What are major challenges to action on disaster risk reduction and building resilience? How do we tackle them?
  • Dear participants in this dialogue,

    As announced in my opening remarks, I am now opening the third thread in this dialogue today (1 October) and the fourth thread tomorrow (2 October) to enable us to have a full week to debate theses important questions. In the meanwhile the first two threads will continue to remain open for posting.

    Some of you have already spoke about barriers and obstacles that disaster risk reduction faces in public attention and in commitment of authorities and decision makers. In this thread, we would like you to systematically focus on the following FOUR QUESTIONS:

    • What are the obstacles and major challenges to action on disaster risk reduction and building resilience?
    • What are the underlying factors that contribute to these challenges?
    • How do we tackle these challenges?
    • What are the solutions to moving beyond the barriers?

    I would encourage all willing to first of all contribute by elaborating on those challenges that you (and the organisations you work or have worked for) have experienced in your work in DRR and resilience building. Feel free to share specifics of context, and provide some analysis of the underlying causes and constraints.

    Thereafter we would also be keen to hear about your analysis more generally about your observations and analysis of the challenges and barriers you have observed in your locality, country or region, by various organisations and sectors, working separately and together.

    In each case, in addition to problem statements and analysis, lets also provide our best ideas on “solutions” .

    I look forward to your thinking and writing, as well as your reactions to the posts of others.


    I will also shortly introduce a fifth thread in the discussions , informing you about plans to respond to all suggestions on structuring the dialogues, made by all of you in the first round. Some of you will also be contacted by UNISDR or by me directly, encouraging you to take initiative in following up and implementing some of the suggestions made. Equally, those of you interested in contributing to specific actions, feel free to write to UNISDR or to me with your offers along with any conditions or expectations. Specific proposals of collaboration between two or more participants or organisations are also welcome. Communications to me could be by the conversation facility on this website or directly to my email at


    One point emphasized in Round 1 was to link the online discussion with the plethora of events in each of our countries, regionally and globally on DRR, HFA implementation and post 2015 processes. This connection is at least two ways
    a) Using the on line dialogue space to prepare for and follow up discussions taking place at these events
    b) Providing inputs from the online dialogue to these events

    Currently, on the post 2015 website of which this dialogue is a part, there is a section on “post HFA events < https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/trainings-events/events/tags/index.php/pw:posthfa/Post-HFA+Consultative+Events> which lists 6 events that have taken place with a summary of the resulting discussions.
    As the interactive platform develops, this space will also list prospectively all planned events that include a segment or session or element of discussion on the post 2015 DRR Framework.

    Till such time, I am providing information on two such events taking place this week namely a meeting of a group of Asian Parliamentarians this week in Bangkok and the third meeting of the European Forum on DRR (EFDRR) in Dubrovnik, Croatia from 1-3 October 2012. One purpose of the EFDRR meeting is “to provide inputs from European HFA Focal Points to the Post-HFA consultations.”

    It is also expected that at least one national consultation on the post 2015 DRR framework will take place this month, as will two national consultations on the post 2015 development agenda. More information on all such events will be made available shortly.

    Looking forward to your continuing contributions, and your support in mobilizing more stakeholders to become active in this dialogue,


    Facilitator, On line dialogue on Post 2015 DRR Framework
  • Dear DRR community members,

    Greetings from the Netherlands!

    Based on my experience of working on Disaster Risk Reduction in South and South East Asia I would like to focus on some of the issues raised by Loy.

    Firsts and foremost the major challenge to action on Disaster Risk Reduction is the willingness and political commitment of various agencies including the Government and major donors which is further exacerbated by the resources available for the same. There has to a deep analysis on what budget of the Government budget is spent on DRR activties. We also need to look at how many donors are supporting DRR programs and what % of their total budget goes for DRR interventions.

    It has been observed that the poorest nations are also the nations which are most vulnerable to any kind of a disaster. The ability of the national as a whole to bounce back is even further limited. Even if there is commitment from the Government, there is no resource to fulfill the commitment.

    Very often we hear from the Government whether they should take care of the basic needs of their people with the limited resources they have or whether they should invest on issues related with disaster. I think it is the moral responsibility of the international community to pitch in and help the country reduce the vulnerability of the community.

