What top three elements should be addressed in the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction?
  • Dear participants;

    Yesterday was World Habitat Day (Oct 1st), with its theme of “I am a city changer” having deep resonance for all of us who are striving to make our cities safer and resilient to disasters.

    I greet you today on the International Day of Non-Violence ( Oct 2nd) , the 143rd birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. Dogged , persistent standing up for causes we believe in, was a key message that ‘the non-violent revolutionary’ preached, and is a worthwhile principle to adopt when working on an intransigent subject like DRR.

    The fourth thread of this round, and perhaps the most important for beginning discussion on the future framework , focusses our attention on a very simple and direct question :

    WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE POST-2015 FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION?

    This can be approached in a number of ways, and I do not want to curb any brainstorming and spontaneous responses to the question, which is one of the purposes of the dialogue. So do feel free to give all of us your thoughts, as they come, while ignoring the rest of what I write in this introductory announcement.

    This morning I received an email from an old friend , who is also a participant in this dialogue which says, “I think it is important any framework starts from the question of Principles, Approaches and Scope. We need that agreement in order to advance discussions on the details.” Last week in a discussion on the dialogue with a senior official from UNISDR, I was encouraged to “re-read the full text of the HFA, beyond the well-known priorities for action, so as to appreciate its context, the preamble, the expected outcome to be pursued till 2015, and the planned efforts for implementation and follow up.”

    I have begun doing so, and am stunned by the nuggets of wisdom and possibilities contained therein, which I believe we have not yet explored. I believe that in our exploration in the second thread of this round on how we accelerate HFA implementation in the coming three years, we can put into practice several important ideas and action points contained therein that will otherwise remain “words and commitments that we have not translated into action”. So please do dust off your old printed copy from your shelf, as I did, or download and read the HFA online at http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/framework and then go back to the second thread as well with renewed energy and a new endorsement of “old ideas that still have relevance”.

    In answering the question, let us try and focus on it's spirit, in line with the priority in this first phase of the consultation till May 2013, “to focus on the broader context and general substantive issues” and move into the form of the framework in the second phase.

    I look forward to your creative responses. In this thread, I will take off my facilitator hat and share some of my personal thoughts on the question in a later post.

    Warmly,

    LOY REGO
    Facilitator, On line dialogue on Post 2015 DRR Framework
  • WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE POST-2015 FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

    Dear friends I waited a lot for your comments but Mr Loy alone message invited me to say something about this.

    What I thinking in post 2015 HFA, three top elements are needed to be addressed are;
    1. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning
    2. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
    3. Reduce the underlying risk factors.

    Though these are the priorities of HFA 2005-2015 but still there is needed their continuation in future. There may be possibility that the developed countries have achieved a remarkable progress in these thematic areas but the developing world hardly have touched them up to now. These three thematic areas should be given further time to get better results and resilience. Along with these poverty reduction, climate change issues and human made hazards should also be addressed as sub topics.
  • Thanks Jalil.

    I too waited with bated breadth and with some disappointment that there was such a slow pace of any reaction to this question. I do hope that now that you have cast the first stone, that many others will join in.

    Lets us take the broadest view of this deliberately, open ended, very broad question to think expansively and if needed, outside the HFA box to think of

    i. areas or elements that were not covered very explicitly in HFA e.g. In the first round, Guro , Tesfaye/Maggie and John Scott mentioned the following were not addressed adequately i.e. children, elderly and indigenous people respectively.

    ii. elements that were mentioned but inadequately, like Sanjaya mentioned on recovery in the first round

    iii. areas that are inadequately highlighted and deserve elevation of some kind

    iv. different ways to deal the 4 cross cutting issues namely "multi hazard approach”, “Gender perspective and cultural diversity”, ‘Community and volunteers participation’ and “capacity building and technology transfer”

    As suggested in the introductory remarks on this round, we should all read the HFA document once again, either online or in hard copy. Some of us may like to comment on the other sections of the document beyond the best known “ Priorities for action 2005-2015”

    a. The preamble which also talks about the Yokohama strategy lessons learning review.

    b. The WCDR objectives and expected outcome of the 10 year period to 2015, and strategic Goals of HFA

    c. Implementation and follow up covering the roles of states, regional organisations, international organisations and ISDR; as well as the section on Resource Mobilization

    Some of you may want to suggest different ways and elements to incorporate in the new framework outside of the above structure of the current framework. I look forward to a more engaged dialogue on this subject

