Towards a post-2015 framework for Disaster Risk Reduction BUILDING THE RESILIENCE OF NATIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO DISASTERS

My expectations are that by the end of this programme we share have a common understanding of what we want to achieve in DRR. Our focus should really take into consideration the situations in the most vulnerable communities.

I repeat from the other discussion the suggested priorities that we must address to enable key elements for a "Framework for DRR" to be set, without which , the rest is potentially just talk.
1. that we confirm that there will be continued coordination, either through the ISDR or a another suggested body or group of bodies. This must be sorted and confirmed very early on, before or at the 2013 Global Platform for the next 5-10 years. We must have committed leadership going into the GP13, otherwise the incentive, momentum will simply disappear before GP15.
2. That we set a next time frame, with aggreement that firm action plans are set, for all collaborative bodies to try/commit to adhere to. The 10yrs HFA had no teeth, the first 5years were basically wasted and only a awareness programme for within the Angencies, with very little ever reaching their goals. I suggest we have Phases of 5 years, with a 10-15 year action plan. working for Aims and Onjectives 10 years in advance kills momentum for 5 years. Plus a very strict commitment to goals per each two years, to be submitted at each GP. There is now requirement at present to meet Bianual deadlines. Lets give the GP process teeth. be answerable to ourselves and the Governments whom we serve, all onbehalf of the people.
3. that we confirm certain bodies [or body] take on specific role in Governance penetration/ collaboration at local or regional level for strategic planning and implementation. Presently the UNISDR. Identify it, properly Fund it, support it!
4. that we support the coordination and continued collation [PreventionWeb] of strategic documents......BUT with resources to hightlight the key specific documents collaboratively meant as strategic documents, as oposed to a singular body producing non-collaborative documents, being suggested as a strategic document. [we need to sort out the good from the inadequate] Shiny front cover documents does not guarantee the usefullness of the content. [however specific research and project reports are essential to enable strategic douments to be assembled]
5. We need to have or highlight existing mapping of what has been achieved, nationally, regionally and by sector. This provides us with clear mandates for filling gaps. avoids needless parrallel tracks, wasting resources and identifies existing successes and failures/challenges to perform, so that extra resources maybe applied.
6. there needs to be a collaborative, coordinating body which meets more regularly than bianually, face to face/telecomf...... to identify progress in DRR as a whole. The TPKE reviews Education and Schools, but doesnt address the wider DRR issues. Presently it is hit or miss if an agency takes on a role in a region. UNICEF and Save, [Plan] are trying to coordinate the South Asia Region, but it requires all major Agencies to buy in. Too many are 'doing their own thing' un-beknown to the rest. Put your differences asside, lay down your flags. There is plenty for everyone, and NO gold medals at the end, simply lives to be saved!
7. It must agreed that donors are more accessible , either directly or through a coordinating agency. This is presently hit or miss, the old boys club, national pride stuff, competitiveness, right place and the right time etc etc which prevents some key initiatives from transcending from Pilot/ pump priming schemes/projects to full blown wider implementations. It is simply a misconstrued idea that only the larger Agencies are capable of implementing good projects. Per pound, they have a lot more lights left on in the office, to be paid for! Plus , we have so much to do, to catch up with original HFA A&Os that we need all the help and contributions possible, which attain the required standards.

7 is enough to start with!

Thanks LOY and all friends
I think the valuable contribution from colleagues and the wide experience and knowledge they hold raise a high expectation level for outcome result. I wish we can reach by the end of this period a draft sample that can be implements to assist and facilitate the next period and highlight major topic regard problems and perspective solution or mechanize to push forward.
I can see that dealing and discusion with some experts and participant people in the crises area will feed our work a lot especially whom currently are in crises field or recently came the field so we can build on that large figure with diferse feedback and comment, suggestion, remarks.

Thanks a lot, wish for all hot discussion week.

Abed Al Badeaa Al Dada

Being field practioner i believe that this dialouge forum will help us to set some concret goals for coming decade.Along with natural disasters we have to focus maninduced disasters in our future stratregy. The forum should also give proper attention toward world poor and highly hazrd prone countries where corruption , ill management and poverty further enhancing disasters risks.

I would echo the summary set out here by Wilson - base our discussion on a clear assessment of the successes and limitations of the current framework, extend it to consider resilience - encompassing climate change adaptation, ecosystems, economics etc and draw together discussion periodically so that clear themes and suggestions emerge.

