How do we accelerate HFA implementation and enhance the momentum for DRR in the remaining three years till 2015?
  • Dear participants,

    In this last week of September 2012, world leaders met in New York and committed to maintain the momentum of their national, regional and global efforts to meet their commitments to achieve and exceed the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, while simultaneously beginning the process of articulating the post 2015 development goals. A MDGs advocacy group led by the President of Rwanda and the Prime Minister of Australia, launched a special drive to accelerate MDG implementation in the “three years, three months and three days” that are left to attain the poverty eradication targets they set 12 years ago to accomplish in the first one and a half decades of the millennium. At the same GA summit , the UN SG launched a new “Education First” * initiative to put every child in school, improve the quality of learning and foster global citizenship; thus speeding up implementation of MDG 2 and 3, with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi making a passionate plea for the importance of education in opening minds and hearts. So too the “Scaling Up Nutrition” ** movement held its 2nd Annual high level meeting yesterday to review progress in its 30 member countries in its push for action and investments to improve maternal and child nutrition during the crucial 1000 days between a woman’s pregnancy and her child’s second birthday.

    All of us in this dialogue can learn some important lessons from these actions that remain firm on implementing what was decided; even while the conversations on a future global instrument of replace the MDGs are underway.

    In introducing this first online dialogue a month ago, and again in my opening remarks for this second round, I said “In our preoccupation to envision and detail out the post 2015 DRR Framework, we must not forget that we have over three years of the HFA implementation decade still available to advance action in the gap areas of DRR, and expand and deepen those areas where we have made some progress.”

    All over the world, Governments are at the final stages of multi- stakeholder consultation on their 4th national review of HFA implementation using the 20 indicators in the HFA Monitor***, as input to the global review of progress to be presented at next years’ Global Platform. So too, many cities around the world are using the Local Government Self-Assessment tool to do their own mapping of progress made on implementing HFA and achieving the 10 essentials of making cities resilient. These reports have specific sections on the way forward which provide excellent insights into what needs to be done in each country while the recent and ongoing consultations provide an excellent context to participate in this thread of the dialogue.

    This is the context for the question in this thread:


    This is an important question and I encourage all of us to join in and contribute. For those of us in national and local Government, do share the results of your national consultations and other deliberations. For other stakeholders who participated in theses consultations and processes, do share with all of us your views and contributions. For UN agencies supporting these processes at local, national and regional levels, do share with us on the dialogue what is being done in the city, country and region you are in.

    For those of us working in other institutional settings, let us share our views of what our organisations are doing or plan to do to contribute to HFA implementation in the gap areas we care about the most.

    And for all of us practitioners let us also share our thoughts on what is being done in multi-stakeholder partnerships in various aspects of the HFA agenda and its priorities for action.

    Last week in Incheon I saw an old poster for the HFA, probably prepared for the first session of the Global Platform in 2007, which quoted the then USG, Sir John Holmes saying “Time is running out. We have only 8 years left to achieve the commitments we made at Kobe…”

    5 years later, even more time has passed. Let us put on our thinking caps and give out our best ideas on what we can do, and share information on what we are already doing or plan to do to accelerate HFA implementation in these last three years and three months of the decade.

    I look forward to hearing from most of you and many more new entrants on what may be the most important question in this dialogue.



    Facilitator, On line dialogue on Post 2015 DRR Framework

    *
    **
    ***
  • What can we do to maintain and enhance the momentum for Disaster risk reduction and accelerate HFA Implementation in these remaining two and half years?

    To maintain and enhance the capacity for progression on disaster risk reduction and to accelerate HFA Implementation
    Governments, social stakeholders and International community must focus their continuous work towards disaster management in the same direction. It should be necessary to sustain the ongoing global work capacity for progressive commitment in the framework for disaster risk reduction that will promote efficiently on governability, equity comprehensive risk management, and vulnerability reduction, Enforcement of standards on preventive, protection and environmental management.
    Strengthening the democratic systems around the world and improve decentralization particularly in African continent, finally Increase technical collaboration and more cooperation of International Financial aid.

