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

Dear All,

Many thanks to UNISDR and UNDP for inviting me to contribute to this discussion. I am very much looking forward to a thoughtful exchange.

It is an key time in the process to agree a new set of development goals to succeed the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. The UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda is due to report in just 6 months and is currently considering the options. The Panel will be trying to answer some thorny questions - should there be many goals or just a few? How long should the next goals last for? Should they focus on poverty or on sustainable development or both? Which issues might be included and which should be excluded?

I believe that it is important to agree a new international framework for disaster risk reduction, but even more crucial to include DRR as a part of the next development goals framework. This will help to strengthen political will and integrate risk management into development planning - both fundamental to further progress on reducing disaster risk.

I have spent some time thinking about the options for integrating disaster risk reduction into the post-2015 development framework. The paper is available here:

http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/6815-options-disaster-resilience-post-2015-development-goals

This short paper discusses potential indicators and targets for including a specific goal on disaster resilience in the post-2015 development framework, as well as considering the opportunities for building disaster resilience into indicators for other sector goals, and what these might be. It looks at how to measure these, what baselines exist and whether data are available. It concludes by setting out criteria that can be used to judge the utility of targets and indicators in whatever framing emerges for the post-2015 goals framework.

The paper is just a starter and intended as a way to support a much more detailed discussion on what a global target on disasters might be. It is also intended to prompt an assessment of what evidence we have for the impact of disasters on poverty now and in the future and what role disasters play in comparison to other threats.

I look forward to some critical analysis of these ideas and options and a wider discussion of what a strategic approach might be.

Hurricane Sandy was a case where there was several days warning about the hazard. Mitigation measures were in place and so the most important role for public information systems was more in the manner of explaining what facilities, such as shelters, are on offer and where they are. This demonstrates that the next generaton public alertng system should be flexible enough to explain such things, and not only limited to fixed messages identifying the hazard. Fortunately this is doable with the technology at hand, but does need policy to be defined explaining who can say what and how. I think this is a further example of what can be achieved in a best practices publication, so that member states can discuss this matter from a position of mutual understanding. I am therefore more confident that such a document is needed and would be welcomed. -Mark Wood.

Creating a generic best practices publication would certainly be valuable, but it is insufficient. There is no serious alternative to creating actionable information sharing and collaboration protocols. These protocols need to provide guidance to all the stakeholders engaged in safeguarding communities and spell out who should report what information to whom, when, and by what primary and back-up means of communication. The flow of information needed to make informed decisions before, during and after a disaster must be planned and managed, and not taken for granted. It is time for an international standard for defining the information sharing protocols needed to manage disaster risk effectively.

David Kamien
Editor- The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook

The main options should be to create Disaster Frameworks on international agreed protocols, based on each region main risks.
These frameworks should be made available to the public supported by good communication and effective preparedness as the basis of any program.
With Hurricane Sandy in the USA, we witnessed how organization and communication were handled to minimize to a maximum the results and costs of a disaster no one who could stop.

Kadidia Doumbia

bangladesh fight for control against disaster. to create pressure upon the concern authority to take the suitable strategy for controlling disaster risk through media campaign. to aware the vulnerable group about drr.

it is emergency to pressure create to the power country to reduce air war, bombing, nuclear illegal doing etc that play the role to make climate change due to weather warm up that we all civilian responsible.

I am not sure whether or where it is appropriate to submit more general observations. (Apologies if it is not.)
I believe that a few mini-dialogues on specific issues are envisaged early next year?
One issue that might be a candidate worthy of consideration for a mini-dialogue is whether pandemic preparedness lessons are valuable for wider disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness - and how best to maintain preparedness to mitigate the economic and social impact of a future pandemic?
The Towards a Safer World initiative - (led by the Senior UN Influenza Coordinator) - documented and debated good practices and lessons from whole-of-society pandemic preparedness. These approaches may be relevant for continued pandemic preparedness and for other comparable threats.
The pandemic preparedness experience includes (but is not limited to) lessons in the areas of: planning for maintenance of critical services; coordination of multi-actor networks; communication strategies; simulation exercises; mobilization of funds for preparedness; and systems for measuring preparedness.