    I think this problem could also be overcome by sensitizing and educating the Government that money spent on DRR activities will help sustain the development initiatives which is otherwise lost in the event of a disaster. The linkage between development and DRR needs to be reinforced.

    Other major challenge that we see irrespective of the country and its economic status is the lack of coordination between various DRR actors. There was a study carried out in Bangladesh recently focusing on DRR interventions being carried out in the field. It was observed that there were some geographical areas where the concentration of agencies working on DRR was much more that other areas even if the other area is more vulnerable and it deserves better attention. After thorough analysis it was found that these areas were the areas with easy access and high visibility. These are the areas which are preferred for the donor visit or visit by other VIPs. The money which should have gone otherwise to the more deserving areas is not being utilized properly. With the shrinkage if resources with the donor and other agencies this needs to be given a serious though. One of the ways of overcoming this is proper coordination between various agencies which is lead by the Government and supported by OCHA. Detailed vulnerability analysis needs to be carried out jointly and based on the needs the geographical location and the interventions needs to be planned. It has been observed that the Government has taken some proactive steps in this regard. The CDMP (largest DRR program in Bangladesh) is carrying out the mapping exercise of the vulnerable areas and the required interventions. This will be uploaded in the Government website and can be used by anybody for reference while planning any interventions.

    Another major challenge that I have witnessed is the inconsistency in DRR interventions and the lack of standardized approach. It was observed in the field that different organizations are using different training modules and reference materials to enhance the capacities of the community on DRR. Some organization was giving the training for one day on a particular while other organization were doing the training on same issue but the duration was different. This leads to differential capacity enhancement of the community. The Government of Bangladesh was able to recognize this problem and is in the process of coming out with standardized training curriculum for different stakeholders.

    Thanks and best regards

  • Good day All,

    (a). There are so many obstacles and major challenges to action on disaster risk reduction and building resilience in my dear country Nigeria, where we run a federal system of government with three tiers of governments: the central, state and local governments.

    i. The powers of these governments are allocated according to the Exclusive, Concurrent and Residual lists as provided by the constitution. The ACT establishing our National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) provides for same three tiers or levels of the Emergency Agencies to reflect our federalism. However, this arrangement is militating against our efforts towards efficient disaster risk reduction and building resilience nation.

    ii. Related to this, is a weak national funding framework. The government budgetary allocation for disaster Management is nothing to write home about and the private sector does not see the economic justifications for investment in disaster risks reductions projects

    iii. The various government agencies that ought to work hand in hand in disaster risk reductions are in complete disarray and do not complement one another.

    (b) The factors contributing to these challenges are:

    i. Lack of Political will on the part of decision makers
    ii. priority of developmental activities as against protecting the hard earned developments achieved against disasters
    iii. The Federal/Central government has not enforced the ACT that set up NEMA

    (c). The challenges can be tackled through:

    i. The constitution review that is going on the country should move the NEMA activities/powers into Exclusive list, where the Federal/central government owns up to the full responsibility of disaster risk reduction throughout the country
    ii. All our appropriation bills must set aside at least 5% of the annual budget for disaster risk reductions
    iii. The private sectors especially those that contribute toward global warming and environmental damages must be compelled to invest in disaster management through taxes
    iv. Creating a unified emergency agency that brings all relevant government participants under single umbrella, that is, The NEMA, Fire services departments, Road Safety Corps, Civil defense Corps, anti-terror squads, Military Disaster Response Units and so on should be brought under one Command for efficient disaster Management.