    LOY REGO
  • Dear Friends,
    My priorities are:
    1) Climate change adaptation, DRR and Development activities should be integrated.
    2) Reduce underlying Risk Factor with a special emphasis on Perception of Risk in risk analysis.
    3) Integration of Scientific knowledge with local knowledge and proper dissemination of Scientific knowledge.
    Thank you,
    Himadri
  • After the SREX Report of the IPCC, it is now well established that effective integration of climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk risk reduction (DRR) remains the key requirement for urgent actions. The Conference of Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC should act at the Doha meetings to effect this integration, including under the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and its stated objectives/functions/goals/targets. Often, DRR includes but not included by CCA.
    Under the UNISDR-UNFCCC joint framework that could be devised with the particiaption of other important organizations such as the UNDP, an overarching policy and implementation framework along provision of resources and enabling capacities (national and international) will help achieve broad-based but specific actionable plans in a time-bound manner. The cost-effectiveness of proposed integration has already been recognized in a number of studies and documents.
    Ths, the post-2015 Framework for DRR accords priority to:
    1. integration of resources and strategies for the governance of CCA and DRR;
    2. contributes to the enabling capacity development (national and international);
    3. ensures all member countries avail National Platforms for the design and implementation of effective strategies for DRR.
  • Greetings from a beautiful autumn's day in London
    My top three priorities for today are:
    1) Address the causes of vulnerability and exposure to low-severity high-frequency disasters (extensive risk) in low and low-middle income countries
    2) Develop a coherent holistic approach to strengthening resilience to shocks and stresses of all kinds (natural and man-made) that serves to integrate fragmented development policy frameworks (e.g. disasters / conflict / climate / poverty / food security / etc...)
    3) Invest in effective change processes that increase political commitment for strengthening resilience, mindful of the competing agendas and power dynamics between richer and poorer groups

    Here's hoping!

    Marcus
  • Dear Loy
    I had problem of “sign in”, but now solved, I hope, just in time for the dead line.
    My suggestions relate to “What top three elements should be addressed in the Post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction”, and partially to “How do we accelerate HFA implementation and enhance the momentum for DRR in the remaining three years till 2015”

    The three suggestions below are all for the promotion of community DRR, which have been consistently discussed in Global Platform meetings and MTR as well as online debates. I am calling for concrete actions.

    1. Setting target
    Please refer to Chair’s Summary of 2nd and 3rd Global Platform and MTR report: “setting targets can help to achieve the necessary momentum” and “would be helpful in encouraging governments, civil society…towards more accelerated implementation of HFA”. Targets were suggested for risk assessment, early warning systems etc.
    My suggestion is “targeting community DRR”. Each country should have a sheet to list up all high risk communities and to show achievement in the past and plan in the future for each community. Based on this country sheet, a regional sheet should be prepared by regional organization and a global sheet by UNISDR, which should be shown on the website of respective organizations so as to be accessible by any in the world. A good initiative has just been taken by CDEMA for the Caribbean Region. The Form being used will be sent to you by separate mail,which well illustrates the system.
    This monitoring will be helpful for government in implementation/budgeting in a more planned manner, and will make communities eager to accelerate DRR in competition with other communities in the country.
    It is suggested that an agreement will be made at Global Platform 2013 to adopt such a monitoring system and at World Conference 2015 to implement DRR in all priority communities in the time frame of post-2015 frame.

    2. Measurement of effectiveness of community DRR
    In order to obtain budget for DRR projects as required, it is necessary to explain their effectiveness to financial/planning authorities. We sometimes experience that we have no answer to the question from those authorities :“How effective are they?” Only saying “DRR is important” is not successful in view of many sectors competing for budget. This is particularly so for community DRR projects.
    I would suggest development of standards and indicators for numerical measurement applicable commonly to community projects in the world. It should not be very complicated. The methodologies of IFRC and other donors will be good references. CEPREDENAC tried to develop methodologies in 2007 but has not completed yet. This should be carried out as an action in post 2015 frame led by international organizations.
    Cost benefit analysis has been a topic of discussion in the past, but my suggestion is a part of that particularly on community DRR.