Kia ora, and Greetings to all participants.
I'm currently researching the response and recovery of Maori communities to the recent (and ongoing!) earthquakes that struck our city of Christchurch, New Zealand. I see in Tom's notes that any framework must be 'suitable for translating to national, sub-national and community levels.' We know from our research that the final link - to communities, families and even individuals is the most difficult yet the most vital. This is not just language (most Maori have a perfectly good understanding of English) but 'culture' in the sense of approach and delivery. Technology will only go so far: there is a considerable and growing technology gap with many Indigenous communities.

We advocate for a widening and deepening of the processes of consultation within Aotearoa/NZ to proactively include Maori in future hazard and disaster strategies. I'm sure other marginalised communities will likewise hope for inclusive processes and policies to be promoted by the UN.

Well i am of the opinion that we have seen much focus towards national government intervention in achieving the Goals set for 2015. However, it is still not clear what happens at Local Level or do they have anything to do for the global cause. But Local Government are the engine that has the potential of making the planet a better place to live. So i proposes that their should be special focus or a section needs to be dedicate for Local Government linked Goals.
I feels also that there should be limited goals within the scope of Sustainable Development. It has to be minimum of 10years and focus should be given to sustainable development with Local Government Actions.

Greetings (from a disaster-ridden area in the US)!
The issues of focus in this round are very important. Global community should work on the effective integration of disaster governance and development management, based a clearly defined and agreed upon framework -without resorting to the 'lowest common denominator' approach that is often seen in global negotations. This becomes feasible as more awareness is raised, for example, in the recent UNISDR Report to the UN General Assembly. The co-alignment of goals under the post-2015 frameworks of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and of disaster risk reduction (DRR) becomes more realistic, thanks to the coincidence of the time horizons of the two policy platforms. It is important to note that some of the MDGs have lagged behind because of lack of necessary attention to address the socio-economic vulnerabilities in various sections of populations. This has resulted in limited fulfillment of some of the stated goals. It is surely possible to turn around and take adavnatage of synergies involved in both the streams of policies and activities. The roadmap may follow the following directions:
1. Ensure internal consistency of the goals under each framework, separately and in combination. This involves, for example, ensuring that disasters do not contribute to chronic poverty: with much greater attention to physical and human asset management, institutional reforms and recognition that prevention is less expensive than relief management. It is evident, both in theory and practice, that the original specifications of MDGs are generally incongruent. This pitfall should be avoided in the newe framework.
2. Financial resilience, economic resilience, and community relience are extremey closely related; lack of this recognition contributes to a variety of inefficiencies and result in the non-fulfillment of some of the desirable goals.
3. DRR is akin to the governance of risks in a financial portfolio: no maximization of profits or benefits is consistent with an assumption of zero risks. Risk-based development project portfolio must take full note of the IPCC's SREX Report and all additonal recent scientific evidence shedding light on the size-frequency-impact distributions of extreme events and their trends, including some regional specificity. This knowledge (not merely information) should be translated into new design priciples for physical and institutional infrastructure at national, regional, and local levels.
4. The policies and activities (including those envisaged under the new Green Climate Fund) should be effectively integrated at all these levels, and the time to do that is right now- before any agreement on the post-2015 framework emerges.
5. The specifications of targets for MDGs, DRR and resiliency need to draw upon a judicious mix of both qualitative (usually input or process-based specifications) and quantitative targets- wherever these can be realistically specified, considering various synergies and other interdependencies. For example, building community-based organizations is as important as stating a target for reduction in poverty.
6. Stakeholder participation in planning and governance of projects must be viewed as a cost-effective and sustainable institutional provision that enables improved development management as well as DRR and disaster risk management.
Thank you very much.