    Ismail Tijjani Idris
    Department of Business Administration
    Ahmadu Bello University Zaria

  • Hello
    As well as challenges to action on disaster risk reduction that can be considered "top-down", there are "bottom up" challenges that reflect the difficulties inherent in engaging people in routine health-promotion and risk-prevention activities in general. Knowledge translation efforts that make theory and evidence on DRR accessible and motivating to the general population are an important component in building resilience.
    Maggie Gibson
  • Hello,
    In most African countries, governments don't even understand that DRR is a major component of the country's recovery. I believe that this point needs to be explained and repeated because there are so many urgent needs that needs are prioritized according to the very immediate emergencies on the ground.
  • Hello dear all,
    I will start by highlighting the recent flood which affected my country , Cameroon .
    Since 15 Aug 2012, areas in the North and Far North Regions of Cameroon have been experiencing heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding. The rains and floods have destroyed or damaged many houses, leaving about 25,000 people homeless. Most of these have found shelter with host families, but 5,000 have sought refuge in school premises. Almost all crops and granaries of the affected families have been destroyed, and livestock was lost as well. The flood situation is likely to deteriorate as it is still early in the rainy season. The challenges here are the high vulnerability of local populations and their inability to anticipate on flood occurrence. These challenges could be tackle throught building capacity and preparedness at local level .

    Norbert TCHOUAFFE
  • Hi Loy and friends,

    Thanks for another chance to share some thoughts to this discussions. I am quite happy how these discussions have developed. I just hope that the people who have started to participate will continue their share thoughts and insights to the specific themes now raised. One take away I have in these discussions are updates from the other parts of the world in implementing the HFA. I am quite amazed with the update about the Pacific Islands adopting their own regional framework on DRR. I understand here in the Southeast Asia region there have been discussions as well on DRR within ASEAN and it has some active NGO participation in those discussions. Anyway back to subject of this discussion.

    Obstacles or challenges for action, I would agree to the points raised earlier on the challenge of (1) political will of government to really put priority to DRR and HFA implementation and (2) resources generation available for DRR action. Other than these two points I would like to add that one obstacle that I think is a challenge at least from my own experience is still about mindsets and paradigms of communities towards disasters. Here in the Philippines, many communities are still adamant and complacent in responding to the need for DRR. The prevailing trend that is happening is that people tend to realize the importance of DRR after they have experienced extreme losses after a tremendous disaster event. One friend would say that the cost of "tuition fee" just to learn a lesson on DRR is quite expensive amounting to hundreds of people affected and thousands pesos of lost agricultural crops and infrastracture. The latest case was in the event in TS Washi in the southern island of the Philippines, Mindanao. I also came from Mindanao and growing up I was taught that no typhoons will come to Mindanao because it is away from the typhoon "belt". So when there was a government warning on TS Washi some people in Mindanao was in disbelief and many have not acted on the warning thus resulting to huge disaster loses which until now is rehabilitation is still ongoing and DRR then becomes a major action. For organizations facilitating DRR this is a challenge in terms of convincing local governments as well as communities to act on DRR before any disaster event strikes them.

    Another obstacle as mentioned above is resources and for a country like the Philippines, resources is a huge factor in implementing DRR actions from the ground and up. Although the policies are there to have a sustainable source of funds for DRR, the government is burdened with huge amounts of targeted spending to address the needs of the growing population such as more schools (which every year, government has to build thousands of classrooms to absorb new students), more health care, housing and economic development. The MDG target of health has been seen as not achievable by the Philippine government because of such challenges. This burden is felt from the national government down to the local governments. After facilitating risk assessments and risk reduction planning ultimately, the question of funding becomes dead-end on the road towards DRR work.

    In the previous discussions I have participated on DRR, a challenge is also in the area of how resilience is understood but more importantly measured. Do we have minimum indicators or a clear understanding of what is meant of resilience at the community level. Many organizations have been doing a lot of good in the area of developing tools on how to facilitate community DRR actions but very few (at least from what I am aware of) have been done about indicators for resilience which will serve as benchmarks for DRR actions and resilience building.

    Lastly on the challenges, I think there is a challenge of DRR being disconnected to the overall discussions for national and community level development. DRR is seen as another layer, another policy pronouncements that local governments have to comply instead of viewing DRR as something essential in order to achieve sustainable development, development that is safeguarded from hazards and climate change effects. Integrating and mainstreaming DRR in many development facets such as linking DRR to health, livelihoods, education and ecosystems management have been a key theme in many DRR actions in the Philippines.

