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

Disasters are of two categories: (i) man made and (ii) natural disasters. There exists major difference between these two. On my side, it is necessary to study and learn about both of them in order to widen my knowledge on how each one occurs and therefore to enable me to have various ways of looking for safety measures.

My expectation is to gain more knowledge about cause, nature and extent of disasters from all participants in this dialogue so that I can compare with what I have witnessed in my country. This is the same to all measures which have been taken against disasters in my fellow’s country compared to mine.

I hope that these contributions help to form the DRR actions framework for all countries in the world. I am pleased to be a part of such a study.

I’m excited to see level of participation, but I hope that organizations and individuals working outside of DRR, such as sustainable development, humanitarian relief, climate change, biodiversity and conservation, will also participate. I believe one of the key opportunities we have is to integrate or mainstream DRR into these related issues.

Three issues I’d like to discuss in subsequent rounds, and these comments echo some of the earlier posts --

• How can we integrate DRR into the broad frameworks of the millennium development goals and sustainable development, climate change adaptation, post-disaster recovery and humanitarian relief efforts.

• More focus on restoration of ecosystems and the services and benefits they provide. Thinking about ecosystems helps bridge the divide between rural and urban. For example, protecting and restoring watersheds spans rural to urban geographies and provides important short and long-term co-benefits, such as:
o mitigate the impact of floods and landslides;
o improve food security;
o provide for rural and urban livelihoods.

• Community-based DRR: providing tools, training and funding; case studies and model programs; engaging stakeholders and membership-based organizations, including residents of informal settlements.

I just received my master’s degree in urban planning from University of California, Los Angeles, and my area of interest is urban ecosystems and informal settlements.

Bradley Cleveland
Los Angeles, CA USA

Hola, de Perú, trabajo en el Ministerio de Cultura y mi preocupación actual es la conservación de las expresiones arquitectónicas de nuestro patrimonio cultural frente a los desastres naturales, sin embargo me interesa la gestión de riesgos en general. Estuve en la zona de atención de desastres por el terremoto de Ica-Perú 2007. En esta oportunidad espero aprender, aportar ideas e intercambiar experiencias sobre el mejoramiento de la resilencia de nuestras ciudades y las acciones de prevención para salvaguarda del patrimonio cultural.

Agradezco por la amplitud del tema y la inclusión que se ha dado a muchas personas en cuanto al manejo de RRD

En vista a lo que ha sucedido en los ultimos dias en mi pais, se ha notado en gran magnitud la participación de los personas que han enfrentado alguna emergencia o desastre y esto ocurre por el nivel de participacion que se le ha dado.

Asimismo, se ha notado en los paises de la region, donde podemos decir que en muchos casos los pueblos rebasan la participación del estado. Es por ello que creo que es necesario se realice un compromiso con todos los estados para que contribuyan a la formación de las personas a que conozcan aun mas de resiliencia. Que es? Como sucede? Quienes contribuyen a esto? Como ayudan los gobiernos? Hasta donde es su alcance?.

En resumen, creo que los gobiernes debe involucrar cada dia mas a las personas en cuanto al manejo de emergencias y desastres y si es posible darles aun mas basamentos legales que les permitan sostener esta labor.

En la actualidad, se ha conformado un gremio de profesionales (Colegio de Administradores de Desastres), donde se manejan 3 directrices:

1.- Velar por la seguridad social y laboral del profesional, donde se le garantice todos los beneficios obtenidos por la ley incluyendo la formación y actualización del perfil del profesional tanto a nivel nacional como internacional.

2.- Contribuir a la formación comunitaria para la RRD, haciendo mucha enfasis a la prevención. Haciendo las comunidades resilientes

3.- Participar en las acciones de las instituciones del estado en materia de emergencias y desastres, teniendo en cuanta el respeto a las competecias de cada quien.

