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

Saber Teams has developed an enhanced version of Interoperable Communications. With this system we are able to tie in all communication devices and frequencies on a global level.

Dear Community Members, Greetings from Japan.

CRASH Japan (Christian Relief, Assistance, Support and Hope) has worked extensively with over 35 partner NGOs, Missions, and Church Denominations in Japan in response to the 3.11.2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster. Honestly, before the disaster we knew nothing about the HFA, but using it to evaluate what helped and what we could have done better after the fact has been very helpful.

The small-scale development of these partnerships in Japan before the 2011 disaster, allowed us to quickly mobilize over 6 million US$ in relief and sustain over 14,000 days of volunteer work in dozens of local communities.

As we look towards preparing for predicted mega-quakes facing Tokyo and the Nankai area we want to aim to unite local church networks with NGO's and international church resources of volunteers, expertise and funds nationwide in Japan, implement key leadership training programs and coordinate these efforts with local and prefectural governments.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Wilson
President,
CRASH Japan
www.crashjapan.com

Dear Shakeb,

greeting from Pakistan, the think tank of Red Cross Red Crescent is also giving consideration to Disaster Risk Reduction, though the Response is very crucial stage and all the humanitarian actors are facing two challenges in post disaster one is the relief activities and second is to increase the awareness among the communities for any kind of disaster. it is common observance during the disaster the community become selfless and vulnerable. before the disaster the communities did not give attention to vulnerability and importance to risk, it is therefore the Disaster Risk Reduction is a common approach easier and planning tools for preparedness. the importance of DRR in the hazard prone area should be top most priority and Govt should have the keen to address this integral component.

I am in the practice of disaster management since 1999. At the time the terminology Disaster Management was not much known in my country, leave aside the existence of any institution or knowledge; in public or private sector. The country was struck by the devastating earthquake in October 2005 that killed over 73,000 persons. In the aftermath National Disaster Management Authority was established in 2007. An organisation; Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) was created to implemennt the massive reconstruction and rehabilitation of the affected areas. A Disaster Risk Management Programme was one of the core initiatives by ERRA. I was responsible to implement this programme. Before this I had the good fortune of implementing a disaster management programme in a small and remote part of the country and in the course I had attended Disaster Management Course at ADPC Bangkok.

The ERRA DRM Programme was implemented in the nine earthquake affected districts. The programme components included hazard assessment and mapping, establishing community volunteers institutions at the local level and providing stockpiles of emergency tools and equipment. This programme, after completion, was evaluated by a high level committee comprising Chairman NDMA, Deputy Chairman ERRA and other Government, UN, and stakeholders and was endorsed as a robust model for replicating in other parts of the country. The model was also selected by UNISDR for publication as regional good practices in 2010.

There have been two distinct achievements of this initiative: a) The communities living in the areas where this programme had been implemented were relatively safer during the floods in 2010 and 2011. 2) The Programme proved a trail blazer for the Government as well as Non-Government agencies to embark on DRM activities in the country. Today DRM is still in its infancy in Pakistan but no longer an alien subject. I am currently working to start a comprehensive disaster management programme in selected high hazard risk communities across Pakistan. In addition to the components mentioned above this programme will also include small mitigation projects with equity from the communities and providing safe shelter houses, especially in the flood prone areas.

Cordaid, a Dutch NGO, is working on community managed DRR in 13 countries in Asia, Central America and Africa with approximately 110 local NGO's in these countries. The work is a combination of training of NGO's and other relevant stakeholders in CMDRR, risk, vulnerability and capacity analysis, making CMDRR action and contingency plans, and the actual implementation of the plans. Hereby the community DRR committees are the one taking the lead. This is combined with learning from each other via exchange visits and learning workshops, and lobby/advocacy for an enabling environment for DRR. In our view DRR is closely connected to climate change adaptation. Quite a number of these programs are succesfull, according to evaluations we've held over the years. Our field staff or local partners are involved in DRR policy working groups in various countries; local governments are interested in our work on the ground; communities in disaster prone regions are better able to deal with upcoming disasters, such as in the drought regions in the Horn of Africa last year, or in flood prone areas in India.
We realize more and more that close cooperation with other relevant stakeholders is crucial to really have an impact which is broader than only at community level. Therefore we work closely with national and international networks, such as the global CSO network for DRR, the Dutch DRR platform and various local DRR or food security networks. And since 2 years we work in the Partners for Resilience, an alliance with the Red Cross, The Red cross climate centre, CARE Netherlands, Wetlands international and Cordaid, where we jointly work on DRR, climate change adaptation and ecosystem management and restoration. We think the ecosystem aspect is crucial as well to really achieve resilient communities.
The key succesfactors in this programme are the mix of training, having committed people in our office and in the various countries who believe in the relevance of DRR, real community involvement, piloting approaches and ongoing learning to improve the programmes, linking up with relevant stakeholders including the local government for sustainability/upscaling of the approach, include attention for food security in the programs as a trigger for community involvement.

