What are your expectations from the consultation process towards the development of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction?
  • This panel is most important and it is unfortunate that most of the actors speaking french cannot participate. In the future, I wish to see this panel also available in French.

    Aussi important que soit ce rendez-vous, je trouve regrettable que la plupart des acteurs francophones du domaine ne puissent y participer faute de ne pouvoir communiquer en anglais. A l'avenir, il serait souhaitable que la plate forme soit également offerte en français.

  • Dear Colleagues,

    I hope the online dialogue can help to fill in some gaps in the HFA. For example: We are aware that recovery and reconstruction is discussed very breifly in the HFA. Here is a question we recently posed at a panel discussion:

    The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) discusses recovery and reconstruction in Strategic goal (c) and in Priority 4. Relevant extracts are below:
    Strategic goal

    (c) The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the design and implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes in the reconstruction of affected communities.

    Priority Action 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors

    19. Disaster risks related to changing social, economic, environmental conditions ….. are addressed in sector development planning and programmes as well as in post-disaster situations.

    Key activities:

    (i) Environmental and natural resource management
    (a) (b) (c) Three activities for the sustainable use and management of ecosystems, including through better land-use planning and development activities to reduce risk and vulnerabilities are mentioned.

    (ii) Social and economic development practices
    (e) Integrate disaster risk reduction planning into the health sector; promote the goal of “hospitals safe from disaster” by ensuring that all new hospitals are built with a level of resilience that strengthens their capacity to remain functional in disaster situations and implement mitigation measures to reinforce existing health facilities, particularly those providing primary health care.
    (f) Protect and strengthen critical public facilities and physical infrastructure, particularly schools, clinics, hospitals, water and power plants, communications ….. through proper design, retrofitting and re-building, in order to render them adequately resilient to hazards.
    (h) Incorporate disaster risk reduction measures into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes15 and use opportunities during the recovery phase to develop capacities that reduce disaster risk in the long term, including through the sharing of expertise, knowledge and lessons learned.
    (i) to (r)

    The question is, what would you recommend for the post 2015 framework, to make the agenda of recovery and reconstruction stronger and more explicit than in the HFA?

  • Good to see you Loy in facilitator role and "meet" you in this new context.

    It is evident that over the past year in particular references to and discussions on DRR are much more common and it is on the map. There appears to be in place a growing coalition of stakeholders willing to engage and take the DRR agenda forward.

    I am also particularly enthused by the fact that Parliamentarians have been identified as an important stakeholder by UNISDR and we now in fact have a vibrant Advisory Group of our own actively engaged in this issue. Acknowledging the importance of local governments, (all action as with politics is local!) hopefully elected local government representatives at rural areas will also be engaged and judging by the success of Mayors promoting resilience of cities, this engagement will provide a further boost to DRR.

    We need to make the most of the current momentum and profile and not just mainstream DRR in thought and policy - though this is also critical - but also operationalize it on the ground level. Access to resources, capacity building, political buy in and leadership will continue to be important challenges as will be making the linkage with, and using science and knowledge. Having a future perspective and focus and making projections thereof on a present which is dynamic and evolving, presents formidable challenges.

    Access to historic data and trends, helpful and essential as they are, unfortunately are not adequate by themselves as the frequency and intensity of disasters are set to increase, thanks to climate change. In the past, we have looked at disasters in terms of either high frequency low impact or low frequency high impact.

    It seems to me that we are now moving to a completely different mix / pattern which is essentially a high frequency high impact scenario and this of course has massive implications in how we perceive, plan for and operationalize DRR on the ground.

    There is no one size that fits all and has been rightly pointed out in a post above, customizing individual country responses is key. The other aspect from a global perspective is that post 2015, we are perhaps looking at a set of sustainable goals that will encompass MDGs, HFA etc and 2015 is also a benchmark year in terms of revisiting our aspirations as far as temperature rises are concerned for climate change.

    We thus have an exciting but challenging path ahead of us and through open dialogue, discussion and exchange of views in a forum such as this, we have an opportunity in shaping the discourse leading up to 2015.

  • Dear all ,,,
    firstly let me thank all of you for your good discussion . your effort is appreciated
    as my job in civil defence as manger of disaster department i think we should support integral gender in disaster risk reduction plan , and support participation of women in disaster risk reduction process .
    we should also focus on students and children because they are playing an important role for disaster risk rerduction through insert the disasters reduction process in in the school syllabus.
    in this regard we implemented many project such as awareness plan for houswives and school children and i think it is important and usuful and its will get benifit in the next future .
    best regard

  • Aussi important que soit ce rendez-vous, je trouve regrettable que la plupart des acteurs francophones du domaine ne puissent y participer faute de ne pouvoir communiquer en anglais. A l'avenir, il serait souhaitable que la plate forme soit également offerte en français.

    Dear Abdel,
    Good morning to all of you.
    The point you make is spot on, and true for all non English speaking populations around the world.As a first step to making the discussions multi-lingual, we are using the Google Translate Facility. So you can read my response in English or French. The Frequently Asked Questions and answers ( which can be read by clicking the Help button ) tell us, that participants can post comments in many languages other than English. This can be done by clicking on the Select language button with the google icon, on the top right hand side of the page on this site. When you do that, all text on the site, i.e. the header and all posts can be read in the language you choose, which is French in the case of French speakers. But the beauty of this is that our Russian or Spanish or Portugese speaking friends can also read the same conversation in their own language, and respond as well. This is a relatively new capability for such a site, and it will take a bit of practice for all of us to use. So too the translation is not perfect, and at times has rather odd or interesting "mis-translations". But its so much better than being excluded completely.
    What is a real problem is that we need to get the word out to all our colleagues all over the world who speak in other languages the news that there is a multi lingual conversation going on. Thus the announcement of the dialogue also needs to be translated, and this has started up. But for those of us who are bi lingual, and have our own community and email list serve in French, or Bahasa, or Thai or Japanese or Haitian Creole, lets do our own community translation and send out the message to these groups, and thus increase the amount of contributions from the non English speaking world, who have really important insights to contribute.
    I hope this helps and let us organise ourselves to make this happen.
  • This panel is most important and it is unfortunate that most of the actors speaking french cannot participate. In the future, I wish to see this panel also available in French.

