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

Dear Roy and all,

We, a group of individuals and professionals from Indonesia managed to have our first briefing paper on the Post HFA 2015.
We put it in a more structured way as you can download from here: Briefing Note 1. Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Indonesian Civil Society First Response. : https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=25625

This brief is a response to the call for comments on the consultation paper Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction drafted by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). Recommendation and comments were given. One of the inputs include a note that the Post-2015 Framework for disaster risk reduction should continue the periodical reviews by the member states. It is highly recommended that the progress reports from the member states shall be continued as a long term global practice in measuring countries resilience to risks.

Thank you

Jonatan Lassa
Institute of Resource Governance and Social Change
www.irgsc.org

As the focal point for disaster risk management for health at WHO, I would like to enter this discussion with two main points, which have been developed in consultation with colleagues. I take the opportunity to express my thanks to ISDR and to Loy Rego for facilitating these important dialogues.

First, taking the liberty of speaking on behalf of colleagues in health and other sectors working towards improving the health of communities at risk of emergencies and disasters (is that not all of us?), may we propose that people`s health should feature as an explicit outcome of the post-HFA framework. Actions from all sectors to make communities safer from all hazards contributes to saving lives, reducing deaths, injuries, illnesses and disability, protecting hospitals and other infrastructure and strengthening the resilience of communities and health systems. Given the impact of hazards on the health of communities worldwide, the health imperative for a post-HFA framework is clear, and therefore, we propose that health outcomes and actions to reduce health risks should be made very prominent in a future framework.

Among the necessary ingredients to translate health outcomes into practical actions are stronger partnerships between those working in health and other sectors, and more effective engagement and capacities in the health sector at all levels to address the risks of emergencies and disasters. WHO and our partners are determined to make advance these causes in the course of the development and implementation of the post-HFA framework.

Second, we would propose that the development of the post-HFA framework should begin with a discussion and ultimate agreement on the fundamental elements of the framework. Some key questions which might govern the design and development of the post-HFA framework include:

• From 2015 going forward, what paradigm or conceptual framework will serve communities best, as well the wide range of actors which support communities in the management of disaster risks?
• What are the principles and approaches which will shape the development of the post-HFA framework?
• What is the true nature of the challenge to communities which this framework is designed to address?
• What has been the experience of countries, communities and other actors in managing risks to date and why – what has been successful and can be shared or built upon; what has been weak and needs to be strengthened?
• How will the post-HFA framework relate to other frameworks and practices which address the management of risks to communities?

If we take one of these issues: as a global community can we agree on a set of principles and approaches which will inform the development of the post-HFA framework?

WHO is embarking on a process to develop an emergency risk management framework for managing the health risks of emergencies as well as disasters and other crises. One of the drivers for this work is a stronger alignment of approaches in the health sector which those of other sectors working towards the same or similar goals. A starting point for the development of such a framework are a discussion of principles and approaches.

As there are corollaries with the development of the post-HFA framework, we propose that the following approaches and principles should be included as a basis for the post-HFA framework.

• A comprehensive risk management approach. This approach is based on assessing and managing risks of emergencies/disasters across the risk management continuum. A comprehensive emergency risk management approach is based on risk assessments and includes measures (risk treatments) which are aimed at preventing or mitigating risks, responding to and recovering from emergencies. Reference could be made to the ISO standards on risk management.

• Community-centred approach. Capacities at community level, including the active participation of community members and local actors, are essential for effective risk management, for example, in assessing risks, reporting of possible emergencies, providing community level services, risk communication and community education, local emergency response planning, first response to emergencies, provision of safe water before, during and after emergencies, and long term community care and rehabilitation.

• Sustainable development. Developing county and community capacities across all sectors to manage risks of emergencies requires strong and long-term commitment and sound managerial and technical programmes from countries and communities, supported by their partners.

• An all-hazard approach. A framework should consider addressing components pertaining to the management of emergencies/disasters from all sources, including natural, technological, biological and societal hazards. There are many common elements to emergency risk management regardless of the nature of the hazard. The capacity of all sectors must be enhanced to face all types of major hazards, such as epidemics and other biological hazards, all types of natural hazards (including extreme climate events); chemical hazards, radiation, major transport crashes and other technological hazards, and conflict and other societal hazards. Other threats such as an influenza pandemic or terrorism also need to be managed.

• Multiagency and multidisciplinary approach. Individuals and organisations in many disciplines are required to manage the risks of emergencies/disasters across risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and capacity development. The post HFA framework should aim to facilitate partnerships in which these disciplines, represented by agencies, institutions and individuals with a role and interest in emergency risk management, will be able to contribute to its development and implementation.

• Multisectoral approach. At the national and local levels, managing the risks of emergencies/disasters requires a multisectoral approach. The post-HFA framework should reflect that all sectors work together to manage risks caused by the interaction of people, hazards, and their social, cultural, natural and developed environments.

• Ethical considerations. The post-HFA framework should be based on and be consistent with ethical norms, fundamental human rights considerations, and humanitarian principles. These include equitable access to services, and inclusion of those at risk (in particular, the needs and rights of those most vulnerable) in planning and implementation processes, among others.

We would contend that agreement on a set of approaches and principles is fundamental to the development of the post-HFA framework, and look forward to further discussions on these issues.

Although the HFA has defined 5 main topics, the implementing practise needs some standardization on how the countries reached to the same level on the same topic. The monitorıng and assessment standarts at implementations can be defined. International and Regional standardization can be formed.

Also side effects, and domino effects of disasters on economy, socio-economy, genders, people with disabilities stc. has to be included at all levels of DRR.

The DRR studies should be the main part of the urban and regional planning of a country and with this point of view strategy must be implemented spatially to the country, regions, urban and rural areas. Until 2015, implementations success will depend on the overlapping of strategies defined and the implementation of urban plans. Disconnected urban renewal projects can prepare the cities to other disasters itself. Urban transformation considering DRR is a main topic which should start form regional and go on with urban and neighbourhood scales. Also self energy generating green cities and buildings can be added to this topic to gain another value for CCA.

The displacement of populations in cities because of the economical and soio economical changing conditions of tranformed urban areas can be a reason for other risky periphery areas of the city which are prone to disasters. The local DRR studies must concludethese side effects of non-regional and non-urban scaled projects implementations. Post HYOGO 2015 can be a platform which limits and defines the ideal DRR based urban and region planning and implementation aims, targets, processes and implementations at all levels. Some workshops can be done until and after post-Hyogo 2015, on an international platform.

I expect these dialogues to help bring about far greater awareness of the dangers and disasters facing us all. I expect many stakeholders to become involved and collectively formulate concrete action plans, which can be implemented worldwide to save billions of lives. I expect to see far greater awareness of our collective interdependence and the understanding that, in working for the good of the whole with an altruistic attitude, everything is possible.

I expect to see these dialogues inspire and feed into actions that enable life on Earth to continue for many thousands of years; because in taking responsibility and facing such daunting life threatening challenges, we shared and maximized our intelligence for the benefit of all.