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

Today it become a challenge for all over the world how to overcome the Disaster Risk. i appreciate the steps forward for consultation and process from different school of thought how they look and what they think, after all give valuable suggestion and recommendation for improvement

Hi this is Shazia Haris Advisor Media ERRA, from Islamabad Pakistan. As you know Pakistan not only faced one of the worlds worst earthquake in 2005, but has been facing unprecedented floods and a massive challange of recontruction and rehabilitation of the affectees.

Though Pakistan presents a good case study of national and international partners efforts to reconstruct and rehabilitate affectees of earthquake affected areas, however, one of the biggest challange was managing expectations of the affectees and the donros during all these years. I hope the psychological aspects, and sepcially use of national and international media as a partner in notonly post disaster reconstruction but in disaster risk reduction are focused in this consultative period.

We did have support from world bank on communication strategy, however, we found at times the meaning of communication versus media management and information dissemination remains ambiguous, with western counteries far ahead and the host country not fully understanding the demands of the funding agency. I wish that those who have been dealing with media in a disaster stricken country, specially representing the governmental agency become part of this dialogoue as they can give vital information to design programs for information dissemination and awareness raising as accepted culturally and not as per the demand of the donor agencies, which are deemed to fail as they do not fit the congnitive mindset that needs to be changed. The disaster prone behaviour at times is culturally nurtured, and to reduce risk taking and promote safety oriented behavioral change more and more people from the disaster hit counteries need to be part of the dialogue.

I also expect that this forum will generate finds or at least recommend for funds for travel and stay expences of experts from third world or developing counteries as most of the time the south asian counteries can not have representation in such forums or conferences due to governments rules for no funding for travel abroad, which as a result leeds to lack of information of how to manage disasters in developing counteries in donor agencies and monitory funding bodies. Hope all this make some sense,

Regards and wishes,

Shazia Haris
Advisor Media ERRA
Ph 9030944

Larger elements of DRR are definitely improved in many countries if we compare with the pre-HFA period. However, what is lagging currently is nitty gritties of DRR are still not being effectively managed (aspects such as mainstreaming into institutional processes, insufficient DRR funding, and unclear and insufficient regulations).

I would like to see these that these nitty gritties of DRR are effectively addressed at national and sub-national systems so that DRR becomes a culture and not treated as a separate process to a greater extent.

To add, another nitty gritty of DRR that hasn't improved much is availability of reliable information on risks, vulnerabilities and capacities for decision making at various stages of disaster management for both institutions and individuals.

Prabhakar Sivapuram said:

Larger elements of DRR are definitely improved in many countries if we compare with the pre-HFA period. However, what is lagging currently is nitty gritties of DRR are still not being effectively managed (aspects such as mainstreaming into institutional processes, insufficient DRR funding, and unclear and insufficient regulations).

I would like to see these that these nitty gritties of DRR are effectively addressed at national and sub-national systems so that DRR becomes a culture and not treated as a separate process to a greater extent.

Many thanks for initiating this noble initiative. This discussion should be able to interrogate current approaches and thinking around DRR with a view to come up with an approach/model that is based on evidence of what works, an approach that is context-specific and multisectoral. Post 2015, we should have a DRR model that not only builds up from what has been known to work but also easily operationalizable at community and country level. A model that is not only easy to understand and translate into action but also informed by the specifics of each disaster scenario.

Good luck!

Maxwell V Madzikanga - Public Health Specialist, UK

Thanks for this opportunity.
I think that the consultation process is one of the major medium through which extensive and objective ideas on DRR can be collated from experts with diverse perception and from different fields of specialization.
I therefore expect that, with these contributions, the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction will have a 'holistic' framework for mitigating disasters and also build resilient nations.
Thank you

First of all, I should commend the effort made and initiative taken by starting this dialogue.