    Joseph Herve
    In my opinion this remaining short time should be a priority focus of all the governments and non government agencies to achieve maximum targets of HFA. In this regard the all governments of the world share their real achievement on the five thematic areas of HFA. What I think except priority one the other four areas are still far beyond the target. Priority one is just touched by governments not fully owned as a top priority.

    Corruption, injustice, political unstability, poverty and poor structure of governments institution are main hurdles to achieve the target of HFA.

    Jalilur Rehman
    DRR Practitioner Pakistan
  • Dear all,
    Hope you are well and doing good.

    I think it is clear for everyone the vulnerable area in the Earth. So it will be good if we priorities our goals and places and we start dealing in direct training according to the need of these areas and strength their capacity.
    Stakeholder worldwide should contribute to integrate such awareness campaign program in their education level and train those student hove to act. It will be direct approach with direct people that will contribute and respond during the disaster time.
    Every thing we have to think from financial point of view. That means building well structure program within the countries and societies with ownership will reduce and have effective and efficiency feedback.

    Sharing information and experience, drafting manual with life stories and train NGOs will make the HFA move n a rapid steps and reach it Is goal.

    Abed Al Badeaa Al Dada
  • Many natural disasters have occurred recently, major hazards include the Queensland floods in Australia and Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster in Japan. Contributions towards best practice are significant factors that indicate lessons learned from disasters. Best practices are usually adopted or more appropriate for specific countries that display similar characteristics such as climate, human development index and population. Lessons learned from recent disasters, recovery process is investigated and implemented for building resilience. Changes in energy policies were adopted just over one year after the disaster to introduce renewable energy source in Japan and also carbon tax in Australia. The impacts for disasters and climate change are related issues. In general, developing countries are less responsible and less likely to cope with increased level of global warming. The recent trends are most concerning in the past few years for developed countries with high economies.
  • Well…. the remaining time which is rather short has to be focused mostly on implementing the lessons learned from good practices and successful experiences which have been exchanged and shared between communities and governments at risk with various needs, capacities, priorities and also different cultures. In this regard, issues such as continuation of applying the building codes, upgrading the critical infrastructures as well as maintaining the awareness of public regarding the disasters through education and training have been practiced and promoted so far in many countries. Surely, some of the barriers and incentives must have been identified by now and it is time to accelerate implementation and enforcement in order to enhance the momentum for DRR more effectively.


    First of all I like the term "momentum" used to describe the current progress of HFA implementation. Indeed it is moving forward and I truly believe that significant achievements have been realized to date. But like any "momentum", a stronger opposite force can easily stop this forward progress. Taking on from this thinking, I believe to ensure that the HFA continues to move forward, we need to identify what are the different forces that will stop its progress. Broadly thinking, I think these are forces that can significantly undermine the progress of HFA implementation and we need to address this.

    The talking and walking of DRR practice can simply be stopped when people stopped talking about it. Governments and agencies and people can easily shift their focus in terms of directions for development. Years ago we saw the threats to collapsing financial systems and the world shifted its focus and attention to dealing such threats. Right now there has been a lot of talk about climate change, negotiations, conferences, dialogues etc are happenening everywhere. To ensure that DRR continues to take on a significant share in public opinion, we need to think of ways to provide a venue for advocacies both national and international levels. DRR and HFA should continue to be an important element of public opinion.

    Coming from the non-government sector, "best practices" are a big thing for us. NGOs are fond of capturing and sharing best practices. I think a way forward is to facilitate learning conferences within countries and across countries to talk about these themes; (1) DRR approaches from the most basic element of DRR---the community at the forefront of DRR and (2) engaging multiple stakeholders such as the private sector, academe, government and non-government agencies to contribute in DRR.

    The organization I am working with, in the next 3 years, we will continue to strengthen our work on community-managed DRR. Right now we are working on coming up with an updated trainers manual on CMDRR that will integrate the current developments in ecosystems and climate change links to DRR. In the Philippines, although we have a national legislation that advances the DRR according to the HFA, the greatest challenge we have found is "localizing" such legislation--how local governments and local communities translate the law into actual work on risk reduction. With this in mind, we are implementing CMDRR in various communities and working with local governments to serve two purpose (1) to assist at risk communities reduce their risks and (2) capture and document the factors that contribute and hinders localization of implementation of the DRR law and policies.