    How do we tackle and go beyond these challenges and underlying factors? There have been positive "solutions" towards addressing these barriers. One way is to work with new and not so to be engaged stakeholders in DRR work. The Philippines have good actions on engaging the private sector to contribute in securing resources for community actions on DRR. Corporate social responsibility served as the entry point for channeling some CSR resources to DRR. Many NGOs in the country have also engaged the educations sector for DRR. Children are at risk to disasters because of their vulnerability and level of capacities and working in schools is also the best way to correct the traditional thinking towards disasters. Sometimes children becomes the best educators to their parents as well. Other than working with the private sector and education sector, some NGOs have also worked with the academe for research and development of technologies that will improve risk assessments and hazard specific and cost effective early warning systems. These are some of the solutions explored to address the challenges to resources and cultural mindsets towards disasters.

    Another solution I think that is being done is the value of continuing linking and learning among DRR actors and players. It is through this linking and learning that best practices are shared, joint problem solving and advocacies are borne and pursued. Linking and learning also allowed for better understanding of the principles and practice of DRR which for has been quite interesting among many organizations. The concept and interpretation of vulnerability, capacity and disaster risk have been quite different among organizations resulting to differences in approaches and tools. I don't believe that tools and approaches have to be uniformed among organizations and agencies but I do believe that all tools and approaches, definitions will all lead to a the reduction of risks and to the resilience of the community. For all we know, at the eyes of the local communities, villages, barangays and community organizations--they don't care about any "DRR formula", what they care about is to keep their communities safe and resilient from hazards and climate change.

    This has been very long I apologize for writing a lot. Cheers to all participants.

    IIRR-Regional Center for Asia
  • The issue of DRR and the challenges to having it become "mainstream" is that it is still considered a Sector apart. With that position it will most probably only be those in DRR that think about DRR. This needs desperately to change. One action could be in partnering in training curricula to include DRR in shelter, infrastructure, finance, etc. Proactive approaches to universities and training institutes are needed as well as for multi- and bi-lateral entities. Budgets need to be offered to encourage inclusiveness. With a cup in hand little notice other than largesse will result and that is not a commitment to much.

    Another aspect that can bring DRR onto view is to build a body of practice. More than demonstration projects systems of improvement in resilience need to be implemented to build experience and momentum for change. Focus on retrofitting community facilities, especially schools and hospitals, attracts attention and could attract investment. Funding is always an issue but the DRR community has to include in a significant way addressing the improvement of the existing built environment and new construction through programs not projects. Systems of capital investment can carry conditions for loan approval. Dedicated lines of credit can be made available in a commercially viable manner to support sustainability. While investment in improvements certainly includes the poor it is not only the poor that require access to credit for upgrading and new resilient development. Means of sharing risk for loans to informal sector workers and low income families need attention. For resilience to happen investment is required.
  • What are major challenges to action on disaster risk reduction and building resilience? How do we tackle them?

    The major challanges so far in appropriate design of DRR project/s. In maximum cases single problem is addressing, rather than considering cross cutting problems of the communities. Participatory problem identification and community perspectives is highly required to develop a compehensive project/programme to build sustainable copping mechanis/resillence of the community. Problem specific and region specific package is highly required to address the needs caused by natural disasters.
    DRR project should focus social, economic, infrastructure and service facilities, education, alternative on and off farm interventions, skill diversification to cope with disaster situation. Use of barren resource/s for non resource base households is highly requier for income option and to protect rural and urban migration. Finally, policy ammendment and update with adequate funding mechanism is highly required to achieve sustainable developent and progress to build capacity for future challanges. We haver ground level experience to deal with comprehensive project with innovative ideas to tackle the existing vulnerability of the communities affected by flooding and river erosion in Bangladesh.

    For more details the suggested links are putting below for google search;

    WWW,sandbar cropping in Bnagladesh
    floating garden in Bangladesh
    DW TV Programme links:

    DW-TV presentation;Steeming floods in Bangladesh


  • My successful efforts in cooperation the international DRR decisions makers and governmental authorities worldwide dual an amazing experience I am doing on extreme hazards preperdness,have been approved of more than a centre.I met proud achievement on natural hazards such as tsunamis such as Fokochima and unnatural hazards such as Chernobyl accident.I still strongly advise Mr.Loy Rego for exchanging with me important correspondances CONFIDINTIALLY because these efforts are so serious,although met financial obstacles.
    I could find my theory on uncertainty that indicates the possibility to have informations of news of events before they occure.
    These private communications may conclude HIS CORDIALLY INVITATION to working together on this important research work.Any way,my submissions through the event ewc3 is sensitive.
    I may hear from Mr.Loy Rego and either Mr.Loy Rego.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    dr.Taiser Aborashed
  • Sighting an instance from my immediate environment Nigeria, lack of political will is a standing impediment, confronting Disaster Risk Reduction, if there are will, implementation of law and order would have been a tradition, but for the lack of the above, human being are like misguided and scattered soldier ants, behaving and doing things the way it pleases their conscience detrimental to their fellow being.
    E.g In Nigeria structures are erected indiscriminately, such structures are erected in a mapped out plan for maybe canal or sea way, thereby causing upsurge, flood etc, no political will to tell such personalities to their face not to such erect structures.

    Secondly,another example, is that the interest of certain individuals to import fuel in my country, has crippled the effort of Government from repairing the already dilapidated refineries, thereby paving way for them to dictate fuel pump price, make huge profit from the poor masses, create artificial scarcity of products, making chance for the poor to horde and preserve inflammable products in homes, shops, market places etc, these hoardings has resulted into 75% fire disaster in the land today, lack of political will, wrong people at the right places, laws are made for the poor not for the wealthy men, the man himself at the helm of affairs are fraudulent elected, as such he or she has no will to right the wrong, therefore lack of political will stand as a challenge to DRR.
    Citizens must learn to understand their right and hold it judiciously, we must learn to disagree the wrong, even when it is a matter of life and death, during elections we must not succumb to voting the wrong candidate, even if we are dying of hunger, because when the wrong person is saddled with our immediate responsibility, we will be hungry the more.

  • The main five priorities for action from HFA and external factors to consider are vulnerability in regions, communities and cultures. Trends from dialogues indicate the concern of participants from the least developed countries for international action. The recovery process of natural hazards in developing countries has inadequate training in such cases as the Earthquakes in Haiti, and also Asian regions in Philippines prone to floods. When natural disasters occur, unpredictably and almost no sign of early warnings, the citizens are in emergency situations, followed by the aftermath and humanitarian assistance. The regaining of control, decision-making process for vulnerable populations and sensitive to these issues are consideration for children, women, elderly and the poverty state. Recovery of religions and cultures are also defined as significant issues for rebuilding lives and communities that suffer from loss of lives, mental and physical conditions. The social media and global networks raise an important issue of the relationship between the humanitarian aid and development. The growing concern for internally displaced persons, unemployment and many disputes are not easily solved by simply funding or aid work. Building resilience is determined by various factors, such as building coordination and entities through the political system. In such state as today, developing countries without good governance have difficulties making it priority.
  • What are the obstacles and major challenges to action on disaster risk reduction and building resilience?
    • What are the underlying factors that contribute to these challenges?
    • How do we tackle these challenges?
    • What are the solutions to moving beyond the barriers?
    The situation is different from region to region and country to country. In third world countries there are governance issues, corruption, lack of access to technology, lack of professionals on DRR subject, the government setup on DRR are fragile and comprised ill competent people, governments are not serious about DRR issues, lack of budget for DRR and misuse of donors aid, discontinuation of policies, bureaucracy monopoly, inappropriate DRR projects, lack of structural mitigation are the major challenges and obstacles to action on DRR and building resilience.
    Further more poverty, poor education system, non democratic values, racism, terrorism, violation of human rights, rapid urbanization and lack of access to basic needs of life are the factors which contribute to these challenges.
    Strong government institutions leading by professional and committed people can address the issues at state level. The International Donors agencies and UN make such arrangement that the fund and budget can be utilized by member states properly transparently.Favoritism, corruption and monopoly of few should be discouraged. The member states should be bound for structural mitigation and allocation of proper budget for DRR. DRR projects should be long term result oriented and cost effective. Rural population specially the poor and marginalized segment of society must be part of DRR initiatives . Donor agencies focus CBDRM for community empowerment and resilience.