Hi,
I’m an emergency manager working for the state government here in Melbourne, Australia.
I would like to see the consultation draw on a wide range of views to develop a post 2015 framework.
One key area that I would like to see a focus on is engaging with children and young people as a key component of the framework. This demographic are able to make a significant contribution in all settings, rural, urban, developed and developing nations.
Positive engagement with young people to increase DRR will also assist communities to increase resilience to disasters.
So I wonder if there will be opportunity for young people to be engaged during this consultation stage of this process?
Best regards,
Susan.

Hi Loy... Glad to see that you are facilitating this on-line dialogue. Will be rewarding.

I will make more contributions later, but for now, I would like to ask whether there was any meaningful review of the HFA. I am not against the HFA and/or the development of the post-HFA framework, but I think we will have to reflect the value of HFA (and associated global initiatives) before moving forward. Has it been useful? Appropriate for all levels – global, regional, national, sub-national and communities? What about efficiency and effectiveness? What are other lessons?

I have seen many progress reports, but I have not come across any reports that have addressed such issues/concerns. The closest I can get was several chapters from the two Global Assessment Reports, but again not thorough enough.

Jeong

Hi Greeting!
This is Suneet from India
My expectations are;
1. Hoping to see the emergence of Different DRR models for different terrain conditions or can say for different ecological zones.
2. DRR should have "Sustainable Hazard Mitigation Approach".
3. More decentralised way and the maximum participation and views of communities ( CBDM).
4. However the "Indigenous Knowledge" of rural world will always help to strengthen the DRR.
5. A real time monitoring and "Intervention by High Tech Tools" (RS/GIS/ GPS/Ham radios and the available technological information dissemination) for strengthening the DRR. ( A fine blending of indigenous knowledge and modern know how will help to create fruitful DRR.
6. A part of DRR should incorporate the orientation, awareness, workshops and preparation of database and action plan through "Future generation" i.e. School children of Global village.

Hello all ,,,
firstly let me thank UNISDR for starting on this dialogue , iam working at civil defence and i think this disscussion will be usuful and important .
we must all the world work as one community in disaster risk reduction plan because there is no anyone and no community is save from disaster as they say invest today to save tomorrow , therfore we must working in all side such setting the plans , supporting participation all the members of comunity in disaster risk reduction and start thinking for the next step in development process .

best reards for all participants

We, at UN Women Pakistan, feel that it’s a great initiative to give voice to the grassroots realities. We congratulate and support UNISDR in the process. Over the years, the debate around DRR has come a long way but still holistic efforts are required to understand and integrate gender concerns as an important pillar of the development agenda. We look forward to hear how and what can be done to better address the needs of women and girls in disaster resilience.

Good luck from our side.

Maira Zahur
UN Women
Pakistan

Thank you for initiating and facilitating this online dialogue forum. My expectations from this consultation process are:
1) Exchange of more practical oriented ideas that help to refine the tools and approaches used in identifying, assessing and monitoring disaster risks (related to extreme events such as flood and drought) and enhancing the early warning capacity of poor communities.
2) The progress made and challenges faced in achieving the goals and priorities of the Haygo framework for action 2005-2015 in different countries and inform the design of the post 2015 framework in mainstreaming DRR in development programs

Best regards,
Nega

Susan Davie said:

Hi,
I’m an emergency manager working for the state government here in Melbourne, Australia.
I would like to see the consultation draw on a wide range of views to develop a post 2015 framework.
One key area that I would like to see a focus on is engaging with children and young people as a key component of the framework. This demographic are able to make a significant contribution in all settings, rural, urban, developed and developing nations.
Positive engagement with young people to increase DRR will also assist communities to increase resilience to disasters.
So I wonder if there will be opportunity for young people to be engaged during this consultation stage of this process?
Best regards,
Susan.

I am Urban Planner and I have been working in development sector since last elevan years with national, international and UN organizations. At present serving with Malteser International Pakistan Program as National DRR Advisor. I worked with UNDP for four years in earthquake affected areas of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtonkhwa.As State DRM Coordinator i also contributed as member of Technical Committee for the preparation of National DRM Plan of Pakistan (2012-2022) by NDMA and JICA and also contributed my inputs in the formulation of National DRR Policy of Pakistan.