    These are all for now in mind and I am happy to learn from the posts in this online dialogue.


    IIRR-Regional Center for Asia

  • Pacific Platform moves on Post-HFA agreement

    GENEVA, 20 September 2012 - UNISDR Chief, Margareta Wahlström, today welcomed a major policy decision by Pacific Island States to help formulate a new international framework on disaster risk reduction to replace the current Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) in 2015.

    The 4th session of the Pacific Platform for Disaster Risk Management committed today in Noumea, New Caledonia, to develop an integrated regional strategy for disaster risk management and climate change which will be a key part of the region's contribution towards creating the new framework which is scheduled to be discussed at the next World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Japan, in 2015.

    Ms. Wahlström said: "Through their discussions this week and the decision announced today the Pacific Island States have raised significantly the profile of the consultations which are now well underway on a successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action which is a landmark international agreement on reducing risk adopted by all UN member states.

    "It is vitally important for all countries and regions to make their voices heard in this debate and to follow the lead of the Pacific Platform. Ultimately what's at stake is a safer and better world where fewer lives and jobs are lost and where the infrastructure is in place to cope with the rising number of extreme weather events."

    UNISDR has already had over 280 participants in the first round of on-line consultations on the substance of the agreement but this is the first time that a regional body has committed publicly to developing a regional strategy which will contribute directly to shaping the future international agreement.

    Mosese Sikiviou, Deputy Director for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community's (SPC) Disaster Reduction Programme, referring to the new regional strategy, said: "We want to ensure that the various sectors and interest groups that contribute to the overall reduction of vulnerability and risk in our region can get full value out of the new strategy.

    "It needs to be something that provides useful guidance and supports the various countries and territories in the Pacific to define the specifics of what needs to be done, and how it is to be done, at national and sub national levels. We also need to make sure that the new strategy capitalizes on opportunities available at the regional and global level, such as those arising from the Rio 20+ Summit and the Millennium Development Goals review."

    Jerry Velasquez, Head of UNISDR for Asia and the Pacific, said: "The Pacific was the first region in the world to take the Hyogo Framework and turn it into a region-wide planning instrument. Again it is taking the lead with the integration of climate change and disaster risk management."

    He added: "It is proof that the region is focused and pro-active. It is an important step in addressing the key challenge of how to make national economies more climate-independent as you seek to safeguard development gains."

    The Pacific Platform is co-convened by SPC in partnership with the UNISDR, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The meeting this year is supported by partner organizations like, The Asia Foundation, United Stated Agency for International Development, the University of the South Pacific, Institute for Research and Development in New Caledonia, United Nations Development Programme Pacific Centre, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, AusAID, the European Union and the French Pacific Fund.
  • Dear Loy and All,
    Greetings from Save the Earth.
    How to accelerate the HFA for the rest 3 years (2013-15), i think, there few opportunities that can accelerate the HFA progress and also contribute much more for post-15 efforts.

    The highest crisis in progressing of the HFA at local government and community perspectives are "limited or NO RESOURCES". [Resources refer to mainly human, technical and financial resources].

    We asked the community (2009 VFL) "Does your community have access to financial or material resources provided by local government to reduce the impact of disasters or to help recover from disasters?" the answer was almost "NO".

    Again, we asked, "Does the local government have an adequate budget for disaster prevention?" again the answer was almost "NO".
    For more details, please visit:

    The fact is, a developing country that does not have enough financial strength, how they can allocate sufficient amount of money for DRR what they do not understand clearly. If the people who prepare the budget or prepare the policy strategy do not know clearly the DRR issues how they can think to put money for that in the budget! So, significant capacity should be developed for the people who work for DRR in state and non-state agencies.

