What are your expectations from the consultation process towards the development of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction?
  • I think work on DRR has developed tremendously over the past years, and hope that the post 2015 will enable this development to continue. Having participated in meetings and networks linked to the ISDR, I think there has been a shift in focus on what DRR actually is. Although it is a concept covering the whole DRR cycle (prevention, preparedness, response, reconstruction) my experience some years back was that most focus was on the three latter and not so much on disaster prevention though long-term planning, physical planning, etc. One important factor that has been brought into the work is climate change adaptation, and that DRR must include planning for the impacts of future climate change. I think this has been a push in the right direction and hope that the post 2015 framework will strengthen this link even further, ensuring that climate change adaptation is an essential and well integrated part of DRR. I also hope that the post 2015 framework will provide very hands-on recommendations for local communities and other stakeholders (more hands-on than the current HFA). In the end, disaster risk, including those emerging as a consequence of climate change impacts, must first and foremost be dealt with by those affected, and the more practical advice they can get, the better are the possibilities to define and implement relevant measures. Measures can be linked to land-use planning, building codes, agricultural and ecosystems management, water management, drainage, etc. Key instruments for defining measures are risk and vulnerability analyses, taking both past experiences (local knowledge) into account as well as research based knowledge about future risks.
  • Dear Roy and all,

    We, a group of individuals and professionals from Indonesia managed to have our first briefing paper on the Post HFA 2015.
    We put it in a more structured way as you can download from here: Briefing Note 1. Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Indonesian Civil Society First Response. : https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=25625

    This brief is a response to the call for comments on the consultation paper Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction drafted by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). Recommendation and comments were given. One of the inputs include a note that the Post-2015 Framework for disaster risk reduction should continue the periodical reviews by the member states. It is highly recommended that the progress reports from the member states shall be continued as a long term global practice in measuring countries resilience to risks.

    Thank you

    Jonatan Lassa
    Institute of Resource Governance and Social Change

  • Consultative process should seriously listen to experience from the field where conflict and violence prevention and disaster risk reduction go together. We should be free of the limits of specific UN Agency mandates to approach this from practical, efficient, problem-solving perspective.

    Similarly, although different UN agencies attend to humanitarian response vs. long-term development efforts, we have not yet full engaged with the actors responsible for either of these efforts. However, on the ground, at country, sub-national and local level, the actors who are involved in both prevention and response are the same. Let's make an effort to align and involve all of these stakeholders in the input process to learn how to truly mainstream drr and cca.

    Marla Petal

  • As the focal point for disaster risk management for health at WHO, I would like to enter this discussion with two main points, which have been developed in consultation with colleagues. I take the opportunity to express my thanks to ISDR and to Loy Rego for facilitating these important dialogues.

    First, taking the liberty of speaking on behalf of colleagues in health and other sectors working towards improving the health of communities at risk of emergencies and disasters (is that not all of us?), may we propose that people`s health should feature as an explicit outcome of the post-HFA framework. Actions from all sectors to make communities safer from all hazards contributes to saving lives, reducing deaths, injuries, illnesses and disability, protecting hospitals and other infrastructure and strengthening the resilience of communities and health systems. Given the impact of hazards on the health of communities worldwide, the health imperative for a post-HFA framework is clear, and therefore, we propose that health outcomes and actions to reduce health risks should be made very prominent in a future framework.

    Among the necessary ingredients to translate health outcomes into practical actions are stronger partnerships between those working in health and other sectors, and more effective engagement and capacities in the health sector at all levels to address the risks of emergencies and disasters. WHO and our partners are determined to make advance these causes in the course of the development and implementation of the post-HFA framework.

    Second, we would propose that the development of the post-HFA framework should begin with a discussion and ultimate agreement on the fundamental elements of the framework. Some key questions which might govern the design and development of the post-HFA framework include:

    • From 2015 going forward, what paradigm or conceptual framework will serve communities best, as well the wide range of actors which support communities in the management of disaster risks?
    • What are the principles and approaches which will shape the development of the post-HFA framework?
    • What is the true nature of the challenge to communities which this framework is designed to address?
    • What has been the experience of countries, communities and other actors in managing risks to date and why – what has been successful and can be shared or built upon; what has been weak and needs to be strengthened?
    • How will the post-HFA framework relate to other frameworks and practices which address the management of risks to communities?

    If we take one of these issues: as a global community can we agree on a set of principles and approaches which will inform the development of the post-HFA framework?

    WHO is embarking on a process to develop an emergency risk management framework for managing the health risks of emergencies as well as disasters and other crises. One of the drivers for this work is a stronger alignment of approaches in the health sector which those of other sectors working towards the same or similar goals. A starting point for the development of such a framework are a discussion of principles and approaches.

    As there are corollaries with the development of the post-HFA framework, we propose that the following approaches and principles should be included as a basis for the post-HFA framework.

    • A comprehensive risk management approach. This approach is based on assessing and managing risks of emergencies/disasters across the risk management continuum. A comprehensive emergency risk management approach is based on risk assessments and includes measures (risk treatments) which are aimed at preventing or mitigating risks, responding to and recovering from emergencies. Reference could be made to the ISO standards on risk management.