    Aussi important que soit ce rendez-vous, je trouve regrettable que la plupart des acteurs francophones du domaine ne puissent y participer faute de ne pouvoir communiquer en anglais. A l'avenir, il serait souhaitable que la plate forme soit également offerte en français.

    This panel is most important and it is unfortunate that most of the actors speaking french cannot participate. In the future, I wish to see this panel also available in French.

    Aussi important que soit ce rendez-vous, je trouve regrettable que la plupart des acteurs francophones du domaine ne puissent y participer faute de ne pouvoir communiquer en anglais. A l'avenir, il serait souhaitable que la plate forme soit également offerte en français.

    Cher Abdel, merci pour votre message. Il me permet d'introduire la fonction Google située en haut de cette page qui offre la possibilité de dialoguer et traduire dans la langue de votre choix. Il s’agit d’un dialogue multilingue. Toutes contributions en Français et autres langues sont les bienvenues.
  • Dear Loy

    Thanks very much for facilitating this debate. You wrote to ask the following questions about the possibility of a review of progress of the HFA:

    a) Is such a review needed? if so how should it be done? are there comparable initiatives done for DRR on any scale, national or regional?

    b) are there other sources and writings that approximate such a review, even on a particular priority of action

    I feel that drawing together a thorough review of progress and constraints to the HFA is important. The HFA was itself a successor to the Yokohama strategy, the final review of which stated:

    "In addition to a lack of systematic implementation, cooperation and reporting of progress to reduce risk and vulnerability to disasters, contributors to the Yokohama Review process have identified the following gaps and challenges . . ."

    (UN Review of Yokohama Strategy:UNISDR, 2005 p.19.)

    Several comments made in this discussion already suggest that implementation has similarly been a challenge for the HFA. It is important to consider this challenge and others, for example the critical importance of PFA1 and PFA4 which have also been highlighted in this discussion.

    As you mentioned there are various documents such as GAR chapters and the mid term review, as well as data from the HFA monitor, and from the VFL studies, but I am not aware that these have been drawn together into a clear assessment of the outcomes of HFA and this is vital in supporting discussion and in designing a new framework. In short as the saying goes - those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it! I would be interested in other participants' thoughts on this point.

    Best wishes

    Terry Gibson
    Operations Director: Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction

  • Dear fellow participants,
    Three days ago we launched this first round with the “aim to kick start the process of the on line dialogues, ensure everyone is able to participate and become familiar with the new system, and warm up the atmosphere for these dialogues”. With 209 participants from a wide variety of backgrounds and 71 comments, we have a good , free flowing, wide ranging , global conversation going, and are off to a good start.
    I am going to provide a summary account of some of the key themes and issues raised, while promising to talk about the other themes tomorrow. These summaries and the dialogue itself will remain in line for ready reference and will help us plan subsequent rounds of the dialogue and feed into the planning and running of ongoing and planned national and regional consultations on the Post 2015 Framework for DRR.
    We were reminded that we need to tackle disasters that are both natural and manmade, and also address technological risks, neglected diseases and prepare for pandemics.
    We urged that the dialogue be wide, broad based, multi-stakeholder and participatory. We responded to Margareta’s call to National, sub national and city Governments to participate by promising to reach out and spread the word. Saber led the participation of Parliamentarians in the dialogue, and urged elected representatives in local government in rural areas also to join. We recognized the need for the voices of women, children, youth, elderly, disaster victims and survivors and people with disabilities to be heard in this dialogue and the overall consultation process and to have a good balance of regions, nationalities, linguistic backgrounds and professional disciplines. James reminded us to include people that are neither technical/scientific experts, government officials nor victims but mainly laypersons that have a strong say in what ultimately gets done through their roles as opinion leaders, voters and taxpayers. Some urged us to embrace the private sector in Public private partnerships, while other cautioned against private management of publicly owned critical infrastructure.
    The importance of full engagement and community ownership for long term sustainability of DRR programs was brought home especially when these were started u with external funding and technical support, a principle that applied to engaging with all stakeholders from all relevant sectors till DRR becomes routinized into their respective regular work.
    The urgency of cities enhancing their resilience and integrating DRR into city governance, management and urban planning just as Tropical storm Isaac brought death and damage once again to Haiti, and New Orleans, which braced itself to face the storm on the 7th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
    We have a thread from this discussion triggered by Margareta’s post in a separate link entitled “Reaching out to a larger audience”. I would encourage those of you who would like to contribute more to share your thoughts, ideas and suggestions.
    And in a few hours we will launch the second question from this round that I had informed all of you about in my opening remarks.

  • Once again appreciate the efforts,HFA has termindous 5 principles and it will definately lead us to form resilient communities. I personaly believe that in any programme the main thing is implementations. we do develop good plans but most of the time its not been implemnted in its true sense. There is afmous quote that its not earthquake which killed people its always buildings,by this i just want to share that HFA or any other under develop country around the globe should ensure the application of building codes in their respective regions and post HFA should make signatories to ensure the use of modern technology in future construction anywhere in the country.
  • Hi everyone. I am Concern Worldwide's DRR advisor.

    My expectations for this consultation is that everyone who wants to be heard can be heard - which would include those without access to internet, those who are marginalised, those who are vulnerable to the disasters that we speak of; and not just the 'experts'.

    I would like to see the successor to HFA being more holistic in its understanding of what is a hazard - taking into account other disasters such as those derived from poor development choices, no or non-enforced policies, economic disasters and conflict. To achieve this we must also take into account the underlying risk factors including climate change, population growth, migration and urbanisation, global economic change, and environmental degradation; and learn from other risk reduction initiatives like protection work and peace building efforts.

    I wold like there to be greater investment in DRR, and for DRR to be championed by all sectors - because DRR makes sense from the perspectives of development, economics and environment as well as saving lives and alleviating suffering. To achieve this we need greater investment in DRR from all actors, and every actor should be systematically conducting and using risk analysis to inform decisions.

    We need to figure out how to help those who live in fragile or insecure contexts where long term investment is often absent, and risk informed plans are often not implemented due to a lack of investment.