    3. Sharing knowledge and experiences
    “Indigenous Knowledge for Disaster Risk Reduction” presented at a special event of Global Platform 2009 is very useful, being referred to by many community projects. It contains 18 good practices of 14 Asian countries.
    Communities and assistance agencies have their own knowledge and experiences, and are pursuing further to develop them in new projects. They should be shared for wider application, however, as far as I know, no organization is willing to continue this activity. I would propose documentation of knowledge and experience at the moment, which should be updated with new information from time to time.
  • Among many elements that should be addressed in the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction are lessons learned from more recent natural disasters and in the near future. The current recovery process should be implemented into building resilience and creating best practice if possible. Trends indicate developed countries have engaged in progress for positive changes that could also be implemented towards recovery for developing countries. Public awareness and citizens’ response for natural hazards is becoming significant for disaster struck countries. Much of the panic and emergency could possibly be reduced by raising awareness and improved through education for everyday people. General suggestion of apathy from the public, especially in developed countries can be a concern and issues are only raised during the aftermath. Citizens seemed reluctant towards disaster preparedness but more inclined to debate subject matters and advocacy issues once the disaster occurs. International organizations and Disaster Risk Reductions address concerning issues and since the disasters are unpredictable, the importance remains priority as listed in one of the ‘five priority actions’. Some developing countries are prone to natural hazards and many have lived and survived through almost all kinds of natural disasters in their lifetime. The dialogue is an opportunity to strengthen and build resilience by global networks and gain valuable insights from practitioners and also at regional and local levels.
  • Dear colleagues registered in the dialogue and all visitors,

    Thanks to Jalil, Himadri, Krishna, Oi san, Marcus and Tomoko, we now have six distinct viewpoints, with some harmony, on what are three top elements to be considered in our next global framework.

    The past fortnight has been a post 2015 fortnight with the first week having the start of the 67th UN GA and the first meeting of the SG’s High Level Panel on the post 2015 Development Agenda. We had rich discussions in this week in Lao, Croatia and other parts of the world on the subject in regional (Asia and Europe) and national consultations on DRR and the post HFA. Next week large meetings of African civil society and academia on DRR and large CSOs in Washington DC will also discuss the subject of our current implementation of DRR and in the context of its future. The Global Network of Civil society on DRR (GNDR) will launch their own civil society online debate on post HFA. I have invited the organizers of these meetings to share information on the meetings themselves and encourage cross fertilization of thoughts and ideas across the meetings and this dialogue.

    We will keep several of these threads open for the next few days to receive additional posts on the three forward looking action oriented questions in this round. These are recurrent questions which will be asked and answered in different ways throughout the first phase of this consultative process, and we like to feel proud that the writers in this round, who are a healthy mix of fresh new voices and seasoned veterans; have been pioneers in igniting the discussion. I will continue my work on preparing summaries and planning ahead.

    As you can see from the bar on the title page, the next three rounds have also been announced. So too, mini dialogues on specialized themes are being planned by a wide and interesting range of partners, UN Agencies, NGOs, donor countries and activists who are represented on this page. If you would like to join any particular group in organising a mini dialogue, or propose one yourself, please write in on the forum or to me at regoloy@gmail.com or to UNISDR.

    Like always, looking forward to the views of others and reactions to the ideas expressed.

    Warmly,

    LOY
  • Dear Community Members,

    I think this is a brilliant opportunity for future thought processes and actions on DRR. First and foremost I see a some challenges related with the HFA itself, like the MDG it does not talk about any measurable indicators. when we are saying that HFA is a guiding document and commitment by various nations to reduce the impact of disasters there should be some tangible and measurable indicators associated with it. I see a problem that there might be difficulty in coming out with the indicators at the global level. Then there should be a directive in the HFA itself encouraging the nation states to come out with the same.

    Under the HFA there are five priority action points, I feel that during the last ten years some of the action points has been underachieved and not much emphasis has been given on the same. One for me is related with addressing the underlying risk factors. T he other one in the use of ICT ti build a culture of resilience. I think we need to put more emphasis on the same.

    Through my involvement in the HFA reporting for the period 2011-2013 I have come to realize that the reporting format gives the flexibility to be subjective and open to interpretation. This might lead to show casing under over achievement by some country. In turn we might not get a true global picture. We need to have a format which is more objective and focuses on evidence based reporting. The HFA reporting is voluntary on the nation states which I think should become mandatory.

    warm wishes

    Shakeb Nabi
  • Dear colleagues,

    I believe my comments are consistent with the earlier posts and the current framework. My top three elements are:

    1. The integration of climate change adaptation into the DRR framework. This is consistent with the current Priority 2, Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning, since climate change will have such a major impact on the frequency, severity and geography of future disasters,

    2. Investment in community-based DRR, and disseminate information on best practices. Again this is consistent with Priority 5, Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels, but I think there needs to be a more explicit recognition of local action to ensure community resilience.