Within concluded ideas of post 2015 dialogues, I wish to see the following:
some recommendations and/or proposals for new respond with the disaster and to mitigate critical situations are always generated due to catastrophic events in poor countries and to reduce unbelievable variation of strategies and tactics have been appeared for each country during last decades all over the globe.
Strengthening linkages, specifically to those vital programs for natural disaster reduction which is experienced a remarkable timeframe continuation for implementing their relevant activities, even though they have variant languages, religions and communities. Of course, in behind of these continuation, there are consciousness scientific and political supports. At moment I look into Reduction Earthquake Loses in East Mediterranean Region (RELEMR) as good example, it is working in the region since 20 years and represented by remarkable government officials in the East Mediterranean with pretty support from UNESCO, USGS, regional institutions and individuals.

All best for all
Jamal M. Sholan

Grand merci à Monsieur Loy et à tous les membres de la communauté en ligne,
La Côte d’Ivoire mon pays, sort d’une crise militaro politique qui a durée de 2002 à 2011. Aussi, est-il nécessaire de rappeler que s’il y avait déjà des démarches en cours avant la crise pour le renforcement de la résilience , celles-ci ont été indéniablement stoppées par ladite crise. A ce jour, les différentes institutions gouvernementales se remettent progressivement au travail et nous sommes au stade de validation d’un décret portant création de la Plateforme nationale de réduction de risques. La Côte d’Ivoire a donc nécessairement besoin de soutien de partenaires internationaux afin de l’accompagner dans le redémarrage de l’ensemble de son programme de renforcement de résilience.

Dear Loy,

Thank you for your question! I am from Ethiopia working on Public Health Emergency Management in Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research institute. The institute has two cores process; the research core process and Public Health Emergency Management core process. I am from the second and we are working on Disasters like land slide, volcano eruption, epidemics and flood at national and sub national level. Ethiopia is a known country for different disaster mentioned above and the prospects moving ahead were conducting risk assessment twice a year and forecasting and planning for the upcoming risks with different GOs and NGOs.
Act locally; influence Globally!!
With Best Regards,

Dear disaster risk reduction practitioners’ greetings!

Good to share with all of you the second round of the online dialogue toward to post 2015 Framework for Disaster risk reduction.
According to my understanding the key achievements in building resilience since the adoption of the H FA for action has been on of the main significant key on disaster risk reduction management through the building on culture of safety, early effective assessment of hazards and vulnerability, empowering the research on training, education by using the news technology and innovation.

Enhance mechanisms for sustaining the early warning and support the development and implementation of programme in order to disseminate information.
In addition Disaster risk reduction has also been for many countries as a National, regional and local priority with strong emphasis on specifics, targets, roles and financial supports. This includes support for the efforts of policymakers and decisions makers at all levels.

It needs to be emphasized that achievements in building resilience will be owned and more shaped by government political will and many partners supporting its objectives that will largely achieved through the ongoing work of the stakeholders.
This is the same views that existing within the UNISDR aims.


Thanking You
Joseph Herve

More emphasis and priority should be made towards developing countries as it continues to experience lack of productivity for natural disaster risk in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Some of the least developed countries suffer the most from environmental degradations that affect the natural systems and develop global environmental problems that easily threat the human well-being. The opportunities are active involvement to strengthen disaster preparedness, disaster risk reduction, building resilience and contribution made towards addressing sustainable development and human security for developing countries. Key achievements are implemented to disaster preparedness through best practices, lessons learned and capacity building for vulnerable countries.

Hi Loy,

On Achievements after Hyogo Framework---Development actors including Government agencies, civil society-NGOs, UN Agencies and the like tried to shift from the business as usual to DRR as a way forward. Many of Key actors now are actively dealing with DRR as a thematic area and there is now a higher understanding on the DRR concept and process however, still many are struggling to get down at the center of gravity which is the community.