    The most important perspective of all has to be those that are most vulnerable to risk, and DRR must take into account their realities. The most vulnerable are not always the easiest to reach - the marginalised, the remote, the less powerful and the extreme poor are often the bulk of those considered to be most vulnerable, but we must all make a concerted effort to reach them, and listen to their points of view. CBDRM, with community risk analysis and planning, ensures that their perspectives and priorities are taken into account, although we must marry the perspectives on the ground with information and understanding from modern technology and science.

    Enjoy the consultation! Dom.
  • Voice from Pakistan. Hello Dear Friends of Global Humanitarian /Developmental Community and Stakeholders. Regards. The issue of "Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters" where the scope extends to period beyond 2015 can neither be generalized nor over simplified. Besides taking into account the Disaster Profile of specific countries, it also needs to study the history and nature of disasters may be natural or human induced in particular areas of that country/ Region.

    Countries suffering from similar threat of disasters(both natural and man made) needs be grouped together for unified and integrated response by/ from International/ Regional and /or National / Local Government and Community.

    Like studying the behavior/ history of disasters by a specific River System in a Region ( many rivers flow from one country to another) may lead us to a better response at strategic level rather than combating the effects of floods in a particular area at operational level. There is also a need to determine "level" for UN Intervention whether it be at strategic/operational or local level because many UN Agencies have been seen operating at Micro level. If they continue that what happened to their capacity building efforts of the past?Where is those partnerships with local organizations? Should this be repeated even in the period beyond 2015? Therefor there is a need that UN concentrate on Strategic level and operations be regulated by local organizations under the technical supervision of UN staff.

    A wholesome approach to the known disasters (Earthquake, Floods, Cyclones etc) of particular countries needs to be taken and then classified under Strategic, Operational and Local Levels plans for Response, Recovery and Rehabilitation etc.

    Execution/Implementation may then be decentralized but well supervised.Exit strategy may also be formulated at inception and remain integral to planning.

    Muhammad Nisar Khan
    Disaster Management and Security Professional
    Danish refugee Council (Pakistan)
    August 30
  • Hi Loy and everyone,

    Thanks for facilitating this interesting discussion. I am an advisor on DRR and CCA in Save the Children Norway.

    Regarding your four questions:

    Save the Children wishes to see a stronger focus on child-centered DRR in the consultation process, and targeted discussions on childrens rights regarding DRR. Our aim is to see the Children's Charter (childreninachangingclimate.org) incorporated in the post-HFA framework and monitoring. We argue that an important starting point for a "risk literate generation", mentioned by Margaretha Wahlstrom, is to prioritise DRR in the eductation sector; safe school facilities, school disaster management and DRR in the curriculum.

    Children are not mentioned once in the background paper. In point 37, it is mentioned that gender could be better addressed in a post-2015 framework, we argue that the same applies to children. In point 39, we would also like to see children mentioned particularly as "those most in need of high-quality and urgent attention".

    Our expectations from this dialogue is that Child-centered DRR is perceived as an important element of the consultation process and the post-2015 framework. If Child-centered DRR and/or DRR in the education sector could be discussed in any of the subsequent rounds that would be appreciated.

    Best wishes,
    Guro Sørnes Kjerschow
    DRR&CCA advisor Save the Children Norway
  • Dear Loy and fellow DRR practitioners,

    A very enlightening discussion with really rich perspectives!
    Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) provided virtually the first systematic road map to guide our journey on the path of reducing risks and impacts of natural hazards. This Discussion is a wonderful opportunity to look back, introspect and assess the progress of DRR since 2005. It will help crystallize experiences and perspectives from different regions, countries, hazard and development contexts, stakeholders, institutions and organizations etc.

    I hope we will be able to take stock of achievements and shortfalls, opportunities and challenges, assess what has worked/what has not and why. In short, assess what we have done, what could have been done better and how best can we strengthen and improve upon the building blocks.

    This will be essential as the patterns of risk and vulnerability are assuming alarming dimensions and the processes associated with climate variability and change have altered and accentuated the hazard context. Development processes are redefining the vulnerability profiles of countries and communities. Vulnerabilities are outstripping the pace of risk reduction. Risks are becoming more pronounced and 'impacts' are becoming more pronounced. Frequency, intensity and geographical spread of disasters, especially climate-induces ones, is underscoring the need to make DRR more holistic and cross-cutting in the national and community development processes.

    The Discussion should help us appraise our work. Identify key priorities and strategic approaches to sharpen the risk reduction agenda. This process will hopefully contribute towards formulating a more comprehensive and forceful action plan for the next decade.

