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

En Algérie le lien est fait tout récemment au niveau de plusieurs institutions mais pas au niveau des communautés. En efet à la faveur de l’étude sur la vulnérabilité et l’adaptation de la ville d’Alger au changement climatique et aux catastrophes naturelles, pilotée conjointement par le Ministère de l' Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement (MATEV), la Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) en France et le Centre de Marseille pour l’Intégration en Méditerranée (CMI), et suite aux missions d’entretiens des experts du groupement Egis Eau/IAU/BRGM avec les partenaires algériens, effectuées durant les mois de juin, juillet et septembre de l’année en cours, il a été constaté, un intérêt croissant de plusieurs organismes algériens faisant partie du comité de pilotage. Gageons que cette étude permettra une augmentation de la résilience des communautés déjà fortement impliqunées dans la RCCen raison de catastrophes récemment vécues.

Dear all,

I am a big promoter of DRR-CCA integration because I believe a) both are about behavioural changes and b) communities would not isolate them (i.e. adverse impact of) from their day-to-day lives. Unfortunately I do not have any clever suggestions for further DRR-CCA integration (partly because integration efforts I have witnessed are very much individual driven and local context based).

However, I do have a suggestion for what to avoid – a stand-alone DRR framework!!! The HFA has been seen as a sectoral framework, although not meant to be. The HFA has been used largely by DRM/DRR practitioners, rather than climate change community and/or development workers.

I am not differentiating DRM/DRR practitioners from climate change community and/or development workers. I am not saying that DRM/DRR practitioners are not doing climate change adaptation activities, either. But I am talking here about the perceptions!!! (and I do not think the stand-alone DRR framework would help bridge between DRR and CCA).

There are other institutional issues for DRR-CCA integration e.g. many organisations including governments having two different departments; many donors (and governments) allocating two different sets of funding sources; etc. But to me, without changing perceptions, it will be different to expect any DRR-CCA integration that is meaningful to all of us.

What do you all think?

Regards,
Jeong

A very fruitful topic is under discussions and i think integration of DRR and CCA is crucial. I understand that CCA is a measure to ensure the DRR. it is also a fact that the worlds is facing natural disasters in terms of climate induced hazards, like floods, snow avalanches, rock avalanches, landslides and slope instabilities, and again drought which has a major issue to weaken the socio-economics and health and hygiene problems of the regions. There are other natural hazards where climate change has a little contribution. so i understand that CCA needs more practical exercise to ensure DRR.

DRR must a be separate component in each governmental agencies/departments which should be linked with the development projects. in Pakistan we are losing billions of rupees in terms of infrastructure damages like roads, bridges, irrigation channels, water and electricity supplies and so many. the reason behind is that we are constructing such heavy projects without any feasibility studies in terms of natural hazards. example if a bridge is constructed on a river, the feasibility study must ensure the major flood disasters from the catchment, glaciers and other climate related components must be studies. Awareness rising about CC and its imapct and how CCA reduces the level of vulnerability and risk is more important.

