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

I will certainly agree that it is extremely important to mainstream DRR into all national development planning. This has been neglected but can no longer continue to be neglected. There is now even more reason for reconstruction and development to accommodate reductions in both physical and socio-economic vulnerabilities to hazards. Failing this now could result in further catastrophes and severe impact on the lives of the vulnerable population and on the economy overall. It will no doubt be the vulnerable population who will suffer most as has been the case always. I may say that in my country Fiji, there is considerable importance given to tackling disaster related risks. Long term planning efforts seem very positive with the government allocating far better budget for 2013 towards infrastructure development in the country. This is highly commendable.The government surely realizes that infrastructure development esp .rural infrastructure development will help a lot in further development of the nation and at the same time assist in DRR. (eg. a better bridge constructed will minimize damage, keep transport link alive during disasters,etc.) Actions are taken by the state to control gravel extraction and ensure sustainable logging practices which have an impact on flooding and siltation. So yes there are moves in that direction to see that any development that takes place considers the long term implications . However, there is lot more work that needs to be done in that direction. Disasters do not exclusively belong to disaster relief and rehabilitation sector. Mainstreaming DRR into all development planning (agriculture , mining, fishing, construction industry, tourism) for better livelihood for all and better national economy overall is crucial.
Pardeep Lal.
Fiji.

I agree with Pardeep Lal -- mainstreaming DRR into all development planning supports better livelihoods and better national economy overall. The fact that gov’t in Fiji is taking steps in this direction is no surprise.

We (UNISDR, UNDP and partners) have been working with several countries through a program called MADRiD (Mainstreaming Adaptation and Disaster Reduction Into Development) based in Incheon, Korea. The initiative focuses on strengthening multi-stakeholder teams of advocates (often comprising Parliamentarians, disaster management organizations, development/sectoral planning agencies, climate change authorities, national hydro-met services and national training/educational institutions). What is remarkable is how many sectoral and development planning ministries already have interest and have taken initiative in DRR and climate change adaptation.

One of the challenges seems to be that efforts are fragmented and often inconsistent in their delivery. I’ve heard several references to the importance of 1) national platforms and coordination, 2) governance/legislative frameworks, 3) national mechanisms for scaling-up capacities/awareness and 4) standardized tools and instruments.

I am eager to hear other views on the role these play in mainstreaming and what else would be needed to make mainstreaming more effective post-2015.

Glenn

Dear participants,

Many thanks to Pardeep (Fiji), Earl (US), Glenn (Korea) and Rabah (Algeria) for your posts from 4 continents.

Pardeep succinctly states the key message “mainstreaming DRR into all development programs supports better livelihoods and better national economy overall” and gives us interesting examples of this approach in rural infrastructure development. Earl emphasizes the need to build in the requirement of higher standards of resilience into the project planning and financial approval process, and promote awareness of available manuals on such construction techniques.

Rabah emphasizes the need for an agreed national framework and effective coordination, with involvement of relevant stakeholders including Universities. Glenn introduces the MADRiD program, which is focused on building up multi stakeholder teams in countries, and shares a positive outlook on the proactive role planning and development ministries are already playing.

We look forward to hearing more from different parts of the world about the activities of planning and sectoral ministries, and technical institutions doing the support work and your experiences, lessons learned and ideas to move ahead.

Warmly,
LOY

Dear Loy,
Despite I didn’t contribute to the previous rounds because of lack of time (sorry for this), I would like to give you some comments on this final round which seems to me of great importance as it gather all the remarks and the discussions of the other rounds. “Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Sustainable Development (SD) is really the key question to be addressed. Complex question? Not sure! Difficult question to be implemented in the field? For sure! And why? There is not doubt that all those questions should be addressed globally within a unique question, withing a unique global answer, even if different tools might be used in the same time. For sure you will not find a balanced answer to DRR, CCR and SD if all those questions are not addressed in a unique approach; because of different reasons I would like to point out hereafter:
- The territory is a global system with 3 main components (environment, economy - building and human activities, and social environment - Human Welfare ...) and a lot of sub-components. All those components interact,
- the different actors (regulators, urban-planners, businessmen, tourists, inhabitants, local-decision makers …) don’t have the same interest and the same responsibility. They don’t want to gain in the same component or sub-component. And whenever you gain with one (sub)component you may loose with the other ones (because the territory is a global system interacting).
Implementing DRR as it is not sufficient. Balance should be found in the field between all the different actors, through discussion and negotiation. Consensus might not be found? That’s normal. Interest and responsibility might be contradictory if not conflicting.
The fact is that in the field, among local decision-makers and population, you can’t address DRR and CCA without development objectives that have of course to be sustainable. You can’t first speak about problem (DRR and CCA), but you have to stard development, positive impacts / evolution, else you won’t be followed. We have to admit that in this global game where you try to build a balanced solution (maybe not the best for all components), actors are going to loose. That’s the reality. Some will loose, even if the majority is supposed to gain. Those looser shall be helped / compensated outside of the solution found.
That’s how local decision-makers work. Difficult work … especially if you want to be (re)elected.
Which are the tools: money of course, but that’s not enough. New global integrated approaches territory-based, not only community-based using dynamic systemic modelling tools. Land planning and development are the key issues.
In-field examples and solutions are needed. Convincing people through examples! We need to address in the same time the following key questions: “what is an acceptable risk”, “what are you ready to pay to further reduce the risk, to improve the resiliency of he city or the population face to climate change, to reduce vulnerability”. Sustainable development via sustainable investment and budget. We can’t afford everything for each component. Where are we ready to loose (for which component) to globally win?
This global approach is at this time poorly implemented in all the countries because of the segmentation of the administration. Ministry in charge of DRR might not be the same as the one in charge of CCA and SD. In France, they recently gather in a unique pot all those ministries. They do start to implement integrated approach, they do understand that political answer shall be global. However, they are lacking of tools, methodologies and good examples. Those ones exist.
best,
Eric

Dear Participants,

Thanks to Humberto, Eric, and Jalil for sharing insights on the actions initiated, and the challenges faced in implementing this core strategic goal of the HFA, in Latin America, France and Pakistan.