    I am sure this discussion will be a huge learning for all of us.
    Rajeev Issar
  • PART 2 Days 1-4 Summary Flow
    Dear Fellow practitioners,
    As we end our fourth day of dialogue, we now have 222 participants, and 90 posts in three thread of discussion we have insightful observations and excellent suggestions on how to advance our path towards resilient societies in all parts of the world.
    Ando san reminds us all that this weekend, on the 1st September, the 89th anniversary of the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923 which devastated Tokyo; Japan observes the national Day for Disaster Preparedness with a nationwide school safety drill. Commemorating past victims on anniversaries of past catastrophes as days to promote safety from disasters are an important way of reminding and rededicating ourselves to be well prepared and protected throughout the country from national to household level. I would urge him and other colleagues from Japan to post on this dialogue, links of this observance in different parts of Japan. I’m sure this will inspire participants in this dialogue to do similar memorial campaigns on anniversaries of significant historical disasters as China, Nepal and Sri Lanka do on 12 May, 15 January and 26 December respectively.
    So too he shares news of the alarming announcement in Japan of a predicted tsunami risk scenario that is likely to cause 323,000 deaths; pointing to the value of scientific risk assessments in raising awareness and rousing citizens to action, as well as guiding public and private decision making. The theme of a “risk literate” population comes up in several posts and I encourage all of us to post experiences of innovative approaches to public awareness and preparedness for protective action in different communities and cities and provinces throughout the world.
    Many of us spoke of underlying and root causes of vulnerability: poor development choices, absence or poor enforcement of regulatory controls, economic crisis and civil conflict, global economic and environmental change, population growth, migration and urbanization. We realize the need to link the consultative process to national discussion on these issues as well as regional and global discussions on acceleration of MDG attainment, implementation of Agenda 21 and the “Future we want”, humanitarian action, enhanced national preparedness, protection, inclusion, peace building, climate change and biodiversity, This also means engaging and partnering with, and learning from communities of practice on these issues at several levels even within each of our countries.
    Several of us spoke of mainstreaming DRR into development in national ministries and sectors as well as in regional and locals plans and programs. This goes beyond just policy and advocacy dialogue to changing development decisions. In the Education sector national education ministries and systems would have to implement safe school facilities, school disaster management and DRR in the curriculum as key steps to raising our next generation as risk literate by catching them Others recognized that DRR integration at eco zones and river basin levels spanning across several administrative jurisdictions., and in many parts of the world have trans boundary control
    Many older practitioners reminded us of the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World of 1994 and the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction from 1990; the predecessors of the HFA, which one contributor called the first systematic global road map to guide our journey on reducing risks. Several called for the process to include a systematic analysis of HFA’s progress, appropriateness and effectiveness, visibilise success, good practice and lessons learned; analyse key success factors and reflect on what could have been done better. At the same time, we must recognize the limitations, shortfalls and barriers to action. Many talked of the need for the next framework and this process to reflect on progress and lessons learned; analyse key success factors, assess what could have been done better and how best can we strengthen and improve these building blocks. Many raised the challenging expectation that the “next HFA” reflects specific national and local context, which is easily operationalisable, and implementable
    I encourage you to contribute your ideas on these issues as well as he posts of all participants We will continue today ,tomorrow and over the weekend with the discussion on opportunities and challenges posting the third question on Monday.
  • Dear Loy-san, I thank you very much for your additional information on Japanese background as well as introduction of Day of DRR in each country. Since my comment on Japanese DDR Day (September 1) and shocking governmental tsumani prospect of this week were put up in other dialogue (on Reaching out to a wider audience), I would introduce again.
    "Japanese Government announced a shocking risk prediction yesterday on the tsunami risks that result in up to 323,000 deaths. Many citizens talk about this issue today. It is said that the most critical issue on disaster risk reduction is to maintain awareness and action. The day after tomorrow is the Day of Disaster Risk Reduction in Japan to commemorate the Great Kanto Earthquake that occurred in 1923."
  • Dear colleagues
    It is pleasure for me to b a part of this.
    Over all the experience and works done, the national and international community still far away from. Thanks for Loy for asking one of the most difficult question to ask because what we expect is what we are looking for and how we want to implement and reduce the suffer. I think in order to bring out valuable result we need to:
    1. Have different people form different background and representative. (NGO, Government, Business,…)
    2. We need to have participation form different area and region because of the diversity of the geographical and type of vulnerable.
    3. Its important to represent participate with some people that works direct with such program and share their experience.
    4. I can see some of the colleague start to set up and highlight some topics, so I think it is important to start draft an agenda in order to feed these topics and filter it. This will facilitate the work and direct in order to gain from this time.
    5. We should not for get that some parties and groups will be out of our reach because of their communication or they did not know about this, even the language can be barrier to hear their voice.
    6. Draft action paper to implement not only as recommendations.
    7. Direct activity for Direct action (DADA). I think we need to work in this approach if we need to bring for the world a solid material and tools in order to population in facing their suffering when the disaster is.

    Thanks a lot for every one and thanks for your valuable comment and issue you raised. You are great people that can work in great heart.

    Best wishes and success.


    Abed Al Badeaa al Dada

  • The public awareness is important through capacity development in developed and developing countries. Public information is a significant factor to educate trends, progress and challenges that contribute towards strengthening policies related to climate change adaptation, sustainable development, poverty eradiation and disaster risk management. The development mechanisms should be community driven and integrated into societies that impact upon the knowledge of citizens and essentially play a role in the decision-making process.
  • I am from Sri Lanka, still studying for masters on DM and have experience in working with tsunami and war affected people in the country, It is a grate opportunity for all of us, to acquire the knowledge through this global discussion on DRR and get future perspective of the mankind in a world with developing danger of disasters in one way or another.
    I think connectivity, togetherness and awareness are the most important factors to consider in DRR from level one up to levels it takes. Thanks for makers of this dialogue and wish grate success.
  • I am Geologist, I'm serving in Yemen National Seismological & Volcanological Center as Center Chairman and member of national working groups in the field of earthquake & volcanic hazard and risk assessment.
    I would like to thank you for initiating this online dialogue forum and facilitating. My point is:
    All remarkable progresses have been done by ISDR and/or governments during fly time of HFA 2005-15 could not launch consistent actions to engage DRR priority issues; principally in the less developing countries. We hope the post 2015 framework will give more priority for such states that obtained in the past. As we are aware, an executable national DRM plans as well as its relevant funding resources and logistic requirements are not easy to organize and rightly implemented in poor nation due to under-financed restricting and low education situation for most of communities classes, epically those living in disasters prone-areas. So, a new consultation ideas or more comprehensive agenda from post 2015 framework should be focuses to enhance hazard assessment outputs, disaster preparedness plans, applicable vertical-horizontal communication to solve a huge coordination gap among stakeholder, sustain hazard observation tools and data updating processing. Accordingly, topics mentioned above basically requested a considerable consulting support during post 2015 ISDR era, in parallel side, a positive consulting support will be capable to generate long term education horizons that would be a pillar vehicle for global integration of post 2015 ISDR agenda.
    All best for all
    Jamal M. Sholan

  • Dear colleagues , Here is the outline of the summary of the last three days of this thread of discussion.

    I will write a full version of the report soon.


    PART 3 of summary : Day 4-6 : outline of key issues

    A. Dialogue itself : Action oriented outputs expected from the exercise, How to promote diversity in viewpoints, Expanding participation particularly from those under represented constituencies , Recognizing and ending barriers to communication , Call to better structure the conversation into mini conversations
    B. National Action for DRR : executable national DRR plans, tackling under-financing and competing priorities in national budgets, enhancing vertical-horizontal coordination through applicable communication
    C. Post 2015 framework for DRR : Scope, national implementation arrangements and modalities, emphasis on Special needs of neglected areas
    D. Role of UN at country level and globally in ongoing HFA implementation as well as in post 2015 DRR and building of resilience and adaptation
    E. Disaster and conflict link
    F. Land management

  • I feel that drawing together a thorough review of progress and constraints to the HFA is important. The HFA was itself a successor to the Yokohama strategy, the final review of which stated:

    "In addition to a lack of systematic implementation, cooperation and reporting of progress to reduce risk and vulnerability to disasters, contributors to the Yokohama Review process have identified the following gaps and challenges . . ."