Dear all,
Lot of discussions are going on to integrate DRR and CCA in development. But at operational level it seems that these discussions have make no fruitful impact. The visibility of CCA and DRR is less than other pressing issues (means these are not pressing issues). In integration we consider how disasters and climate change affect development prospects. Development agencies require to make these issues part of their decision making processes to make sure that the best long term outcomes are achieved. Integration is a precondition for an organisation that set their goals to achieve sustainable development outcomes. Put simply, it is good development practice.
Approach to integration is to jointly consider disaster risk reduction and climate change impacts because these issues have significantly common characteristics. These are united by the strong relationship between developments. Common factors such as poverty, poor governance, rapid population growth, poor land use planning and limited livelihood options make populations vulnerable to natural disasters and climate change. Information on climate change is building a new perception of disasters as of man-made.
Development, risk reduction and climate change occupy separate policy spheres despite the fact that they interact and overlap on all levels. The experts living in those separate planets use to think from their own sphere of thoughts. Thus, there arise differences in concepts and perspectives between the development, disaster risk reduction and climate change fields. The main challenges would be to bridge these spheres. In particular, the Bali Action Plan agreed by Governments in December 2007 clearly identifies consideration of disaster reduction strategies for enhancing action on adaptation, and is a significant step toward achieving a properly integrated approach. HRVA activities would consider climate change related risks and to consider how to adjust risk assessment and reduction measures in response to projected changes in risk patterns. Short term coping mechanisms for DRR become adaption in the long term.
But it is at national and local levels that most efforts to reduce disaster and climate change risks must be made, and here the disintegration of sectoral policies is often a hurdle to integrated approaches. Disaster risk reduction is not itself a sector, and to be effective it requires informed action in and across many sectors, from education and health to infrastructure and environmental regulation. There is also other cross cutting issues like gender mainstreaming.
In developing countries where the occurrence of natural disasters and the impact of climate change strongly influence the rate of development progress, these issues need to be appropriately considered in initial decisions making process. At the program level, activities will consider the impact of climate change and natural disasters to ensure development is safeguarded from natural hazards, and does not create new forms of vulnerability. How disaster risk reduction, climate change and the development is integrated in policies, programs and related activities will vary by country and region.
Following points to be considered:
• Empowering communities by building their awareness and capacities
• Identify Climate Related Risk while doing HRVA at community level (recently I was facilitating one workshop on Climate change adaptation and DRR. Participants, mainly NGOs, pointed out this as the integrating point of the issues)
• Reducing disaster risk through effective design, training and supervision
• Inclusion of Climate Change Adaptation and DRR into community level development plans and processes( local self government should be sensitized and empowered to consider these issues in their development plan)
• Upward integration of plans for mainstreaming
• Considering climate change when developing infrastructure
• Developing a strategy for integration of DRR at all social development programs—a process for ensuring inclusion and sustainability.

Regards,
Himadri

Hi,
From my observation and assessment, I have found that in Fiji the link between DRR and CCA which otherwise should be strong in partnership, is rather negligible here. We hear of CC meetings but these are not clearly linked to DRR. Whenever such CC meetings take place, there is a lot of fear created among local communities and this is not helpful. What is really required is real action in finding better and realistic solutions for local communities. Time for too much talk on increase in temperatures, sea level rise etc. for small islands is over; it is not going to help communities get any better. There must be better cooperation and coordination between DRR and CCA and indeed institutional partnership whereby actions and programs can be taken collaboratively and under specific guidelines and policies. Otherwise the two (DRR and CCA) will never meet. (Himadri is right that DRR and CCA must cut across other sectors as well).
Pardeep
Fiji.

Dear Loy and colleagues,

My comment is inspired by two useful contributions above on Pakistan. From recent experiences in Haiti and Pakistan - one challenge for addressing both disaster and climate change risk, in a more integrated manner, was the lack of a sufficient understanding of the risk to inform decisions (be it development investments, planning or preparing for response). Both countries had political will and institutional capacity (centrally at least), although were challenged to have a common view of climate change impacts and natural hazard impacts and the geographic areas, sectors and populations most at risk in the future. In both cases, different institutions and methodologies were used to assess impacts, on the one hand from climate change and, on the other, from disasters. This was not ideal to guide decisions and future actions.

One interesting model for more integrated approach to assess the risk both of natural hazards and climate change is provided in the Pacific with a risk based approach to climate change adaptation project run by the Asian Development Bank. It looked at risk based on empirical evidence of past disaster losses and included trends emerging from Global/Regional circulation models.

Interesting also to hear from other similar approaches and methods. Can/should the discussions globally, with Governments, in the context of the climate change convention, currently ongoing in Qatar, assist in integrating the approaches to assessing loss and damages?

John

Holistic approach can be integrated by expanded principles of sustainability for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and involve all stakeholders. Broad range of regional distribution of climate change related areas are water resources, forests, agriculture, coastal zones and human health that could be defined in disaster risk reduction as it impacts upon biodiversity, land degradation, natural disaster rates and agricultural productions. Climate change issues are uncertain, and institutional partnership, programming and policy address the need for innovation and change.

Dear participants,

Thanks to John, Jalil, Tomoko, and Aslam for joining this thread and contributing your views, including your reactions to earlier posts.