Including disaster risk reduction and resilience in post-2015 development goals - what are the options?
As the development goals core focus is poverty reduction and development at all sectors in the entire globe. The development targets are not achievable whole or part without including DRR in post 2015 development goals.The trends of disasters are increasing day to day and possible loss of economic resources is also high. In this situation the inclusion of DRR should be priority and integrated in the post 2015 development framework. This should be mentioned in the framework of post 2015 development goals that all member states give DRR Inclusion a due part into all development policies and planning. It should be integrated into education, health, social protection,gender and poverty reduction policies and planning.

The post 2015 development goals give equal importance to structural and non structural measures for resilience. The education, health and poverty reduction policies also care for resilient buildings structures, economic losses,awareness and realistic planning.The community voice also be part of this framework because in developing countries polices are not reflect public interests and needs. The natural,and man induced disasters both have to address focusing vulnerabilities and risks.

Poverty and disaster have close relation,economic disparity and deprivation enhance disaster risk. Therefore, poverty eradication is necessary for disaster mitigation. The poorest and marginalized segments of society have lack of access to all basic needs of life, which further make them vulnerable in case of disasters.The post 2015 development framework also address the issues budge allocation, risk insurance, technology and knowledge sharing and improvement of early warning system. The authentic data of previous disasters and findings of recent risk assessment may also help to mange disaster risk and sustainable development.The losses of property,livelihood, rapid urbanization and environment are also needed focus and consideration.

Including DRR and resilience in post-2015 development goals - what are the options?

Great to see so many posts and more focused on the post-2015 development goals. Also good to see consensus that DRR is important for development and poverty reduction and therefore should be integrated into the post-2015 development goals. Thanks to Marla for suggesting some sector-focused targets around education - more on other sectors please.

In my paper (see link in post above), I suggest that a standalone goal on disaster risk reduction/resilience must be considered as part of the post-2015 development goals. As Loy pointed out, this position has support from the President of Indonesia, who is one of the co-chairs of the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Post-2015 Goals.

There are a range of options for chosing a single goal on DRR - e.g. reduction in mortality, number of people affected, number of communities with disaster plans. I review these in my paper.

I conclude that we will need to be flexible in deciding exactly what goal to push for depending on how the negotiations of the overall post-2015 framework emerge (e.g. sustainable development or poverty focused or both), but we can hopefully stick to some principles for what the target on DRR should be and do:

1. Be motivating – ambitious but achievable;
2. Be amenable to aggregation globally but also suitable for translating to national, sub-national and community levels;
3. Include outcome-oriented components;
4. Include risk reduction components;
5. Add value rather than focusing on aspects that are already improving (e.g. mortality rates);
6. Be simple and straightforward to communicate;
7. Be measurable, though not necessarily already measured globally, with the potential for a baseline to be created;
8. Be able to capture trends in intensive and extensive risk.

Are these right? What else could be added to the list? And do you have ideas for what a standalone target on DRR/disaster resilience might actually be ...

Taking Tom's point that we'll only get one small shot at this - and it needs to cover the 8 points above. I think that we might be able to do this with a sentence that refers to: disaster-proofing or safeguarding development investments with risk assessment, planning and physical and environmental risk reduction measures.

Dear Colleagues,

At least I have managed today to post my comments on the forum window. My initial reactions are that for an effective POST 2015-HFA framework, we need to re-think the place and vulue of social vulnerabilities of our communities/societies. The Post 2015 HFA should be intricately linked to other Development strategies such as the MDGs, NEPAD in Africa and other economic development frameworks. There is need to develop very clear indicators for the achievement of resilience and above all, policy makers and politicians in any society must speak to issues of sustainable development and community resilience building.
In a broader community assistance framework, how do humanitarian and development efforts contribute to resilience of communities? How do vulnerable communities view the HFA and MDGs etc frameworks as springboards for building resilience. How do these frameworks take into account indigenous knowledge systems, traditional and inherited skills that communities possess and employ when faced with adversities?

Many thanks to UNDP for leading this round, and for linking these discussion on the successor to the HFA to the e- discussion on “ Conflict, Fragility and Disasters” which is the related one of nine thematic discussions on the post 2015 development agenda.