Lets make community as a reference point on what is happening at their level for us to have a scale on where are we now from the vision. My observations are: Many of the risk assessment are incomplete. It did not manage to identify the most at risk members of the community. Doing and facilitating risk assessment is a real challenge. Many are block with their tools and not clear on the conceptual understanding. Some are not properly done because facilitators are imposing and not facilitating. Some DRR measures are broad strokes and sometimes are not based from the risk assessment results. Often contingency plan is not clear and sometimes are not there/in place. Some Community organizations on DRR still needs further strengthening for their effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Community managed monitoring and evaluation system to measure risk reduction is still a challenge.

For me this is a challenge. If we need to strengthen Hyogo Framework we need to look at the details of the center of gravity of DRR which is the Community.

Thanks.

Rusty Binas
Global Advisor on DRR, Cordaid

Reading through the first 20 responses (Cortés to Binas), an interesting trend may be emerging.

12 of these mention activities, programmes and advances with NO MENTION of the HFA. Rather then mention a wide variety on institutions: Other UN agencies such as UNESCO and international agencies such as IFRC and DARA, bilateral and multilateral donors such as USGS and DIPECHO, a regional centre (ADPC) and humanitarian organisations such as Concern Worldwide, Safe the Children, ACTED, Handicap International, Cordaid and Oxfam GB.

5 refer to the usefulness of the political “buzz” about DRR created at the national level; while 3 found the HFA a valuable framework for organising DRR work across sectors. Specific UNISDR co-led campaigns were also mentions: safe schools (twice) and resilient cities (once).

Certainly one welcomes the creation of political space and visibility for DRR at the national scale as well as the availability of a flexible, comprehensive framework and specific campaign focuses. Such functions are also consistent with an UN “strategy” (the UNISDR) that by its very nature is meant to operate “top down”. But one has to wonder why these functions were not mentioned by more respondents, and, indeed, why more than half highlight activities that would have taken place if there had never been an HFA.

Food for thought?

Regards,

BEN

Dr. Ben Wisner
University College London

Dear all,
Greetings from Save the Earth.
I think the progress made after the HFA since 2005 are significant. To me it is in two line of action: from the CSO perspectives and from government perspectives.
The CSOs and the CSO networks have been contributing significantly. As for example; at country level - Cambodian National DRR Network, even there are networks in the sub-national levels. regional and global level like ADRRN and GNDR GDN etc. All those networks grew mainly after the HFA. There is no question, in many cases , it could fulfill the needs of the time but the progress could made are really something greater than many great progresses. i think, the challenge is the increasing trend of disasters and its intensity are much stronger than the reduction approaches. As a result, many progress are not visible.

On the other, the national multi-stakeholder platform and local platforms etc. are truly significant in addressing not only the DRR issues but also any types of risks at national and local levels. There is no question, that the well-functioning of national platforms have not yet could be articulated as it was expected. i think, it is not HFA itself that made it slow, it is because of many other national and local causes.

But the overall, i think, sharing information including project documents, reports, exchange visit etc. started to happen that did not happened before. Before HFA, even up to now, many government institutions consider 'response' is the only job to address disaster issues where preparedness, EWS and many other activities were not vital to them. But now, the environment has been changing............

National, sub-national and local committees for disaster management are one of the unique product of the HAF.

I think, in Cambodia, the disaster management system can be a good example like many other countries. The Prime Minister chairs the national committee where all line ministries and institutions are working collaboratively. Such unity in DRR issues are very important in the development efforts. The National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) and other key policy documents of the government profoundly address the DRR issues. Each and every development project/programme have been considering the DRR issues in Cambodia. The DRR issues have been mainstreaming in the policy strategies and other line plans of action.

In case of the disasters, we have been receiving the update regularly on the flood bulletin. Example, the flood in 2011, it affected 18 provinces out of 24. Now, Cambodian National DRR Forum has been organizing the International events like International DRR day where NCDM is facilitating the event. any disaster hits, the National DRR forum comes ahead where NCDM plays supporting role. So the Cambodian National DRR Forum has been playing a vital role in Cambodia under the overall supervision of NCDM and collaborative supports from CSOs. i am sure, many countries, many things are happening like this.