    CSOs have been working with governments to reduce the risks at all levels from mitigation to rehabilitation stages, so attention with means and facilities should be made for the CSOs so that they enhance the efforts to carry out the works. Surely the "resources" must be provided for the governments particularity for the local governments to empower them. Without local empowerment, the risks from the local levels cannot be reduced. So, i think, local government and CSOs should be increasing supports in all possible ways.

    On the other, the CSO networks that support the process like GNDR, GDN, and other collaborative efforts should be strengthened so that they can make more visible contributions in these fields.

    ISDR should work more robustly with DRR agencies in countries (government, UN agencies and CSOs) to institute the activities to be done for the three years and also can articulate the approach for the post HFA. ISDR is the agency that work for disaster reduction. It should be more open and robust to all DRR agencies equally (must not be keep CSO sector as the second grade partner).

    The ISDR should analyze the recommendations made from different research/study (GAR, National HFA, VFL, and others) and institute the updated approaches to address the pending works for rest three years and post-HFA strategy.

    i do not think, to abolish ISDR will be contributing to reduce the disaster risks but i think, it should be strengthened with resources (manpower, technically, financially ...) so that it can reach to ends of the situation and can function well.

    All the best
    Akhteruzzaman Sano
    Save the earth Cambodia

  • Lo mas importante para acelerar la implementacion del MAH , es realizar una alianza estrategica con los Jefes de Gobierno a nivel nacional , municipal , pues ellos tiene dentro de sus planes la posibilidad de acciones efectivas para ello , es importante realizar una reunion por regiones con Jefes de Estado sobre el asunto , pus muchas veces quienes participan en las reuniones tienen muy poco nivel de responsabilidad o capacidad de tomar desiciones
  • I echo the sentiments of Akhteruzzaman Sano; DRR must become a priority for those who hold the purse strings. We cannot hope to mainstream risk reduction, whether these are risks posed by a rapidly changing climate or those posed by hazards, across development sectors without greater political and private sector buy in. We live in a world where, sadly, cash is king. Countries want economic development (politicians want this too because it allows them to maintain power and increases the likelihood of re-election!) Stand alone conservation projects that do not take into account people's livelihoods are met with limited success - it's the same principle for governments! Advocacy on DRR and CCA is helpful; showing the economic benefits of risk reduction, or better yet, embedding DRR into any and all development projects is crucial. Legislation with teeth to bite is necessary - let developers know that 'no DRR, no deal' is the way of the future....The same rationale applies to cutting carbon emissions. You want to do business? You want to make money? Protect your investments AND the future....'sustainable development' - it's not a new concept, but is one that's time has come. The pursuit of profit is clearly a driver of risk - can we find a way to make it a basis for resilience too?
  • Here is a thought provoking statement by the charity, Islamic Relief. The whole account of their recent report is available at .

    "Islamic Relief urged the UN and governments to come up with a "bold and binding international agreement to protect poor communities better when the voluntary and rather toothless Hyogo framework for action expires in 2015".

    What do discussants think? I suppose this section of the Dialogue concerns how each of us would define 'bold' and 'binding', no?

    All the best,


    Dr. Ben Wisner
    Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London
  • As such, average global economic disaster losses have risen by 200 percent over the last 25 years. 2011 was the costliest year on record for disasters with estimated global losses of US$380 billion. The most expensive events included the Japan earthquake and tsunami and floods in Thailand which affected industrial areas as well as the magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake on 11 March 2011 and the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake of a magnitude 6.3 as well as the recent floods in southern Asia during 2011 and 2012 fly time, leaving millions people have been affected, killing a hundreds with direct economic losses. I believe that the remaining three years till 2015 should take in consideration these huge measures to enhance all possible efforts to bring together all appropriate planning is engaged in various aspects of natural disasters prevention, protection and mitigation as well as providing a unique opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences. Thus, to accelerate HFA implementation and enhance the momentum for DRR in the remaining three years till 2015 and make a good start for the post 2015 era.
    All best
  • UNISDR announces major review of national platforms

    Date:2 Oct 2012
    Source(s):United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat (UNISDR)

    By Denis McClean

    Dubrovnik - UNISDR, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, is implementing a key recommendation on National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction from the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, "to further review how they can best support domestic decision-making and international cooperation."

