forward to learning about systems mapping. One indicated the expectation “to learn about the systems approach” and another said “at the end of the day [I] believe we will learn a lot.” Participants were also interested in applying the approach. One individual said “Institutionally, this [approach and method] will help us apply such a strategy and help us identify our shortcomings and identify how to overcome them.” As the basic elements of the map were presented to the group, questions arose and language was clarified. Individuals asked, for example, if the tool could be utilized with the private sector, which the facilitator confirmed. The definition of risk arose, for example, which engaged the participants in a conversation so that all were on the same page. Following lunch, participants formed small groups consisting of 3-4 members from various ministries to discuss relevant actors for the system map. As people arose to post sticky notes, the room was livelier with more laughter and smiling faces. One participant even noted “thanks for the lunch, we are well fed and are all smiling.” Once all sticky notes with relevant actors were posted, the facilitator asked the group what patterns they saw which stimulated a fruitful dialogue. Participants noted the multiplicity of actors and the diversity of roles assigned to them. Participants described these roles using words such as having a “supervisory role,” “monitoring role,” “coordinating with UN protocols,”determining “investments,” ensuring another ministry “has local connections”, ensuring another ministry’s efforts “are well coordinated” or others such as “gives the money,” has “responsibility to devise policies,” perfoms the “control or audit”, “observe[s] and learn[s]”, sets “priorities for the plans of [the] country,” “determine[s] priorities,” “coordinates rehabilitation efforts,” has a “supplementary” role. After the facilitator asked whether coordination is most needed in risk identification, many participants agreed. This stimulated a discussion on this role which led to a conversation about the role of the Ministry of Development in relation to AFAD. The conversation raised concerns about the subprovincial levels of operation and the challenge of determining who is responsible when plans are being implemented.
done in small groups, the identification of strengths and weaknesses was done in a large group. The facilitator asked the group for their thoughts, after which a discussion ensued to clarify the strength or weakness before the facilitator wrote it on a sticky note and put it on the map. After posting many strengths and weaknesses the group naturally brought up patterns for the group to consider. Throughout the course of the day, use of the word “we” was increasingly used. For example, one participant said “why do we keep developing guidelines or risk maps? are they vain efforts, b/c if we are already strong here, let’s not keep repeating ourselves.” Another said “we can identify shortcomings... we have sixteen blue papers, so we know our weaknesses, where we are bad at. And we are good at estimating the risks , but not so good at solving them.” Concluding comments At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to share their reflections on the day. Several emphasized the benefit of seeing the “systems perspective.” For example, one said “With this mapping system [we see] how we can melt everything in a single pot. I can use this mapping system with all the questions I have raised. This is a useful food for thought....” Another said “I would like to thank you for the… comprehensive study, [it is] as if [we were] looking at the whole woods, instad of [a] single tree.” Several others noted the degree to which the environment was characterized by features of collective understanding and volition. After discussing the challenges facing all ministries with respect to disasters, one individuals noted that “I see a common will to get this done. And I believe this common will brings very good outcomes. I hope to see you soon.” Another said that “We need to focus on risk reduction. I think we all understand that. This is the main gain of this meeting.” Another individual emphasized the honesty with which everyone participated: “This has been a very useful work carried out all together with disasters and all the views aims to put the system in front of us…and we are honestly sharing our thoughts.” For some, specific concepts were clarified. One participant said that “Interagency coordination should be looked at. [In addition,] the sharing of duties among agencies should be well- organized.”
faculty The central purposes for the first workshop with university professors included a) refining the workshop design for the following day and b) validating the map in the Turkish context. Both of these purposes were effectively accomplished. The first was reinforced through the creation of a space in which professors could share local examples and were specifically asked for their thoughts on how to prepare for the following day with government officials. The second was reinforced by thoroughly preparing a universal and well-developed systems map with the assistance of World Bank topic experts. In addition, basing the map on a strong, internationally- accepted theoretical framework (i.e. the Five Pillars in the Sendai Report) made it more universally acceptable. In reflecting on the day’s experience, validation of the map may have proceeded a bit more quickly by spending less time on examples of systems maps in other contexts (e.g. fisheries) as well as by asking participants what they would like to spend more time on. Reflections on Workshop with Government Officials The second workshop with government officials built upon the first day and provided a basis for further refinements in the systems innovation methodology. Introductions The first portion of the day included an introduction to the systems innovation process and systems maps. In general, the organizers felt that this portion’s three purposes were well achieved: a) a safe and enjoyable environment was created; b) collective intention for the day was strengthened; and c) familiarity and credibility in systems mapping and systems innovation was developed. The first aim was reinforced through introductions by every group member, light jokes made by the facilitator, enthusiastic participation on the part of the facilitator, as well as informal chats with people in the room prior to the meeting officially starting. In addition, the facilitator ensured the group realized it was their space by, for example, asking the group when it wishes to take breaks. The third aim was strengthened through a range of examples demonstrating how systems mapping can be used in a variety of contexts. Building upon the reflections from the first day, it was evident that, instead of going through a detailed systems map in a different context, it was more helpful to have photos showing a variety of other groups which similarly utilized systems mapping tools.