I think, this a significant process that need to be carried out, need to be strengthened and find out further opportunities for development. There is no end of development. It is great, i learned from different comments, the success and 'opportunity for development' (i would prefer not use the word 'failure') could identified. Now, our job is to find out how to enhance/strengthen the process, what we have and what we do not have, that need to put in place to discuss and institute to reach the expected goals.

The VFL 2009 and 2011findings show that there are a lot of needs and challenges in each and every country where the VFL took place. if no HFA, then, may be we had to wait for another decade to find out a way to learn what risks are where. i think, knowing the risks is great capacity. now we need to work to reduce the known risks.
many thanks HFA.

Akhteruzzaman Sano
Save the Earth Cambodia

Dear All, Greetings, I very well agree with some of the participants who says that HFA has given a definite direction to different DRR programs across various geographical locations. One of the participants has also mentioned that it has given a certain impetus to the DRR program and it is more like a national movement where in different stakeholders are putting their efforts towards comprehensive disaster risk reduction.

I am associated with various DRR programs since quite sometime and some of the experiences that I would like to share with the larger community is related with HFA reporting which was navigated by the Disaster Management Bureau in Bangladesh and CDMP (the largest DRR program in Bangladesh supported by a consortiun of donors) along with NARRI (a consortium of 10 INGOs working on DRR) were handholding he whole initiative. We were one of the first ones to use the LG SAT (Local Government Self Assessment) tools tools also which is being piloted for the first time across the globe.

Though it is not mandatory for the Government to carry out the HFA reporting but the way it has been promoted, our Government was very keen to carry it out in a scientific and proper manner.

We are of the opinion that the HFA framework and the reporting gave all the DRR actors to come together and think in a very synchronised way. we were all speaking the same language and our mandate was to see the progress related with various parameters to enhance the resilience of the community and institutions. The HFA reports helps the Government and key actors to identify the gaps and plan for the future.

The HFA reporting was not without challenges but it led us to think together and overcome those challenges. Some of the challenges that I would like to highlight and which can also be a lesson to other DRR community members are as follows:

1. The HFA reporting format gives you a very general view of the progress made towards DRR in a country.

2. It focuses on decentralized consultative process which can be possible in smaller countries but not in bigger countries.

3. The HFA reporting format gives a very cursory look at inclusion or inclusive approach. There is no clear cut guidelines on inclusive approach and to what extent the program has been inclusive in a particular countries. I think this issue should be on the top of the agenda and there should be some very specific indicators related to it

We are in the process of coming out with post HFA which will guide the DRR interventions and strategies for future. I would also request the policy makers and the practitioners to go in for a detailed analysis of the achievement under the HFA.

Looking forward to a very fruitful interaction with this community

Thanks and kind regards

Shakeb

Deal All,

I'd like to share with you some achievements of Turkey after HFA that was launched in 2005. More information is also available on biennieal reports of Turkey submitted to UNISDR for reviewing of HFA.

HFA strategic goals and PoAs have shaped the disaster management systems and approaches of many countries including Turkey. In 2009 Turkey went through a paradigm shift on disaster management structure and established Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) under the Prime Ministry. Previously, the roles and activities were mainly distributed among three different actors. Following this new institutional structuring, national platform of Turkey was established. A national roadmap namely the "National Earthquake Strategy and Action Plan of Turkey" was prepared in 2011 and by the beginnig of 2012, activities on the strategy have initiated. This document is a roadmap in order to reduce earthquake related activities and create earthquake resilient society by 2023. In addition, with Climate Change Strategy and Integrated Urban Development Strategy Turkey has very robust targets and actions in order to reduce disaster losses with an emphasis primarily on mitigation and preparedness.

Risk reduction culture is becoming more popular among governmental officials, academicians and the members of civil society. The role and integariton of NGOs are increasing and this is also contributing to DRR activities to increase.

With the implementation mechanism of HFA created by ISDR by biennial reports, many countries are having the opportunity to learn and inspire from others. I think this is very important for countries to increase their achievements on DRR issues.

Among other DRR activities, Turkey has shown lots of progress on capacity development on monitoring and observing disaster events, archieving disasters and creating1 disaster databases, preparing robust building codes for earthquakes, strategic planning approach to some disaster types, increasing public awareness by means of different stakeholders like NGOs, universities etc.

Kerem KUTERDEM
Geological Engineer (M.Sc.)
AFAD-Turkey