Tomoko shows the synergies across sectors in both approaches. Jalil shares about the evolution of institutional arrangements in Pakistan and the current convergence of CCA and DRR in a single Ministry. He calls for countries of South and Central Asia to develop joint regional strategies on DRR and CCA and learn from each other. This would advance the “Incheon Regional Roadmap on DRR through CCA in Asia and the Pacific” adopted at the 4th Asian Ministerial Conference on DRR (AMCDRR) in Korea in 2010 which called for developing and sharing information, technology, sound practices, and lessons learned in climate and disaster risk management, promoting integration of DRR and CCA into development for green growth and enhancing linkages between DRR and CCA institutions at the national level. Read more at https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=20382

Aslam refers to deliberations at the 5th AMCDRR held last month and the functioning of institutional systems at sub national or local government levels, lack of political authority, technical capacity and financial resources as critical issues for DRR CCA linkage. Additionally vulnerable people have little or influence over these arrangements in the absence of external development agencies. On the positive side, DRR/CCA in sought to be enmeshed in existing arrangements for local development and has met some access in some countries

John shares the real challenges faced by Haiti and Pakistan in having a composite assessment of the impacts of climate change and disaster risk, and the geographical areas and sectors most at risk due to different methodologies used by different institutions making such analysis. He valued the integrated a risk based approach by the Asian Development Bank in a climate change adaptation project in the Pacific. In his post from the COP at Qatar, he called on participants to share other approaches to this problem.

We look forward to your posts on these topics and how you expect to see the enhanced linkage work in the context of the post 2015 scenario.

Warmly,

LOY

Hi. Apologies for joining the debate so late. I feel that there is a need to make resilience stronger at the community level as well as focusing on joining up policy at a strategic level. In short, we need to make it real for people and ensure this doesnt become an academic debate. In doing so, not only will this take pressure from Government/emergency responsers as citizens will know what to do, be empowered and take greater responsibility for their own actions in an emergency but it will also strengthen the understanding and need for prevention amoungst a larger group of people. The result should mean more people engaged and involved in ensuring society is better protected prior to an event and this should reduce the impact in the event that it does occur. UK examples include; local farmers ensuring ditches are clear from debris preventing overtopping in the event of flooding, local parish councils/community groups armed with snow shovels in the event of significant snowfall and voluntary 4x4 drivers who make themselves available to help those in need receive medicines and food. So whilst the need to join up policy remains key, a focus on how this will impact on society in a practical way will help ensure policy is delivered in practice and doesnt just sit on a shelf gathering dust. I hope this contribution helps...

Dear on line dialoguers,

Thanks Krishna, Lee and Tomoko for your contributions.

Tomoko, you remind us that improving livelihoods that are in harmony with environmental conservation, and good natural resource management can contribute to economic development that is sustainable, and that innovative local action, respectful of global implications can create new mindsets. Lee too ground truths the effort at policy linkage by stressing the need for each policy to trigger and enable community action, otherwise it just”sits on a shelf”. She cites a number of specific examples of community groups’ autonomous action and building capacities for self-protection.

Krishna is unequivocal in asserting that integration of DRR, CCA and SD is needed, but points out public policy and social action lags behind scientific knowledge. He reminds us that ending chronic poverty was seen as an essential part of the Sustainable development agenda even in the original definition in the Bruntland commission report of 1987 , yet poverty reduction strategies have not sufficiently integrated DRR and SD. He hopes that post 2015 can do better with the adoption of a reasonable sequencing of triple win (reduce poverty with CCA activities combined with DRR) risk-balanced portfolio of projects that avail 'no/low regrets' approaches and ensures effective and efficient delivery of results with active participation of stakeholders, prioritize empowerment of children and women, plus do not miss out on the missing governance aspects.

In his post in the first thread, Glenn voices optimism when recognizing good practice of the communication of future uncertainties achieved through the cooperation of hydromel services, technical institutions and operational administrations in climate forecast applications in Bangladesh and regional climate outlook forums in the great Horn of Africa. He resonates with Krishna’s post and cites practical examples of no/low regrets options (investing in multi-hazard early warning systems) and scenario-based planning that works across of “range of possible futures”.

This thread with 21 posts has been a rich and insightful mix of country based experience and trends, recognizing progress, analyzing causes for its slow pace yet striking an optimistic tone being inspired by innovative initiatives.
Let me end with the same high hopes shared by many of us that “ these online consultations do not end just with the participants themselves, but motivate stakeholders, key planners and policy makers, to ponder over the issues” and act decisively to make a difference for the “ future world we all want”

Warmly,

LOY