    • Community-centred approach. Capacities at community level, including the active participation of community members and local actors, are essential for effective risk management, for example, in assessing risks, reporting of possible emergencies, providing community level services, risk communication and community education, local emergency response planning, first response to emergencies, provision of safe water before, during and after emergencies, and long term community care and rehabilitation.

    • Sustainable development. Developing county and community capacities across all sectors to manage risks of emergencies requires strong and long-term commitment and sound managerial and technical programmes from countries and communities, supported by their partners.

    • An all-hazard approach. A framework should consider addressing components pertaining to the management of emergencies/disasters from all sources, including natural, technological, biological and societal hazards. There are many common elements to emergency risk management regardless of the nature of the hazard. The capacity of all sectors must be enhanced to face all types of major hazards, such as epidemics and other biological hazards, all types of natural hazards (including extreme climate events); chemical hazards, radiation, major transport crashes and other technological hazards, and conflict and other societal hazards. Other threats such as an influenza pandemic or terrorism also need to be managed.

    • Multiagency and multidisciplinary approach. Individuals and organisations in many disciplines are required to manage the risks of emergencies/disasters across risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and capacity development. The post HFA framework should aim to facilitate partnerships in which these disciplines, represented by agencies, institutions and individuals with a role and interest in emergency risk management, will be able to contribute to its development and implementation.

    • Multisectoral approach. At the national and local levels, managing the risks of emergencies/disasters requires a multisectoral approach. The post-HFA framework should reflect that all sectors work together to manage risks caused by the interaction of people, hazards, and their social, cultural, natural and developed environments.

    • Ethical considerations. The post-HFA framework should be based on and be consistent with ethical norms, fundamental human rights considerations, and humanitarian principles. These include equitable access to services, and inclusion of those at risk (in particular, the needs and rights of those most vulnerable) in planning and implementation processes, among others.

    We would contend that agreement on a set of approaches and principles is fundamental to the development of the post-HFA framework, and look forward to further discussions on these issues.
  • Hi to everybody.
    Greetings from Peru. My name is Dalia and I belong to several networks of disaster risk reduction in Peru and Latin America so first of all I would like to highlight the importance of facilitating these dialogues not only in English but also in Spanish and other languages​​.
    I think there are two important points to consider: networks and local organizations. We have been engaged since 2009 in Views from the Frontline that emphasizes the local voices and we are sure that this is the most important because local governments are the first responders when disasters happen and those who make and execute works in their areas of action, that's why is key strengthening local organizations of both the state and civil society. In Latin America there are community particpation is a practice well known and organized but much remains to be done, it is here that networking is very helpful to join civil society and the state and joining regions and countries.
    The Latin American network to which I belong is born from the GNDR, at first was divided into two nodes (Central and South America) but we have realized that our strength lies in our unity and our common objectives as a whole, that way we will have more presence and voice.
    We will be aware of these discussions but I say again that would be great for these spaces were available in several languages​​.
  • Although the HFA has defined 5 main topics, the implementing practise needs some standardization on how the countries reached to the same level on the same topic. The monitorıng and assessment standarts at implementations can be defined. International and Regional standardization can be formed.

    Also side effects, and domino effects of disasters on economy, socio-economy, genders, people with disabilities stc. has to be included at all levels of DRR.

    The DRR studies should be the main part of the urban and regional planning of a country and with this point of view strategy must be implemented spatially to the country, regions, urban and rural areas. Until 2015, implementations success will depend on the overlapping of strategies defined and the implementation of urban plans. Disconnected urban renewal projects can prepare the cities to other disasters itself. Urban transformation considering DRR is a main topic which should start form regional and go on with urban and neighbourhood scales. Also self energy generating green cities and buildings can be added to this topic to gain another value for CCA.

    The displacement of populations in cities because of the economical and soio economical changing conditions of tranformed urban areas can be a reason for other risky periphery areas of the city which are prone to disasters. The local DRR studies must concludethese side effects of non-regional and non-urban scaled projects implementations. Post HYOGO 2015 can be a platform which limits and defines the ideal DRR based urban and region planning and implementation aims, targets, processes and implementations at all levels. Some workshops can be done until and after post-Hyogo 2015, on an international platform.
  • The consultation process can be with independent consultants on their specialties and disaster management and also can be the ones who know the dynamics of the country. The consultants can either be private companies or international consultants working with the consultants of the sector in the country.
  • I expect these dialogues to help bring about far greater awareness of the dangers and disasters facing us all. I expect many stakeholders to become involved and collectively formulate concrete action plans, which can be implemented worldwide to save billions of lives. I expect to see far greater awareness of our collective interdependence and the understanding that, in working for the good of the whole with an altruistic attitude, everything is possible.

    I expect to see these dialogues inspire and feed into actions that enable life on Earth to continue for many thousands of years; because in taking responsibility and facing such daunting life threatening challenges, we shared and maximized our intelligence for the benefit of all.
  • Here is some information on the activities of the japanese day for DRR on 1st September. Read more at the link below. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120902a2.html?fb_ref=article_life

    Disaster drills conducted nationwide
    Thousands turn out to rehearse responses to future catastrophes

    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 DRR 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."

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