    (UN Review of Yokohama Strategy:UNISDR, 2005 p.19.)

    Several comments made in this discussion already suggest that implementation has similarly been a challenge for the HFA....

    ... I am not aware that these have been drawn together into a clear assessment of the outcomes of HFA and this is vital in supporting discussion and in designing a new framework. In short as the saying goes - those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it!

    I echo Terry's thought/view....

    In 2004, one of the HPN Good Practice Reviews by John Twigg explains that economic losses in the 1990s were nearly five times higher in real terms than in the 1970s. Also projected that global warming could push economic losses up to more than USD 300 billion a year within decades.

    Before long, the Munich Reinsurance Company named 2011 the costliest year ever in terms of natural catastrophe losses, largely due to a sequence of devastating earthquakes and a large number of weather-related catastrophes in 2011. At about USD 380 billion, global economic losses were nearly two-thirds higher than in 2005, the previous record year with losses of USD 220 billion, according to the Munich Re. It was also more than five times of the average annual economic loss worldwide between 1992 and 2001, which Twigg referred at USD 69 billion.

    Now... With nearly two decades of the Yokohama Strategy and the HFA era, one might ask what happened with DRR? I know it is very simplistic question, but we need to know the answers. And these answers must be reflected/incorporated into the new strategy/framework.

  • Hi,

    I have been working as an engineer at the Directorate of Disaster and Emergency Management Office in Ankara, TURKEY. Thank you very much for facilitating and coordinating this Online Dialogue. I have been very interested in these dialogues. I personally believe these will be very helpful for Hyogo Framework For Action. It will also contribute to disaster risk reduction globally.
    I think it will be a very good opportunity for me to share experiences, gain knowledge, and have some examples from all over the world. It will bring all different sectors and actors to reduce disaster loses around the world.
    Thanking you again and my best regards to all,


    Cagdas Kockan
  • Dear Colleague,

    It is a great pleasure for me to be part on the online discussion and share this unique experience with all of you. My expectation from the consultation process toward the development of the post 2015 Framework for Disaster risk reduction will be articulated on the future response among world specialist and all the stakeholders committed in the Disaster risk reduction Management Concerning

    The global concern and public awareness on climate change because there is a various links between Disaster risk and climate Change.
    The need for effective Disaster risk Management which is an important component of Development plans and poverty reduction lessen vulnerabilities within the poorest communities.

    Building Sustainable practices and provide better guidance for decisions-makers and all practitioners (Governments Parliamentarians Civil society NGO’s Local community and Private sector gender and so one) in the design project plan and program, implemented. Because Disasters in all over the world represent an increasingly serious obstacle to the Millennium Development Goals

    In many countries around the world a global Environment crisis under the effect of Climate change is questioning the Development Planning then urban planning must recognize these Changes and Develop new approaches to tackle the challenge facing many cities .For my first discussion I strongly wish that our online consultation process will lead to the Hyogo framework for Action (HFA) with its strategic objectives such as
    Making Disaster risk reduction a priority
    Improve early warning information with aim to reduce risk
    Building and strengthening a culture of safety and preparedness for effective response

    I can communicate both in French and English

    Best Regards

    Joseph Herve NGUIDJOL
    Student Specialist in Disaster Risk Reduction
    And Sustainable Local Development/ ITC/ILO
  • What are your expectations from the consultation process towards the development of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction?
    some rough priorities to confirm key elements for a "Framework for DRR":
    1. that we confirm that there will be continued coordination, either through the ISDR or a another suggested body or group of bodies. This must be sorted and confirmed very early on, before or at the 2013 Global Platform for the next 5-10 years. We must have committed leadership going into the GP13, otherwise the incentive, momentum will simply disappear before GP15.
    2. That we set a next time frame, with aggreement that firm action plans are set, for all collaborative bodies to try/commit to adhere to. The 10yrs HFA had no teeth, the first 5years were basically wasted and only a awareness programme for within the Angencies, with very little ever reaching their goals. I suggest we have Phases of 5 years, with a 10-15 year action plan. working for Aims and Onjectives 10 years in advance kills momentum for 5 years. Plus a very strict commitment to goals per each two years, to be submitted at each GP. There is now requirement at present to meet Bianual deadlines. Lets give the GP process teeth. be answerable to ourselves and the Governments whom we serve, all onbehalf of the people.
    3. that we confirm certain bodies [or body] take on specific role in Governance penetration/ collaboration at local or regional level for strategic planning and implementation. Presently the UNISDR. Identify it, properly Fund it, support it!
    4. that we support the coordination and continued collation [PreventionWeb] of strategic documents......BUT with resources to hightlight the key specific documents collaboratively meant as strategic documents, as oposed to a singular body producing non-collaborative documents, being suggested as a strategic document. [we need to sort out the good from the inadequate] Shiny front cover documents does not guarantee the usefullness of the content. [however specific research and project reports are essential to enable strategic douments to be assembled]
    5. We need to have or highlight existing mapping of what has been achieved, nationally, regionally and by sector. This provides us with clear mandates for filling gaps. avoids needless parrallel tracks, wasting resources and identifies existing successes and failures/challenges to perform, so that extra resources maybe applied.
    6. there needs to be a collaborative, coordinating body which meets more regularly than bianually, face to face/telecomf...... to identify progress in DRR as a whole. The TPKE reviews Education and Schools, but doesnt address the wider DRR issues. Presently it is hit or miss if an agency takes on a role in a region. UNICEF and Save, [Plan] are trying to coordinate the South Asia Region, but it requires all major Agencies to buy in. Too many are 'doing their own thing' un-beknown to the rest. Put your differences asside, lay down your flags. There is plenty for everyone, and NO gold medals at the end, simply lives to be saved!
    7. It must agreed that donors are more accessible , either directly or through a coordinating agency. This is presently hit or miss, the old boys club, national pride stuff, competitiveness, right place and the right time etc etc which prevents some key initiatives from transcending from Pilot/ pump priming schemes/projects to full blown wider implementations. It is simply a misconstrued idea that only the larger Agencies are capable of implementing good projects. Per pound, they have a lot more lights left on in the office, to be paid for! Plus , we have so much to do, to catch up with original HFA A&Os that we need all the help and contributions possible, which attain the required standards.