Wilson John Barbon said:

My expectations are as follows:

a) The outcomes you would like to see by the end of the three month period,

I would like to see that the end of this dialogue, I will have a clear understanding of the performance of the HFA before discussing anything about post-HFA. What has been the trends? What are key challenges that the countries are facing in implementing HFA? Other than what has been the performance of the HFA, I would like to see specific proposals on a post-HFA framework a vivid understanding with practical proposals on countries in linking DRR with climate change adaptation, ecosystems and global finance as a force influencing how vulnerable countries do DRR.

b) How these dialogues can link with other activities and actions during this period, and
I also expect that these dialogues do not happen in a vacuum. That it will be wise also to have some briefs about the contentious themes that have emerged from this dialogue. And that these briefs come out regularly like a weekly summary or brief. This way I can bring up the current discussions with discussions I make with my colleagues who are working on DRR and CCA.

c) How the dialogue should be structured differently from what is proposed above

I think the dialogue will be better off if its discussed according to themes. I am expecting that in the coming days there will a guide or logical structure that will be suggested to facilitate dialogue. I think it will be tiresome if we just throw in ideas and opinion in the open without seeing where these will be end up as an outcome of this dialogues.

d) How to better link the dialogue to other elements of the consultation process, especially in the first phase and run up to the 4th session of the Global Platform

I expect that outcomes of these dialogues be published as well targeted to distribution to governments, aid agencies as well as international NGOs. These are my expectations for now. Will wait for further guidance on how to proceed.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage on the online dialogue on the post 2015 DRR framework.

My expectations with the first online dialogue is that it should provide a platform for the DRR community of policy and practices to share their expriences and impressions about the implementaiotn of the HFA in their localities and within their specialised fields. This will enable the dialogue to produce a report detailing perspectives, sentiments and views on the impact of the framework in lien with national frameworks and practices. It is, in my view, this foundation that is critical to infrom measures going forward.

Up to date dialogue rounds, It seem that a considerable ideas are accumulating and shining about global community hopes for post 2015 agenda. So, my expectation is:
If these dialogues ideas are compatible with concluded ideas would be obtained from other four periods of discussions as well as relevant ISDR studies, questionnaires about failures topics of 2005-2015 agenda; thus of-course should be help to figure post 2015 agenda priorities and plans; making a new roadmap to address and to enable smooth implementation of DRR critical elements without failures especially in less developing countries.
All best.

Dear Participants,
My expectation for the first on line dialogue is that a reasonable amount of views on the subject, from all corners of the world, should be collected. In the process various data collection hubs will be activated and will feed in the central debate for further analysis and systematization. As the result, it would be possible to have a clear picture of the global take on the HFA, what its key contributions are, what challenges are encountered in the process, and what should be done next. With this the upcoming level of the consultation process will be well informed.
This expectation, in my view, can only be actualized if we take are ready to provide open access for diversity of views and our readiness to listen to all. Being based on these views, the need for open and informed discussion is the second important point. Especially at the central stage, with the present facilitator Loy, we need to have associates (it can also be virtual) to help in data management, documentation and information dissemination.
In the course of the on line dialogue, a mechanism should be in place to inform those prospective participants of the high level meeting. Some kind of link between these people and the current forum should be created. They should get the opportunity to ask questions in the process. It would also be advisable, if outputs of the fortnight dialogues compiled and shared with them.
All for now
Best,
Zerihun Lemma

we ought review all of the wider issues raised, segment them, see how we can incorporate within the mainstrean top five or so specifics. Then potentially take one at a time and begin to create a clear thought process of what is needed, what we would like to see and what is achieveable, within certain phased time scales, culminating in a recommendation Action Plan. Remember this is to be addressed and presented at the GP13, so we could include a preGP15 action Plan to set up, set foundation and accommadate our Post GP15 Action plan.

I want to express something myself about these dialogues:
First of all, everybody needs to read Hyogo Framework for Action. And everybody need to pursue these dialogues online other point of views. İt will be a good opportunity to share knowledge.
I have to go out now. I will continue tomorrow. My best, Cagdas

Sorry, I am late.
My expectations are:
1) Inclusion of DRR, Development and Climate Adaptation in the same frame of action.
2) Clear understanding of Disaster Management, DRR and CBDRR. Funding agencies and INGOs are implementing projects in the name of CBDRR/CBDRM etc. without providing any space for integration at institutional framework at local level, while at Govt. level institutional capacity building is pursued in the name of DRR. At community level the term CBDRR/CBDRM is used by the agencies in the same vein without going to the nuances of the thing.
3) A mechanism will be evolved where bottom up and top down approaches have a common platform for better integration of DRR into institutional planning process. Institutional vulnerabilities must be addressed.
4) Panchayat System (local level political institute, as in India) will be stronger as a social capital.
5) And of course, what HFA delivers?