The expectations are always high. However, we should confine these expectations and recognize what practically we can do... My expectations from the consultation process would be:

1) Our focus should be the ground realities and our solutions to the problems should be according to the ground situations.
2) We cannot weigh the whole world into one basket as the geographical, geophysical and geo-social characteristics of different parts of the world are different... The consultation process should be focusing on first of all taking into account the situations at every part of the world, should assess the real reasons and accordingly work out a real solution.
3) Sometimes only funding is not a solution... We need to work with the local societies for better management and devising better practices...
4) Since the natural catastrophes cannot be controlled, however, we can take measures to adapt to such catastrophes,,,
5) The consultation process should take notes from all parts of the world and devise integrated management and planning structure that can help in rescuing when such events may occur
6) The consultative process must involve the governments, fix some responsibilities over them and bind them to present some workable solutions, suggestions and ideas... The concerned government departments should be made responsible enough for better inputs, comprehensive dialogues in and among the nations, and establishing a better responsive set up.
7) End of the day, the framework developed must conform to the geophysical and geosocial characteristics. It should have the flexibility to intake and mold according to ground situation and requirements. The system established should be easy to implement and approachable.
8) The weakness of previous framework should be taken into account and their reasons should be dig out so that these should be eradicated.
9) We should not focus to policy making, but should develop working mechanism who can implement ofcourse with the support of the representative governments. Respective governments should be given targets in this regard.
10) Climate change and climatic disasters are big issues, but the real solution at present is to adapt to such changes. A working model may be established that can forecast and predict the changes to the extent possible, ready to cope with upcoming new situations, build capacities of the locals to be prepared and easy to handle such situations.

Hoping to hear good from your sides and goodluck for your initiative.

Regards,

Irfan Yousuf, AEDB, Pakistan

Hi Loy and All who have already joined the discussion!

As expectations, I like to echo views of others (and the background paper) for stronger emphasis on practice specifically at the local and community level

May be technology is a missing area or not explicit topic in the background paper?

Low progress on the PfA 4 has been consistently highlighted at the GARs and HFA reviews. In addition to a stronger emphasis on work on the PfA 4 as some of you have already mentioned, the background paper also highlights the need to focus on PfA 1. The PfA 1 is about governance, local level implementation with multi-stakeholder participation and gender perspectives in disaster risk reduction. There is still a limited progress achieved on assessments, engagement and institutional structures at the local level. In this context, we believe how technology has been or not been used in the fight against disaster deaths and losses needs to be looked at.

I suggest that we have a discussion on technology justice in DRR in a subsequent round

Look forwrad to hear your views

Best wishes

Vishaka

Thank you for this not only urgent but also important initiative.

What are my expectations from this consultation process? I personally hope that many diverse stakeholders can be reached through this consultation and that they are encouraged to express their views.

Furthermore, to tackle the challenge of finding the balance having very 'specific' discussions but also finding the necessary 'general' overviews.

Thematic-wise and from the point of view of an urban development & reconstruction specialist, I would welcome the following topics, amongst others:
- Governance/institutional capacities and DRR
- Responsibilities of stakeholders/actors in DRR
- Role of national and local level authorities/governments
- How to finance DRR measurements?
- What are institutional ways to integrate DRR in national strategies, master plans, local settlement plans?

This is a list of some topics; there are many more themes to discuss....

Best regards,
Claudia Schneider
Skat - Swiss Resource Centre and Consultancies for Development
St.Gallen, Switzerland

Friends;

Seven countries have now adopted "Cell Broadcast" as one of their means of mass messaging for disaster warnings. Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Netherlands, USA, Chilea, and Israel. Cell Broadcast is an existing technology which is embedded in mobile phones. It is rarely used, but has found application in mass scale public warning during the acute phase of the disaster.

It is interesting because it is able to deliver hundreds of millions of messages even when the network is in full overload, and also deliver different messages to each neighborhood, by a completely passive means. SMS in its present form has problems wth these two conditions. Cell Broadcast delivers its message to the nomal mobile phones that many people already have, so It is effective and very low cost.