    7 is enough to start with!
  • Along all other topics, poverty, rapid urbanization, poor government policies and system, voilence, voilation of basic human rights should be also adressed as these factors core role for enhancing disaster risk in the whole world in general and third world in special. Set some guide lines for Donors and UN agencies fund while supporting DRR initiatives. As these funds are utilizing by some governments and non government agencies lavishly ignoring actual aim and purpose.
  • What are our expectations from the Consultation Process for the post 2015 DRR Framework, and how we reach out to a wider audience? Summary Part 3 Day 4-7

    Dear Participants,

    At the end of 7 days of this dialogue, we have 243 participants registered, and over a hundred posts in response to the above issue. Some posts deal with us introducing who we are and sharing issues of concern from our individual or organizational perspective, with many more giving sharp and specific ideas for the process and this dialogue and identifying subjects of processes which are of priority concern. This is the third part of my summary and I will avoid repeating issues already covered in parts 1 and 2.

    The Consultative process and Dialogue itself:

    We need action oriented outputs from the exercise, not only recommendations. Some of us called for a draft action oriented paper from the dialogue which advances implementation and Direct Activity for Direct Action (DADA).We recognized that in order to reflect real needs on the ground and respond to them, we need diversity in viewpoints, and active participation of different people from different backgrounds and representative of different sectors. (NGO, Government, Business, academia, religions, gender, age…) different areas and regions, representing geographical diversity and type of vulnerability. The dialogue must find ways to expand participation from those under represented constituencies and hear their experiences and challenges faced, particularly people living with risk and local agencies and organisations that that works directly with such people.

    We recognized the need to end barriers to communication and engage those people and groups are out of reach of this dialogue because they don’t know about this or are too inaccessible, or too busy to participate, or hare hesitant to participate because they are reluctant to express their personal views in so public a forum. Kagende called for Reach people in real time and, changing the settings of our meetings to reach out to large numbers of people in remote areas. In order to facilitate participation from community committees and coordinating bodies, in case they cannot overcome barriers as above, supporting agencies could play the of role facilitating meetings and gathering opinions and perspectives, and sharing reports of these meetings to this dialogue forum.

    Many call for a better structure of this conversation into mini conversations, advising that splitting this up into thematic consultation on one hand, and regional and constituency based discussions on the other can be productive. . “I can see some of the colleague start to set up and highlight some topics. We should also identify supplementary topics start and draft an agenda in order to feed these topics and structure them. Some agreed and advised the dialogue and process to be better organised to facilitate the work of development of the new framework, including brainstorming on specific themes to come up with consensus drafts on specific subjects
    In our discussions within in the dialogue threads and in side communications among the members on email , on other e- forums and in person , around we recognized that during the same two weeks as the first round , that government officials, practitioners , scientists, academics and civil society, were meeting in other forums : IDRC 2012 in Davos, World Water Week in Stockholm, the World Urban Forum in Naples and the Civicus General Assembly in Montreal ,and UNFCCC meetings in Bangkok, each of which meetings had direct links to DRR or were engaging in discussion on related themes. Apart from Yasmin reporting on her delay in joining the dialogue, there was no reporting of discussion s or linking of the two sets of discussions. Some of us feel we must do so more directly. This is a challenge which can best be met by dialogue participants speaking up in forums they are attending in person, encouraging persons to join the dialogue and continue such conversations. So too for those of us facilitating and organising this dialogue, we must make contact with the organizers of forthcoming meetings and offer them this as a platform for preparatory and follow up discussions, as well as informing participants here on what went on there.

    National Action for DRR:

    We spoke of the importance of executable national DRR plans and programs as major vehicles for DRR and HFA implementation and the importance securing funding resources in national budgets, despite the challenge of competing against other priorities. We recognized challenges of mobilizing resources rightly implementing all that needs to be done in poor nation, or those that have recently or are experiencing war or conflict especially for those living in disaster prone-areas.

    Many reminded us that disasters are a problem of both the developed and developing world, and Tomoko san reiterated that development mechanisms should be community driven, and that public information is a significant factor for citizens to play a role in the decision-making process

    Implementation approaches:

    Citing the example of the SESI School Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI) of UNCRD in 4 Asia pacific countries Fiji, Indonesia, India and Uzbekistan, Garry and Ando san spoke of the benefits of regional programs in peer learning and inspiration, ending feelings of isolation, encouraging real ownership and building capacities of the national and local institutions involved. The need to prepare the pilot project stakeholders for donor withdrawal and formulate exit, entry and sustainability strategies, as a planned element of the program was emphasized. Other regional, national and local programs are encouraged to share their experiences in this regard during this dialogue.
    It will also be relevant to look at other experiences of scaling up pilots in Latin America and Asia; and implementing to scale national programmes on CBDRM in high risk communities and districts that have been built into regional action plans to implement the HFA arising from the 3rd and 4th Asian ministerial conferences, and national programs in several Asian countries that have been initiated in the last 5 years.

    Post 2015 framework for DRR:

    Jamal observed “the HFA 2005-15 could not launch consistent actions to engage DRR priority issues; principally in the least developed countries. The post 2015 framework should give more priority for such states than obtained in the past.” Other colleagues from Arab states and Africa called for the comprehensive agenda in the post 2015 framework s to be focused on enhanced hazard assessment outputs, disaster preparedness plans, applicable vertical-horizontal communication to solve huge coordination gaps among various levels of Government and with other stakeholders, as well as sustained hazard observation tools and equipment and data updating . They recognized the need for consulting and technical advisory support and learning from other developing countries experiences to be made one of the pillars of post 2015 DRR agenda.

    The framework needs to provide for the strengthening of national, sub national and local implementation arrangements and modalities. We must build on what was seen to have worked in the last two decades. The Framework needs to be easily operationalisable, and implementable and reflect the specifics of national and local contexts. A special thrust needs to be given to previously neglected areas in Africa, the Arab States and island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean.