Both discussions are important, and moving ahead it is vital that the discussion on resilience continue in the discussions on development goals, where it is often ignored.

Thank you also for framing the crucial questions very directly and simply. In continuation of my earlier post, let me reiterate and elaborate on my views, having read Tom’s paper as well.

Question 1 a) How best can disaster risk reduction be reflected in the post-2015 development agenda. Should there be a dedicated disaster risk reduction goal?

I strongly believe there should be a goal on DRR and resilience in the development agenda, to catalyse action among development policy and decision makers and politicians at all levels to consciously address the reduction of disaster risk.

We may have to plan for a ‘single’ goal around “ conflict and disaster”

Given that the place holder for discussion on disaster risk is under the broad subject of conflict, fragility and disasters; we should make sure that both disaster and conflict risk are addressed, not just in their post conflict and post disaster manifestations , but in addressing their underlying causes, before they happen. Given the differences in causes, patterns of occurrence and therefore levels of attention and constituencies they attract, it will be ideal if we have distinct goals for each. But in the competition with other themes in the post 2015 development goals discussion, and additional subjects under the SDGs, we may have to settle for a single goal, and this pragmatic realization should also encourage us to plan for that option. Also given that several voices in this dialogue have urged that we get out of our silos and address things holistically, and deal with conflict and disaster risk where both are present, such a common or linked goal may be a good thing.

Question 1 b) What would the DRR goal ( or the DRR part of a composite goal) look like ? How should we measure the achievement of this goal through targets and indicators?

Reading Tom’s paper made me reflect on the apparent complexity of the subject, and the implications of choosing a particular one of the 5 classes of options he summarized.

I lean towards the conscious measurement of input , rather than consequences only. I have tried to use some simple logic and some mix and match of Tom’s ideas and experience of ongoing work with Governments on HFA action plans to make the following suggestions:

Target A : By 2030 , resilience to disaster risk is well integrated into development plans and programs in all sectors, at multiple levels of government : national, sub-national, local

Target B: By 2030, every at risk community is well prepared and protected against disaster risk

For each target there should be two or three indicators, and I would suggest some now for each target.

Indicator A : % of new development projects in every sector that integrate disaster resilience into program design and implementation, with requisite budget allocation

Indicator B 1: % of communities receiving understandable early warning and able to take action to protect lives and livelihoods

Indicator B2: % of communities protected by community prepared preparedness and risk reduction plans that are well resourced, annually reviewed and rehearsed and well linked to the local government preparedness and development plans

Question 2. For greater impact, should we better mainstream disaster risk reduction into other post-2015 goals and how?

There is no option, even if there is a stand-alone goal, DRR has to be specifically disaggregated into sectorally specific agendas and action, and then routinised into those systems. Ideally we should pursue both.

Marla gave one example of what Mainstreaming would imply in the education sector. Here is a similar example of kick starting this in a number of sectors , in the ongoing program on mainstreaming DRR into development implemented by the Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management in Asia since 2005, based on its Hanoi Declaration at it’s 5th meeting. This is available at http://www.rccdm.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67&Itemid=156

The declaration called for mainstreaming DRR into national development processes and into specific priority sectors, namely agriculture, housing, infrastructure, health, education and financial services. To promote action on each theme, priority implementation partnerships were initiated by the NDMAs with sectoral ministries and other stakeholders. A sample of each approach is as follows:

1. Mainstreaming DRR in the National Development Planning Processes

1.1 Mainstreaming DRR into the National Development Plan
1.2 Mainstreaming DRR into the National Poverty Reduction Strategy
1.3 Developing and Implementing the National Disaster Risk Reduction Plan with inputs from all
Relevant Ministries and Agencies
1.4 Mainstreaming DRR into In-Country Assessments and the Multi-year Program Framework of International Development
Agencies
1.5 Institutionalizing of Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in Government Policy
1.6 Mainstreaming DRR into the National Environmental Impact Assessments for New Development Projects
1.7 Mainstreaming DRR into the National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) under the UN Framework on Convention for Climate Change