As a Programme Officer DRR completed a successful CBDRM project from the platform of ERRA in nine EQ affected districts funded by World Bank.

Expectations:

I am expecting a concrete and realistic out comes after this comprehensive consultation towards development of post 2015 framework. So far lot of work has been done in the field of DRR in different countries but there is a huge coordination gap among stakeholders, especially among donors also. Effective horizental and vertical coordination mechanism is lacking. There is a need to improve coordination to avoid duplication and save resources. To achieve set objectives and to touch milestones of HFA priorities, regional coordination is important. Which i expect that this consultation will bring ideas to devise an effective coordination mechansim.

Instead of haphazard interventions , need to develop national DRM plans to systemize disaster management system and emphasize on mainstreaming DRR into local development planning process.

Expecting a SMART post 2015 framework.

Fayyaz Hussain Shah
National Advisor DRR
Malteser International Pakistan

Thanks for initiating this open discussion. I hope that the post 2015 framework will make room for two topics that involve a more expansive agenda than in the past. First, it would be good to enlarge the permanent constituency for DRR by making common cause with groups that may or may not have a direct stake in hazardous places but nonetheless play important roles in what happens therein. I am thinking here of people that are neither technical/scientific experts, government officials or victims but mainly laypersons who have a strong say in what ultimately gets done through their roles as opinion leaders, voters and taxpayers. Second, we should not be shy about including the hazard problems of more affluent communities in the framework's purview; if poor places succeed in managing their existing risks they will likely face many unfamiliar risks that are now emerging in better-provisioned communities.

Thanks Margareta W. for additional guidance.
I think, the disaster events took the destructive momentum taking long time since the industrial revolution after the 2nd WR. The contribution from HFA 2005-15 (only 10 years) could just start to ‘move on’. Measureable initiatives and efforts have been making from ISDR, governments and other institutions and agencies. I think, the increasing disaster events are much stronger and higher than those of the DRR efforts. As a result, all significant initiatives and numerous progresses made by ISDR and governments are not visible. So, post-HFA efforts should strengthen to carry out the HAF-1 (2005-15)’s on-going activities and HAF-2 (2016-25?) should add some more priority actions based on the changing situations. Then there will be a relation between HFA-1 and HFA-2.

So, what I expect; ISDR analyses and considers the recommendations of the GAR, Midterm Review of HFA progress and VFL reports (as VFL bears the progress from local government and civil society where disaster hits) and other reports that bear the progress information of HFA implementation.

I would expect there should be 3 more ‘priority for actions’ to be added in the post-HFA framework; 1) gender mainstreaming in legislation, policy and programme/progress (as it is a cross-cutting issue), 2) role of children in DRR and 3) pandemic preparedness (we do not wish but in case pandemic affects, the catastrophe will be beyond the estimation).

There are several successful stories made by the HFA; it could move forward the world to think and make efforts in DRR, many governments integrated the HFA in their national policy and strategy like SNAP, (there are some good examples in Cambodia like other countries), Development partners and NGOs in collaboration with governments have been working very closely; DRR issues could unite the global and regional organizations, governments, Development partners and non-government organizations to work for a common ‘DRR and CCA’ goal significantly; multi-stakeholder DRR platform is another excellent example and contribution of the HFA, The DRR multi-stakeholder platform could bear the DRR messages from the national to grass-root vulnerable communities even the platform itself is at infancy level, The DRR platforms bridge the government and community people where CSOs play the role of a catalyst that made a substantial progress in disaster risk literacy advancement. Many government officials were unaware on DRR. They believed ‘disaster’ limits within ‘response’ but the HFA through governments, non-government agencies and different programmes like VFL could carry out the theme to the grass-root level that made a tremendous contribution to make vulnerable people literate in DRR.

These excellent successes in government’s mechanisms should be strengthened; ISDR’s role should be more visible and increased supports to government and CSOs; there are examples of effective coordination still it should be strengthened, money is not everything but it is something very important. So more money flow for integrated /coordinated approaches should be increased;
Akhteruzzaman Sano
Save the Earth Cambodia
[email protected]