    3. Place a higher priority on the importance ecosystem services and the value of natural capital in reducing the risk of disasters (Priority 4, Reduce underlying risk). Environmental protection and restoration, and the use of green infrastructure, also offer important co-benefits that can help justify the investment.

    Thanks,
    Bradley
    Los Angeles, CA
  • 1. Integrate disaster risk considerations into all Sustainable Development and Post 2015 planning, policies and programs with a special emphasis on disaster prevention and mitigation. Also encourage and increase global interdependence and concerted international cooperation to stimulate and contribute to developing the knowledge, capacities and actions needed for disaster risk reduction and mitigation at all levels;

    2. Invest greater percentages of development budgets and resources for the realization of risk reduction objectives at international, national and regional levels.
    Use these resources to implement integrated environmental management approaches that incorporate structural and non-structural measures, such as integrated flood management and appropriate management of fragile ecosystems such as those found in mountain regions.

    3. Promote fresh water along with the environments which maintain the water cycle and food security as important factors in ensuring the resilience of all communities to hazards, particularly in areas prone to drought, flood, cyclones and climate- related ecological disaster risks. Encourage and aid the sustainable use and management of Ecosystems, through major reforestation programs in highland areas, using mixed forests, which hold the land together and provide adequate drainage. This would mitigate many of the severe humanitarian problems resulting from land slides and flooding.



  • Dear Friends,
    To day is 8th October, it reminds the great earthquake of Pakistan which was worsely affected the nine districts of the northern part. The lives losses were beyond man imagination. This was also one of the mega disaster in the world history. The children, women and aged people were main victim of this catastrophe. What we learnt from that? Whether after that adverse situation there is some change for Disaster Management or still the conventional approach is there? I want to relate it with the question which is asked above; we have to make such strong arrangements setting Post 2015 DRR top priorities which enable us to reduce the impacts of such events in future.

    In this occasion I appeal all the international regional DRR Practitioners/Experts make sure transparency , merit, justice and commitment for DRR initiatives. So that we may help the planet most vulnerable people.
  • Good Morning everyone..........

    UN Women Pakistan is working on the DRR side of things since HFA. We have been through many disasters and worked to support Government of Pakistan’s structures, systems and processes at various level. UN Women has tried to engage with the civil society as well.

    Three important priority areas in the light of our work are following:

    • HFA has lots of acceptability in the developing world especially when there are recurring disasters. But still we need to go a long way to understand that disasters should be taken as if ‘developmental experts are missing something’. We somehow can’t go beyond hazards and analysis of vulnerabilities don’t take much attention A lens is required through which we can analyze disasters in the social, cultural, economic and political processes and realities. Post HFA should look into ways and avenues to work with a range of stakeholders around this.

    • Despite having a clear priority around how to assess the risk of disaster, not much attention was paid to. We feel some systematic focus should be given in the phase two.

    • HFA provided a framework to DRR. Despite having clear and clean priorities, somehow the community was not able to mobilize resources, especially financial. There is a need to see how this can be improved systematically. We feel that this should an important element of post HFA regime.

    Regards,
    Maira
  • Dear Community Members,

    Of the many initiatives and activities outlined under the Priorities of Action, some elements that should be considered with renewed emphasis are:

    a. Social Demand for DRR: 01 is about ensuring DRR as a national and local priority. Most of these initiatives, including the regular monitoring of progress towards HFA, remain very much visible at the national level; it has not permeated so well to the local level. At the local level DRR initiatives and discussion are very much limited in scopes and intensity and hence there is a need to establish and sustain appropriate institutional mechanisms at the local that would contribute towards DRR becoming a priority rather than an add on or a supplementary thing. Priority should be towards building a social demand for DRR rather than relying on the top-down supply of sporadic initiatives on DRR; and
    b. Evidence Uptake for DRR: PfA3 on the use of knowledge needs to consider the diverse sources of knowledge which go beyond the traditional dichotomy of expert (scientific) vs. non-expert (traditional) knowledge. The emphasis should be on strengthening an enabling environment that would facilitate demand for and uptake of such diverse source of knowledge and research evidence on DRR for evidence-informed policy making and planning, including allocation of resources.
    Sincerely,

    Jyotiraj Patra
    India

  • From Hidetomi Oi : "My suggestions relate to “What top three elements should be addressed in the Post 2015 Framework for DRR”, and partially to “How do we accelerate HFA implementation till 2015”.The three suggestions below are all for the promotion of community DRR, which have been consistently discussed in Global Platform meetings and MTR as well as online debates. I am calling for concrete actions.