2. Agriculture

2.1 To promote effective programs of contingency crop planning to deal with year to year climate variations.
2.2 To promote effective programs of crop diversification including the use of hazard resistant crops, to deal with shifts in climate patterns
2.3 To ensure sustainable livelihoods in areas of recurrent climate risks (i.e. arid and semi-arid zones, flood and cyclone prone areas) by promoting supplementary income generation from off-farm (e.g. animal husbandry) and nonfarm activities (e.g. handicrafts).
2.4 To promote effective insurance and credit schemes to compensate for crop damage and losses to livelihoods due to natural hazards

4. Housing

4.1 To promote hazard-resilient designs (e.g. flood proofing or seismic safety) in rural housing in hazard-prone areas
4.2 To promote utilization of national building codes that have special provisions for enhanced design standards for buildings in areas affected by natural disasters
4.3 To promote compliance and enforcement of local building laws that requires standards prescribed in building codes in urban hazard prone areas

For more information read http://www.rccdm.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=162

In developing sectoral targets or even indicators, we will have to be guided by such simple operational principles adequately contextualized for the sector, coming as the last secondary indicator in each subject area. Here it is important to get these specific indicators into the substance of the discussion of each of the other 8 themes in the post 2015 development goals discussion, as well as in the discussions on the SDGs. Therefore once we have some agreement on these, we must consciously devote energy and time in introducing and advocating for these ideas in each respective e discussion.

Thinking about this and writing on it, as well as reflecting on the pros and cons of Tom’s 5 approaches, makes me realize how relatively complex, yet how crucial this is, and how flexible we will have to be in having options ready for the various turns that the negotiations on the post 2015 goals may take.

Looking forward to our further deliberations on this subject, in this round, and on the wider debate in “the world we want”.

Warmly,

LOY REGO

Dear Tom,


Thanks for the paper, it makes easier to navigate the options for this post 2015 debate. I will comment here around a few point, working on the assumption of a separate Disaster resilience goal plus strategically “embedded” indicators in other goals

1. Goals and indicators of Disaster resilience should be applicable at the international, national and local levels, simultaneously. We should be thinking in goals & indicators can be adopted in all jurisdictions, from small towns to the UN system. That would strengthen the goals’ value as good governance practice, opening space for local and international civil society organisations to call them to account if any jurisdictions, no matter how “local” is it, fails to provide DRR & DRM services to all citizens, no matter how poor or marginal. At the international level, it will probably contribute to articulate global CSO actions further, without affecting its functionality as a global target. This has other advantages:
• It provides incentives for the standardisation of disaster data across countries and regions
• It captures the impact of extensive risk, rendered invisible by “global-only” targets.

2. Quantitative indicators should include not just loss of lives but also loss of livelihoods, as the paper rightly points. The choice of goals of indicators to measure “loss of livelihoods” is critical to ensure the invigorating effect of the HFA in disaster risk management has continuity in the Global goals. The indicators should bring to the light the importance of losses suffered by poor people, lost in insurance-focus databases and in GNP data. I suggest using sub-indicators such as:
• Number of people displaced and receiving humanitarian assistance due to natural disasters.
• Losses of key assets (homes, crops/ livestock, business facilities or physical equipment such as fishing vessels). The possibility of quantifying “loss of jobs” in interesting but difficult to apply; for instance, it will automatically render informal economy invisible.


3 There should be a target for the percentage of ODA dedicated to DRR. I’d suggest either 2.5% or 5%, based on the evidence that it is currently around 1% (Kellet & Sparks, 2012). . A separate target can be set for the percentage dedicated to DRR in relief and early recovery funds -10% seems to be the typical donors’ pledge of donors right now, so we can considering increasing it and, possibly, adding qualitative indicators to ensure it goes to support poor and marginal people rather than being spent in physical infrastructure or absorbed by profit-taking schemes.