    Role of UN at country level and globally in ongoing HFA implementation as well as in post 2015 DRR

    Nisar from Pakistan urged the UN to think of its level and nature of "engagement” whether at strategic/operational or local level. Reflecting on the trend of many UN Agencies that have been seen operating at Micro level. He asks “ what happened to the UN capacity building efforts of the past? Where are those partnerships with local organizations? Should this be repeated even in the period beyond 2015?” He urges the UN concentrate on Strategic level and operations be regulated by local organizations under the technical supervision of UN staff .As facilitator, I pointed out that the UN Country teams, the DM and DRR working group and equivalent comprising UN agencies , INGOs, are existing mechanisms to work together and separately in country. Enhanced cooperation among themselves in combined partnership endeavors is needed.

    Two participants in the dialogue wrote on their ideas regarding the role of UNISDR and redistribution of tasks among UN agencies to accelerate HFA implementation in 2015 and beyond . It was pointed out that the UN agencies also work through and at regional level, through their offices and regional level periodic multi-stakeholder conferences and programs , and advisory work with countries to expand the reach and impact of the work at country levels, So too, the various mechanisms identified in my comment as HFA implementation support structures, like the Government led Regional, National and Thematic Platforms and Ministerial meetings and the ISDR Asia partnership, are part of the overall HFA and DRR implementation support architecture.

    These entire set of implementation arrangements, at the global , regional and national levels, and among all constituents will have to be looked at , and may be
    appropriately considered within the 2nd phase of the consultation process .

    Addressing poverty-disaster linkage in post HFA period

    One participant eloquently talked of “Disaster impacts emanating from unmet development needs– poverty is the overall reason for the unacceptably high negative impacts in poorer countries. Therefore, rich governments need to commit significant resources for clean development (previous aid support focused on humanitarian response, not so much on creating capital and capacity). However, this kind of development is more costly and technology based. What mechanisms can be put in place to support such initiatives?”

    Reducing Disaster risk in conflict and post conflict areas

    The earthquake of the coast of Surigao east which was followed by the tsunami alert (31 Aug.) and resulted in visible impact in Mindanao. This is a typical example of a region where conflict has been a significant factor in slowing down development, which is prone to disaster risk and once again is impacted by a disaster. Nalaka from Sri Lanka talks of the challenges of working with survivors of the Tsunami and the war. Faisal of the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) Disaster Management Authority (FDMA) , emphasizes that “ Working in an area like FATA we are facing human induced disaster more as compare to natural disasters. It is a tough job to involve people from the region as we are facing some security concerns. Still FDMA is trying its level best to reach to local communities and involve them in different activities and decisions.” Such concerns are echoed by Abed working for ICRC in Libya and colleagues from Yemen and Syria. Clearly there is need for the post HFA to look at the issues and programs of security and conflict resolution in the context of such areas.
    In this context, UNDP BCPR’s study on the links between conflict and disasters and its conclusions for national and local programming are of relevance , and should be brought to bear on the subject.

    continued in part 4

  • What are our expectations from the Consultation Process for the post 2015 DRR Framework, and how we reach out to a wider audience? Summary Part 4 Day 4-7

    Citizen participation in decision making

    Several of us reiterated the need and challenges associated with having full engagement of citizens in DRR and risk informed development decision making. Tomoko san highlighted the role of knowledge in enabling and catalyzing such informed and risk literate participation. Ben reminded us that at the local scale, people experience climate change, disaster risk and failed human development as one interconnected set of processes, challenges and opportunities. Thus people and their locally elected Governments seek to address such challenges in an integrated way.
    Nalaka emphasized that connectivity, togetherness and awareness were the most important factors in moving DRR up from basic level up to improved levels of performance. Many emphasized that all of us, at all levels in Government, NGOs, UN Agencies, technical partners who work in support of building community resilience will need to situate DRR in a more integrated setting and series of solutions.

    Building code development and enforcement ; Land use planning , regulation and land management

    Many emphasized that while it is necessary to have risk-reducing codes for buildings, and residential areas, poor countries and communities have difficulties enforcing and complying with them. So too such codes do not adequately address the non-engineered building stock. There is an expectation that the post 2015 framework address the challenge of investment, resource flows and financing solutions to support communities forced to live in risk prone areas, to meet the expectations of such codes
    Several participants highlighted the need for risk assessment based and risk informed land use planning and regulation. Others pointed out research findings that some governments who are signatories to the climate change convention and HFA justify land and water ‘grabs’ and displacement of herders , forest dwellers, and small farmers under the “smokescreen” of 'climate threat', and “protected area management. Participants emphasized that it was necessary in the post 2015 framework to go deeper than the underlying causes identified in HFA priority 4 and called for an integrated approach to DRR, climate change adaptation, livelihood enhancement and encouragement of responsible governance.

    Involvement of Indigenous communities in DRR

    While calling for their involvement , John Scott called for ensuring that DRR best practices and promotional campaigns are inclusive of Indigenous experience and that they are made culturally and linguistically accessible to the many communities and individuals who have heretofore not been part of the DRR "process". Other voices emphasized that in the context of localizing DRR in communities, the mobilization and utilization of local and indigenous knowledge is crucial especially since indigenous communities have a more balanced and harmonious relationship with nature and a more nuanced understanding of mother natures “hazards”. John made an implicit request for some dedicated time and space to discuss this set of issues, which I support .

    Endorsing the call for greater attention to the subject, I highlighted the role played in the recent Rio+ 20 processes, conference and peoples summit, by the indigenous peoples major group voice, presence and advocacy and its active dialogue, creative collaboration and emerging partnership with the leadership and initiatives of member states in the developing world for whom protection of mother's earth's rights and peoples' wellbeing are cardinal tenets and constitutional commitments reflecting their way of life . It is the coming together of these two processes which led to the subject having a high visibility and significance in the Rio+ 20 outcomes and forward looking movement.

    Do we need a more formal Major groups system in the DRR movement?

    In fact a better understanding of the major groups system which emerged under Agenda 21 in the first earth summit in 1992 in Rio, may give us clues on the consolidation needed for the similar system and its constituent parts that has emerged in our DRR movement these last 25 years. So too the development of the Millennium Campaign as a complement to the action on MDGs by the Governments and UN agencies needs further understanding to see the lessons for our movement.