    Poverty reduction, development of rural areas, research, applied DRR knowledge and proper care for basic human rights can be helpful to solve these issues. Quality of education, advance technology, community awareness and ownership are also necessary for DRR and sustainable development
  • Dear participants,

    It is serendipitous, that while we are discussing the challenges in building resilience, and several participants flagged the challenges of harmonisation of agendas and need fro additional new resources, that a major and influential bloc of countries has just begun a new direction to consolidate its approach to the building of resilience in its programs in the developing world. The joint communication by two commissioners of the EC to the European Parliament and Council says

    "Resilience strategies should contribute to different policies, in particular Food Security,
    Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). In this context, the EU has consistently supported prevention and preparedness for crises in the most vulnerable countries and identified the need to integrate DRR and Adaptation to Climate Change, notably into both development cooperation and the humanitarian response."

    In this connection , for those interested, it is also useful to read the three EU documents on these subjects i.e. Communication on Food Security (2010), White Paper on "Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action" (2009), "EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries" (2009) and "Towards an EU response to situations of fragility: engaging in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace" (2007)

    I attach a copy of the news report on Devex in this regard, and also a web reference to the whole document.

    May this news be a source of inspiration as well as a basis for commenting on the continuing challenge in building resilience.

    We look forward to your comments.





    Posted by Ivy Mungcal on Devex on 04 October 2012 05:13:53 AM

    The European Commission wants to embed resilience more deeply in its humanitarian and development programs — and it has proposed a new policy to do just that.

    The proposal*, dubbed “EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises,” was forwarded Oct. 3 to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, which need to both approve it before it can be operationalized.

    According to Kristalina Georgieva, the European commissioner for humanitarian aid, international cooperation and crisis response, the policy reflects a “shared vision” and “joint commitment to act” on resilience from the EU development and humanitarian departments.

    European Commissioner for Development Andris Piebalgs, meanwhile, stressed that building resilience and tackling the causes of recurrent crises “is not only more efficient but also much cheaper.”

    The proposal does not include practical details yet on how a new policy on resilience could affect actual EU funding and programs. These details would likely be included in an action plan the commission aims to prepare in the first quarter of 2013.

    The communication does hint at potential action points. For one, the new policy will build on the lessons from and results of two existing resilience-focused initiatives of the European Commission: the Supporting Horn of African Resilience, or SHARE, and the l’Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative Résilience Sahel, or AGIR-Sahel, projects. SHARE aims to mobilize up to €270 million ($349.1 million) through 2013 while AGIR-Sahel’s target funding is at €750 million over the next three years.

    It also identifies a set of principles to guide EU engagement in this field: align EU support with recipient country priorities, support the development of national resilience strategies, boost the flexibility of EU aid programs, and elevate resilience in the list of aid priorities in countries facing recurrent crises.

    The European Union will also engage partner countries in political dialogue to address security concerns, promote innovative approaches to risk management and work with other stakeholders to develop country-level platforms for exchanging information and aid coordination, the policy says. Further, it commits the European Union to replicate SHARE and AGIR and to promote resilience in international venues like the G-8 and G-20 annual meetings.

    Meanwhile, on the same day the resilience-building proposal was presented, the European Commission released a joint communication with the EU High Representative for foreign and security policy that presents concrete suggestions on implementing tools for supporting countries in transition.

    * Read the full text of the communication at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/georgieva/pdf/20121003_communication_commission_on_resilience.pdf
  • HI,
    Welcome you All.

    a fruitful discussions and i hope we will be able to find out such ways which can be used to make resilient the communities in different parts of the world. further this is good to share the experiences and skills.

    focusing the theme "DRR" challenges, i would like to mention some of the emerging issues and challenges which faced by our country Pakistan.

    1. implementation of policies have been a question mark in our country. since the establishment of NDMA national Disaster management Authority, it has not been implemented to the gross root level.

    2. DRR is a misunderstood theme to most of the government functionaries. integration of DRR into development is crucial but this is not properly understood so many funds have been wasted on poor mitigation without any assessment.

    3. mindset of the rural communities is hindrance on the way of implementation.