    1. Setting target
    Please refer to Chair’s Summary of 2nd and 3rd Global Platform and MTR report: “setting targets can help to achieve the necessary momentum” and “would be helpful in encouraging governments, civil society…towards more accelerated implementation of HFA”. Targets were suggested for risk assessment, early warning systems etc.
    My suggestion is “targeting community DRR”. Each country should have a sheet to list up all high risk communities and to show achievement in the past and plan in the future for each community. Based on this country sheet, a regional sheet should be prepared by regional organization and a global sheet by UNISDR, which should be shown on the website of respective organizations so as to be accessible by any in the world. A good initiative has just been taken by CDEMA for the Caribbean Region. The Form being used will be sent to you by separate mail,which well illustrates the system.
    This monitoring will be helpful for government in implementation/budgeting in a more planned manner, and will make communities eager to accelerate DRR in competition with other communities in the country.
    It is suggested that an agreement will be made at Global Platform 2013 to adopt such a monitoring system and at World Conference 2015 to implement DRR in all priority communities in the time frame of post-2015 frame.

    ............... read the other two suggestions in the original post

    -----------------------------------
    Dear colleagues,

    Here is the CBDM progress monitoring form mentioned by Oi san, which was developed by CDEMA. There is a formatted version which we will share with you separately shortly.

    CBDM Progress Monitoring Form

    Example for Caribbean Region

    Each state identifies highly vulnerable communities (1) and those where CBDM has been implemented* by 2012 (2); For the remaining communities, implementation schedule for 2013-2015 and beyond is to be prepared (3). The result is to be summarized regionally by CDEMA (4) and globally by ISDR Secretariat (5), and shown on their respective web-site for information sharing.

    The unformatted version of this form is given below

    Name of CDEMA member States ( 18)

    Anguilla
    Antigua & Barbuda
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    ・・・・・
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Virgin islands

    For each state, information is collected on
    (1) Total number of highly vulnerable communities
    (2) The number of communities where CBDM has been implemented *
    (3) Implementation schedule for remaining communities
    2013 2014 2015 beyond
    (4) Regional summary by CDEMA
    (5) Global summary by ISDR Secretariat

    CDEMA has already begun gathering this information , and has concrete data for 5 of its 18 states. For example, Belize has 265 highly vulnerable communities and St. Lucia has 28.

    Oi San's suggestion is important and I would encourage others to share information on similar efforts in other parts of the world.

    LOY





  • Dear Colleagues
    I wish to share this information with you and hope it may be of interest and assistance regarding elements for addressing the Post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Prevention

    My name is Stella Joy and I am one of the Directors of Active Remedy Ltd. We are based in the U.K. The sole objective of Active Remedy Ltd. is the protection and regeneration of the global fresh water cycle and the natural ecological factors, which maintain it. We feel that there is a severe lack of attention being focused on this matter and feel it to be critically important that it be raised as an imperative issue within the global agenda.

    We are therefore working on initiating and hoping to implement a feasibility study, which could guide a global action plan in the protection and regeneration of the global fresh water cycle. We believe that the research we have gathered and the innovative method, which we have formulated for this purpose, has the potential to be used successfully worldwide. We have recently received the registration documents needed to attend ‘The Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (CBD COP 11)

    http://activeremedy.org.uk/pages/?s=mop6_cop11

    Paragraph 122 of 'The Future We Want' states:

    "We recognize the key role that ecosystems play in maintaining water quantity and quality and support actions within the respective national boundaries to protect and sustainably manage these ecosystems."

    We are sharing this with you all to highlight the key role that ecosystems, especially mountains, mountain forests and wetlands play in maintaining fresh water quantity and quality globally. We wish to see this and supportive efforts that protect, sustainably manage and restore these ecosystems given major focus and added into all dialogues concerning water, mountains, forests, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change, disaster risk prevention and the Post 2015 Agenda.

    http://activeremedy.org.uk/pages/?s=watercycle_paper

    On the 25th September 2012 we added input into the U.N-Water Analytical Brief, which was being discussed and formulated in New York. We are very pleased to say that our input was accepted.