    Making recovery and reconstruction stronger and more explicit in the post 2015 Framework than in the HFA

    Sanjaya of International Recovery Platform (IRP) highlights that though the HFA currently has integration of DRR into recovery and reconstruction as one of tis three strategic goals, there is weak formulation in HFA of the details of the process. He highlights the above as a question addressed to panelist at a recent IRP forum. While looking forward to hearing more from Sanjaya on the report from these discussion, and inputs from other forum participants on this, thematically this is one of the issues for the proposed mini conversations.

    Conclusions on this thread

    In this third and fourth parts of summary I have attempted a more structured report of the deliberations over the last 4 days. I will alter rejig the parts 1 and 2 summary of the first 4 days, written in a more conversational style, as the final report on this thread related to Question 1 and the subtheme. I welcome any comments, corrections or additions , addressed directly to me or publicly on the dialogue page.

    In the meanwhile the discussion on questions 2 and 3 are up and running, and I will have separate summaries of the entire conversations on each of these threads in the next few days. I will also post the planned original fourth question in time for dawn tomorrow ( 5 sept) in the Pacific and Asia, so that participants from those regions can have the full three working days to mull over and respond to this last question.

    More importantly , and in relation to the expectations for this dialogue a lot of suggestions made need to be acted upon. I will be discussing this with UNISDR team in Geneva, as well as with several of you and your organisations both on and offline. This is our collective on line dialogue and we need to be willing to commit some time and resources to making tit more vibrant, meaningful, and purposive and action oriented in the remaining rounds. I welcome you ideas in this regard and would suggest you post them in relation to the third question and thread on “ What are your expectations from the first online dialogue as a whole (27 Aug to 30 Nov)?"



  • Greetings from South Africa!

    Thanks for the opportunity in this regard. My view is that HFA has provided a strategic framework to look at DRR as an integral element of service delivery, poverty reduction and development. It has allso assisted regions and nations to adjust their policies to be aligned to the internationally adopted paradigm.

    however what seems to be a challenge is on the actuall implementation guidance, enforcement and professionalisation of the discipline. By GUIDANCE I mean that there is still a dearth of expertise to guide the implementation of the function at national levels. I am awake to the fact that the UN system does nto have the capacity and mandate to address national and local capacity building issues. what i mean here is the fact that mechanisms should be introduced at UN and regional levels to assist countries in complying with DRR principles and practices. We need to be able to address issues like: what do we mean when we say DRM is part of service delivery, developemtn and sustainable development. How does that take shape in country priorities. For this, i think guidelines are needed which can be customised to national level dynamics. Further than that these shoudl come through the top leadership of the countries having been adopted at UN General Assembly level so that can have weight. I say this because attempts are made in numerous countries to address this but efforts do not always succeed. By ENFORCEMENT, I mean the fact that the current HFA is pursuasive (if not neutral) in nature hence compliance with DRR principles sometimes happen with a reactive focus especially after incidents were expreinced. Worrying about this practice is the long term sustainable development opportunities that could be lost and the financial costs of that. Considering the effects of climate change, we may not catch up with the escalating risks in the future.

    So my view is that an enforecement mechanism needs to be built within the future framework to enable countries to adapt usign their sovereign policies. To achieve this, perhaps the post 2015 framework can provide that A DISSTER RISK REDUCTION AUTHORITY NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE ....... to coordinate and monitor compliance with DRR issues within all spheres,e levels and disciplines. This authority shoudl then have enforcement powers over all stakeholders and role players.

    By PROFESSIONALISATION, I mean the need to have regulatory mechanisms within the proposed Authority to regulate the sector. This is necessary to ensure that, like other professions (nursing, town planning, engineering) there is a professional body to regulate matters relating to DRR. In South Africa, the National Disaster Management Framework 2005 provides for that system yet to be developed. Perhaps other countries that have developed a prosessinalisaiton model for DRR can share with us. It is beleived that this model will provide a platform for regulated entry in the DRR field. This should however be supported by focused education and training to supply the fraternity.

    Any views from other Colleagues?

    In conclusion for now, I think the frameworks and practices relating to DRR and climate change need to be brought together to avoid duplication of strategies and implementation resources.


  • Dear Friends:
    As part of Association for Trauma Outreach & Prevention (ATOP) Meaningfulworld, I have organized and managed over 40 disaster rehabilitation programs around the globe. Examples of those humanitarian efforts are natural disasters in Pakistan, Armenia, USA, Haiti, Japan, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and the Middle East, as well as human-made disasters in: Romania, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, Palestine/Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Rwanda, DR Congo and other parts of the world.

    I have observed many lessons being learned, forgotten, relearned, and re-forgotten. I observe a lot of individualized efforts with little collaboration and partnership. I think we can help one another to come up with basic guidelines for partnership for peace building, prevention of violence, and humanitarian relief.

    In addition, I have observed corruption on state levels as well as on individual levels. I wish to have an open dialogue to set some clear guidelines for disaster relief, integrating the mind-body-eco-spirit model, also called the 7-step Integrative Healing Model (Kalayjian, 1999, 2002, 2012), which is used in 45 calamities around the globe with multicultural and multifaith perspectives, looking at the survivors holistically integrating their cultural perspectives. You can see the model on our website at www.meaningfulworld.com

    Thanks so much for this platform, and I look forward to a transparent sharing and integrating lessons learned from around the globe.
    Much gratitude,
    Dr. Ani Kalayjian
  • Seeking like minded or opposing viewpoints and every one else in between to react.

    I feel that drawing together a thorough review of progress and constraints to the HFA is important. Several comments made in this discussion already suggest that implementation has similarly been a challenge for the HFA....
    I echo Terry's (GNDR) thought/view....
    Now... With nearly two decades of the Yokohama Strategy and the HFA era, one might ask what happened with DRR? I know it is very simplistic question, but we need to know the answers. And these answers must be reflected/incorporated into the new strategy/framework. Jeong

    In addition, would any of you be interested in voluntarily collaborating in developing a design for a TOR that aims to do what Jeong calls for, after doing a quick review of all the literature on this very subject produced so far by member states, regions, the UN agencies, UNISDR and GNDR's VFL (to name a reasonable sized sample). In doing so we may come up with some interesting answers and directions.

    Looking forward for any traffic on this subject in the next few days. We will then report back on where this enterprise is at and seek further inputs during the second round of this first dialogue.



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