    1. implementation of DRR policies and building codes
    2. integration of DRR and Development
    3. changing traditional mindset of people in rural communities through scientific observations

    4. taking benefits from the indigenous knowledge of the people and preparing a sound response and preparedness mechanism.
  • HFA mentions underlying causes of risk. This underlying causes are said to be direct consequences of political and economic environment of a country. It is a subject of political economy. Power relation, socio-economic structure, availability of resources to most vulnerable is the key factor of risk and vulnerability reduction. Enabling environment of a good governance system plays the vital role. It is a question of ideology, that how the state will run or who runs the government. Is HFA framework sufficient to take the challenge to modify the ideological content of political system of a government?
  • Hi,
    Thank you very much for providing so fruitful discussions online forum.

    I am Sher wali from Gilgit Baltistan the northern portion of Pakistan and associated with FOCUS Humanitarian Assistance Pakistan " An agency of Aga Khan Development network AKDN", which is working in the field of Disaster management. Being a young Geographer, and new practitioner in the field of Geo hazards , i am deeply engaged with the ongoing Geo hazards, like floods,debris flows,landslides, GLOFs , snow avalanches and many others. climate change is one of the triggering factors which has activated these metro-logical and geological hazards worldwide.

    As for my own region is concern since decades the region has exposed to many major disasters. such as Flash floods 2010, which have affected 104 villages in Gilgit Baltistan leaving the population homeless,and destroying their all livelihood options. Atababd landslide in Hunza, which lost 19 human lives and blocked the river as a result 26 km long,and 125m deep landslide dam formed which blocked the international road (KKH) which connects Pakistan with China. 2500 population upstream of the lake has become disconnected to access the region. the lake is still intact for 2 years of its formation leaving an ongoing risk to the downstream population of the region.

    During these disasters mentioned above organizations, government and other actors played their role to response the disasters. but there were many challenges in the way of taking appropriate actions. some lesson learnt while dealing such disasters are put up here.


    1. lack of awareness regrading the disasters and its lack of training in DRR initiatives
    2. Non-availability of emergency funds for DRR
    3. formulation of DRR related policies and its implementation
    4. lack of technical knowledge regarding the Geo-hazards
    5. lack of uniform policy for relief and emergency response among the DRR agents including government
    6. lack of capacity building among the institutions regarding the relief,recovery and reconstruction phases.
    7. mindset of the rural communities
    8. cultural sensitivity

    How to make resilience:

    1. formulation of particular laws and policies and its implementation
    2. hazard identification and anticipations in the remote areas and formulation of contingency planing accordingly

    3. capacity building of the institutions \
    4. utilization of local resources and indigenous knowledge for making training manuals for capacity building

    5. Natural resource management and reducing the risk from the reckless usage of forests, weeds and unstable slopes. pasture management should be established in the mountainous areas through community organizations

  • Major challenges in the light of our work:

    • Sensitization……..how to bring vulnerability debate in the forefront, especially within government circles. A good balance between the micro and macro environment has to be stuck around the analysis of vulnerability. UN Women is working with government and civil society both. We try to make use of every opportunity to sensitize them.
    • Resource mobilization has been another challenge. UN Women Pakistan has taken a approach of un conventional donors. We have been a bit successful.
  • Dear Colleagues

    One of the major challenges to action on DRR and building resilience is the scarcity of resources allocated specifically from development budgets for the realization of risk reduction objectives at the international, national and regional levels or through international cooperation and financial mechanisms,

    There is however the potential to tackle this through exploiting existing resources and established practices for more effective disaster risk reduction measures. One of these resources is the defense budgets of U.N countries. As little as 1% of the defense budget of each U.N country could make it possible to implement DRR prevention strategies that could save the lives of millions along with the massive expenditure needed to deal with post disaster crisis.

    The defense budgets are supposed to protect each countries civilian population from invading forces. These days 'Climate Change' and environmental catastrophes are threatening the well being of civilians worldwide in a more dramatic way than invading forces and can only get much worst if not tackled effectively. 1% of defense budgets used in this way could even create vast savings in defense budgets, when weighed against the costs arising from conflicts linked with migration due to environmental crisis.
    In the U.K we have an old proverb which is worth considering here:
    "A stitch in time saves nine".

    All the Best
This discussion has concluded and posts can no longer be made.