Eric points us to the harsh reality of mainstreaming in addressing what is” acceptable risk”, what each area is ready to invest to enhance resilience, and how to balance the interests of diverse groups who are differentially impacted by risk. Such tradeoffs become even more difficult to negotiate at different scales, especially at trans-boundary and global levels. He sees progress, though slow, and stresses the need to increase availability of and access to tools, and sharing workable examples. Himadri, in his post on DRR CCA linkages, argued clearly on the need to mainstream in all social development sector. Jalil lists the range of development sectors across which DRR mainstreaming needs to happen, and expresses hope about the work initiated by NDMA and the Planning Commission of Pakistan in both development planning, and recovery implementation.

Humberto shared with us the outcomes of the 3rd regional platform of the Americas which met last week in Santiago, Chile and affirmed the need for integration of resilience into sustainable development decision making. Read more at https://www.unisdr.org/archive/29886 The UN General Assembly yesterday stressed linkages between DRR and long term development planning and asked governments to give appropriate consideration to disaster risk reduction within the post-2015 development agenda. Read more on https://www.unisdr.org/archive/29980

What barriers have been faced in other countries? What tools are available and used? What progress has been made in mainstreaming in particular sectors? What results have been achieved? How can we strengthen mainstreaming in the post 2015 framework? We welcome your experiences and views.

Warmly,

LOY

In response to the question raised earlier in the dialogue, ‘What are the experiences in your country on mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into development planning and sectors? What are the lessons learned?’

Since the disaster crisis in Japan, vulnerability is increasing. Disaster losses and climate change impacts raise negative effects for land management, agricultural productions, fisheries industries, water quality and supply, ecosystems and the built environment. Above and beyond the Hyogo Framework of priority for action, national level and global implications, lessons learned is to find solutions that evolve locally and be supported in parallel by institutional levels, global knowledge and experiences.

Dear participants,

Thanks to Tomoko and Naunehal for their latest posts in the closing phase of this round.

Tomoko reiterates that in order to reverse the wide ranging potential adverse consequences of disasters on agricultural production, fisheries, industries, water quality and supply, ecosystems, land management and the built environment; and avoid impacts on livelihoods and poverty, health and education, psychosocial well-being and gender relations; mainstreaming DRR is essential across development planning and sectors.

Naunehal reminds us ‘lack of adherence to DRR conscious construction was the common cause’ of extensive loss of lives, losses and destruction in the Pakistan Earthquake of 2005 that flattened educational institutions, health facilities, communication facilities (roads and bridges), telecommunications, water and sanitation facilities and private housing across 9 districts. In response ERRA introduce the integration of DRR in reconstruction with help of SDC, and later NDMA and Planning commission initiated the mainstreaming of DRR into development, benefiting from the past work of Provention, Tearfund and ADPC. He cites that development partners provide support to the local communities for rebuilding their lives and houses but these houses get washed again in the next floods, and calls for learning from Bangladesh who saved lives and assets by introducing the concept of stilted housing in the river basin. He recognizes that Pakistan is still far from being a DRR compliant country, and needs to pursue awareness raising at the local, sub-national and national levels.

These mesh well with the wide ranging expression of views in the 13 posts from 8 countries namely Fiji, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, Panama, USA, Algeria, and France.

The view that “mainstreaming DRR supports better livelihoods and better national economy overall” is mutually shared. We identified the need for mainstreaming in all social development sectors (education, health, gender, children and youth development) as well as in agriculture, infrastructure, critical installations, construction, urban/rural planning, industries, transportation, financial institutions and natural resource management. and for An agreed national framework and effective coordination led by the national and sub national planning systems, higher standards of resilience to be built into the project planning and financial approval process, and involvement of all relevant stakeholders including Universities is helpful to advance implementation. Pakistan’ experience of DRR mainstreaming initiated by NDMA and the Planning Commission in both development planning, and recovery implementation was reported. Participants shared experience of the MADRiD program, focused on building up multi stakeholder teams in countries, the outcomes of the 3rd regional platform of the Americas which met last week in Santiago, Chile and the UN General Assembly resolution passed this week that stressed linkages between DRR and long term development planning.

Several challenges in mainstreaming were identified a) what is” acceptable risk”, b) what each area is ready to invest to enhance resilience, c) how to balance the interests of diverse groups who are differentially impacted by risk. d) how to negotiate tradeoffs at trans-boundary and global levels e) develop and implement national coordination arrangements f). how to increase availability of and access to tools, and planning instruments g) deliver awareness raising and capacity building efforts h) scale up fragmented efforts and ensure consistency in their delivery i) share workable examples, f) effectively use existing resources such as available handbooks on mainstreaming practices in specific sectors and manuals on safe construction techniques

This is one theme that will continue to engage us, during current HFA implementation, as we craft the new framework and long into its implementation as we expand the practice of reshaping development to make risk reduction a “no-brainer” part of routine decision making in all sectors in the decade(s) ahead.

We will need to gather further examples of good practice, reflect further to glean what not to do and what to do better, and develop and hone our tools and practices in different contexts and levels of governance around the world. May this start up on line discourse be the base of a continued dialogue and partnership of governments, institutions, and programs working to realize the unfinished strategic goal 3 of HFA.

Warmly,

LOY