    This brief will later also include a summary of the findings emerging from the U.N.G.A Side Event, which was also held in New York on the 25th September 2012.

    http://activeremedy.org.uk/pages/?s=news_UN_water

    Thank you for your time and consideration upon this.

    Wishing you all the Best
    Stella
  • Dear Disaster risk reduction Practitioners

    According to my consideration the top three elements addressed in the post-2015 Framework for Disaster risk reduction are as follows:

    1
    Strengthening good governance, monitor and evaluate the risk management in order to lessen disaster risk through the Socio-Economic, Political and the Environmental concerns

    2
    Empower disaster management components such as Prevention, Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and recovery
    Building and fostering appropriate actions for effective participatory process at all level with aim to participate in key Development issues, sharing experiences and skills

    3
    Finally increase International Cooperation for Technical and Financial Means and credibility


    Wishing all of you a Good time

    Joseph Herve NGUIDJOL
  • Apreciados amigos, permítame expresarle la satisfacción que sentí al encentra personas que al igual que yo estamos preocupado por la situación que presenta el mundo. Sabemos que los fenómenos naturales como el sismo y el huaracan han existido desde siempre, que son fuerzas portentosas, las cuales, hasta ahora no hemos podido evitar. En este siglo XXI veremos nacer una nueva estirpe de ciclón y sismo de gran magnitud, sus poderes serán devastadores, sus furias arrasaran ciudades entera, serán animales de vientos y aguas de movimientos telúricos de gran magnitud, mucho más voraces que los ocurridos en toda la historia de la humanidad. También sabemos que al igual que cualquier ecosistema natural, las ciudades tienen capacidad de resiliencia, siempre y cuando tengan los recursos necesario para volver a restablecer lo perdido. El objetivo principal de los gobiernos locales es garantizar el bienestar de los munícipes, proteger sus vidas y sus patrimonios, por lo que los alcalde deben proveerse de resoluciones o ordenanzas municipales que le exijan a los munícipes tener conciencia de gestión de riesgo en todo el accionar de su vida. El estado debe garantizar elementos jurídicos a la ciudadanía, garantizándolas protección colectiva. Los organismos internacionales a la hora de prestar dinero, ayuda etc. Deben tener una clausura en el contrato o acuerdo donde se disponga de un fundo para invertirlo en apoyar la mitigación de riesgo.
  • (1) Understanding the implications of given actions.
    From the view point of attributed manmade disasters, interest of others must be considered before caring out actions that may endanger the life and social activities of others, example is the case of Nigeria and Cameroun over Bakasi peninsula, the international court of justice (ICJ) has ruled that, the oil rich peninsula belong to Cameroun, however, Nigeria is making a push to regain it back. In the present struggle, considerations are not given to the people living in the Bakasi territory, suggestions are in place that Bakasi should be identified as a state of its own to avoid misunderstanding between Nigeria and Cameroun, which may degenerate into conflict to the detriment of the common masses.

    (2).
    Introducing Disaster and conflict as a curriculum in Secondary and Tertiary institutions.
    Education, Teaching, Enlightenment and exposing people to disastrous implication of not reducing disaster from and outside their immediate environment. Past strategies , techniques and modalities in line with an unfolding situation should form part of course contents and modules in the secondary and Tertiary institutions, practical trainings ought to be advanced to compliment the theoretical teachings, outlines should address rapid response, mitigation, resuscitation, mediation, diplomacy, advocacy and peace keeping approach. Communities, Urban centers , cities, should be mandated to have at least five to Ten trained disaster and conflict management professionals with in a distant of Hundred metres apart in a particular location.

    (3)
    Categorizing between manmade and Natural Disaster
    We must learn to understand when and how to attained to a particular disaster, high volatile natural disasters must be confronted with equipments of high precision, I understand that in the United state of America, fire fighting has gone beyond use of extinguisher , people should therefore be trained to usage of such high material, Government of the land should vote more in their budget, and implementation should be carried to the later, disaster Risk Reduction should be meant to be every body’s concern, the immediate knowledge should start from the kitchen, to the car, to the office, to the market place and the entire public.

    Thanks,
    Chris Njoku
This discussion has concluded and posts can no longer be made.