However there are interesting differences between one national deployment and the next, with each country having slightly different priorities. I believe that we need an open platform for the sharing of best practices between member states, so that lessons can be learned, and best practices promoted.

I propose to edit a report on "Best Practices in Cell Broadcast public warning applications" in time for the 2015 conferece.

Member states who have adopted CB (or other technologies some of which are complementary) should be encouraged to submit informaiton on thier implementation, along with practical examples of best and worst practices at their discretion. Contractors and private sector suppliers sould also be encouraged to submit technical details regarding their products and services, for the kind attention and inspection of prospective deployers.

By 2015 many more countries will have adopted cell broadcast and collecting this information will be a much appreciated service to nations considering their own special conditions.

Mark Wood, Disaster Relief Communications Foundation.

Greetings! Jyotiraj Patra has captured the essence of my expectations. I hope that through this and other consultations a strong consistuency will emerge to advocate for the importance of disaster prevention as a key element of DRR: programming it, financing it and monitoring it in a way that is streamelined and sustained. Kind regards.

Hi,

I agree with Vishaka that technologies role (both high/low) should be discussed in DRR. How do technology choices impact community reslience? How can technology best assist cities/communities to be both sustainable and resilient? How can policy makers better regulate against technology/man-made risks that affect communities? To what extent should public bodies rely on private organisations to manage critical infrastructure?

Looking forward to sharing views with other members of the DRR community.

Best Regards
Samantha Ueno (UK)

Hi colleagues,

I have learnt through these international dialogues that :-
1 Population demographics projections show that cities will attract lot more population in the next few decades to come comparing population rise in urban Vs rural areas
2 Most of these population centres will have much higher rates of increase in population compared to rural population vs overal population growth.
3 Most of these cities are coastal & on river banks
4 Cities being on water boundaries may be at higher risks for various national calamities associated with water like floods, overflowing rivers / canals, increased rains locally etc
5 Cities in developing & low income countries have limited understanding & perception on the development of resilience against such calamities to counter / absorb these effects
6 Cities management need to link , network, share, find funding resources, develop fostering relationships to make progress in developing resilience in their infrastructure to take up that daunting challenge.

Regards
Dr. Noman F Qadir
[email protected]

Hello from Ethiopia,
This is what I would like to see happen in the post 2015 HFA:
bridge the gap between DRR and conservation of nature organizations which are strongly contributing to Priority 4 - reduce the underlying risk factors (sustainable ecosystems and environmental management), which is not getting sufficient attention. Conservation organizations are not included in the DRR platforms and yet should be a strong partner in reducing risk.

If anyone wishes to send me info on this theme, i would be very interested...as well as continuing the discussion.

Claire

I welcome you all participated in this great interactive forum Towards a post-2015 framework for DRR.

May I introduce as one of your online colleague started my DRR profession in 2003 in the Department of Agricultural Extension under the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Bangladesh. The projects are: Support to the Strengthening Disaster Preparedness Project (FAO-BGD project) and Livelihood and Adaptation to Climate Change Project (FAO-CDMP-DAE).

I also worked for 'Technical Review on Mitigation Options (Agricultural) In Areas Prone to Climate Change under DRR project of Concern Worldwide, Bangladesh and subsequently I privileged to do Mid Term Evaluation of the 'Disaster Risk Reduction Approach in areas prone to climate change in Bangladesh’.

I have my major interests in adaption options in DRR approach especially negative impact in agricultural production (broad agriculture) and mostly concentrated to the seasonal flood, flash flood, tropical cyclone in Bangladesh. The area I worked includes coastal zone, low lying char area (accreted river belt) and haor and beel (very low lying) of Bangladesh.

I've a great expectation to learn and share input through joining this conversation with the international think tanks, policy makers and intellectual professional of the DRR issues in the globe.

With best regards,
Md. A. Rashid Sikder
ARAB, Bangladesh