accomplished had the room been arranged in a horseshoe setting. Unfortunately, the tables and chairs were arranged in a line resulting in somewhat of a divide between the facilitator and the participants. Reviewing the Systems Map The second portion of the day concentrated on introducing the basics of the systems map as developed by the systems modeler in consultation with World Bank staff. This portion was critical in order to introduce and validate the map. In general, this aim appeared to have been accomplished and was particularly strengthened by starting with a simple version of the systems map as well as by using a “parking lot” to capture participants’ ideas which were not quite on topic. The latter helped ensure continuity of the conversation, while ensuring that important points were not missed. Two ideas later emerged to make this portion more effective. First, it may have been good to check in on basic terms early in the process such as “hazard” or “risk.” This would have avoided confusion which arose later based upon assumed conventions. In terms of the map itself, the organizers felt that it may be useful to start the map with the concept of sustainable development instead of the stock and flow diagram of hazardous areas. In this way, the conversation is more purposefully centered on sustainable development. Identifying and placing relevant Actors The third portion of the day dealt with identifying and placing relevant actors on the systems map. This exercise was designed to help participants see themselves in the system in order to make the approach relevant. This was clearly achieved and was enabled through the use of sticky notes on the systems map which helped people visualize their activities. The exericise could have been refined through the specification of role or functions under which actors were being considered. For example, instead of asking people where various ministries were engaged, they could have been asked to indicate which ministries are engaged in the coordination or execution at different points in the systems map. Beyond making the map relevant, this exercise was also intended to help ministries see how they relate to each other and how they currently work with each other. This was greatly achieved through the dialogue which ensued after participants posted sticky notes. Questions were raised about various functions which stimulated discussions to clarify them. Another reason for this exercise was to help recognize the importance of engaging missing stakeholders in the future. This was not as effectively accomplished, most notably due to a lack of time. It may be helpful to do an exercise specifically around identifying missing stakeholders following the strengths and weaknesses exercise.
for this portion of the agenda was to identify those key elements of a resilient society in Turkey. This was not effectively accomplished since the vision statements were not exactly aligned with this topic. It was helpful to be concrete in the exercise and ask what could be accomplished in 10 years, however. In addition, having individuals participate in small, mixed (by ministry) groups helped stimulate discussion. Organizers recognized that, had there been more time, the exercise could have moved beyond simply the identification of individual visions to the formulation of a shared vision. An outstanding question is whether to do the vision or actors exercise first. The latter helped individuals start with something they were familiar with and helped foster a participatory environment. However, the vision exercise helped foster an outward orientation in which participants thought about what is best for the collective. Strengths and Weaknesses This portion of the agenda was designed to identify specific weaknesses and strengths which could be included in the upcoming Turkish DRM strategy paper. This was well accomplished through a large group exercise where the facilitator helped the group clarify statements and ensure shared understanding and agreement on their veracity.
the day was designed to help participants synthesize the key insights for the day and appreciate the value of the systems approach. This was mostly accomplished by simply giving the participants an opportunity to share their reflections. In addition, it helped that the facilitator discussed the complexity graph (see below). Here, the facilitator explained that, in conventional exercises, groups rise to a level of complexity in their analysis such that they reach their initial mental capacity and quickly reduce to a simplified, silo perspective of the system. Instead, through a systems approach, the group pushes itself to experience greater complexity until it must synthesize the key insights into a simpler yet more holistic understanding of leverage points to engage the system as a whole. By the end of engaging in this visualization, several individuals in the room could palpably resonate with the graph. This portion may have benefitted from more time in order for people to have time to share their personal learning on the content as well as the process in small groups. During this time they could also reflect on how it could be improved. Then, participants could share their reflections again as a large group. Figure A.13. Capacity to hold complexity and the systems approach
this initial workshop may be the first step in a longer term engagement. Elucidating, and eventually implementing, the strategy paper of AFAD, for example, could benefit from continuing the systems innovation process. Specifically, the degree to which Turkish ministries and consultants preparing the strategy paper engage in a collaborative, systems-oriented dialogue with increasingly wider circles of participants, will yield a more complete picture of the system and a stronger strategy. To this end, it may be beneficial to conduct additional exercises using the same system map but applying it to a particular sector. The energy or education sector, for example, could be selected as a lens through which the map could be utilized. In doing so, the relevant actors, by function, can be identified and a very concrete discussion about the particular information flows, resource flows, and decision-making responsibilities, can be assessed and refined. Although the workshop provided visibility into utilization of a systems map to structure dialogue, those individuals elaborating the strategy paper may benefit from further capacity development thereby perpetuating the systems approach and significantly extending the network of players involved in the conversation. A training organized to enhance such capacity could take the form a week-long workshop in which consultants working on the strategy paper, as well as interested champions within the various government ministries, could gain a deeper appreciation for the systems approach, enhance their ability to perceive systems, practice using software to elaborate systems maps, familiarize themselves with the systems innovation process, and strengthen the necessary facilitation skills. Such a training could include a field component in which actual meetings with relevant stakeholders are conducted, thereby simultaneously strengthening capacity and producing helpful information for the strategy paper. As a follow-up, meetings can be held to reflect with those engaged in the training in order to ask questions and receive further support.
MADE WITH GOOGLE IN EARLY 2014 Figure A.14. Early version of disaster system map created with Google. Google’s Crisis Response tools and services were used to test preparedness and response concepts in the map, and discuss future opportunities.
ve Acil Durum, Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Presidency MD Ministry of Development MEU Ministry of Environment and Urbanization MF Ministry of Finance MI Ministry of Interior MNE Ministry of National Education TCIP Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool
OFFICIALS Photo A.1. Members of various ministries posting sticky-notes on the actors engaged in different portions of the disas- ter risk management system. Photo A.2. Final version of map utilized by government officials with sticky-notes denoting actors, vision, strengths, and weaknesses of the system.