    UNISDR Chief, Margareta Wahlström, said today: "One of the most significant achievements of the world's first global agreement on reducing disaster risk, the Hyogo Framework for Action, has been the creation of 81 National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction around the world. Our goal is to have credible and robust National Platforms in as many countries as possible by 2015.

    "They are making a significant contribution as I have heard this week at the European Forum on Disaster Reduction. However, they have developed in many diverse ways and this review will help to identify what are the essential ingredients for a successful National Platform. The review will also provide guidance on the ideal mix of stakeholders and ensure important groups are not overlooked."

    In his report last year to the General Assembly on implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the Secretary-General stated that while national platforms were a "potential source for guidance for informed decision-making and awareness [this] has not been fully utilized."

    There has been a wide-ranging discussion this week at the European Forum on Disaster Risk Reduction on the capacity of national platforms.

    Representing the Netherlands National Platform, Corsmas Goemans, said: "Accountability lies with the National Platform for ensuring that disaster risk reduction is well understood and integrated into important areas of activity such as health, education, planning, agriculture, housing and infrastructure."

    Mr. Goemans who is a senior adviser with the Ministry of Security and Justice, added: "There is a need to show people and organizations that they are a part of disaster risk reduction and to ask them to make it visible. Visibility will help to improve local ownership. We need transparency in the sense that we need to let people know what others are doing."

    There are seven Working Group Members - Germany, Sweden, Senegal, Indonesia, Philippines, Ecuador and Mexico - supporting the review including the dissemination of a questionnaire in the next week to all existing National Platforms with a view to preparing a report on the issue for next year's Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction.

    Mette Lindahl-Olsson of the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency, said: "The National Platform review is definitely needed. We need to see what is working and what is not. This will help us to understand the value of the platforms now and in the future. I think that the main actors to make something happen are at the local level. National Platforms must support municipalities, for example, in areas such as exchange of experiences when they are tackling similar challenges."

    Ms. Lindahl-Olsson, who heads the Natural Hazards and Critical Infrastructure Section, described the Swedish National Platform as a coordination mechanism with a membership of 19 authorities, representatives from county boards and local community associations, who pool information and speak with a common voice on disaster risk reduction to good effect such as the recent creation of a height elevation data base for Sweden.

    Additional information
  • Here is a newspaper article in the mainstream press that Ben referred to on the Islamic Relief report . Food for thought.
    UN urged to create global fund for disaster prevention
    Islamic Relief calls for fund to give poor nations 'fighting chance' against climate change with investment before disaster strikes, Monday 1 October 2012 07.18 EDT

    The flooded west bank of the Niger River in Niger's capital, Niamey, after flash floods that displaced thousands of people earlier this year.

    The NGO Islamic Relief has urged the UN to establish a global contingency fund for disaster prevention as it is cheaper to help prepare for floods and drought than spend billions on emergencies.

    In a report on Monday, Feeling the Heat, the charity also called on governments and aid agencies to completely rethink their priorities and put disaster risk reduction at the heart of all aid programmes.

    "We need to give poor countries a fighting chance against climate change by investing in things like drought-resistant crops, rebuilding flood-prone houses on higher ground and preserving food and seeds for when disaster strikes," says Shahnawaz Ali, head of climate change and disaster resilience for Islamic Relief Bangladesh. "If we do that, we will not only save lives but save a lot of money on emergency aid."

    The group said it cost £400 for Islamic Relief to protect a family in the Gaibanda district of Bangladesh from floods for five years by raising their land to a higher level, less than the £440 in emergency aid the same family would need in one month if they lost everything in a major flood.

    Islamic Relief is the latest aid group to argue that prevention is better than cure. The EU commissioner on humanitarian aid, Kristalina Georgieva, strongly supports aid efforts that build up the capacity of communities to withstand shocks like drought or floods. Research from the US government says $1 of risk reduction spending can result in as much as a $15 decrease in disaster damage.

    Despite common knowledge that investment in preventive measures is cost-effective in the long run, Islamic Relief said only a tiny proportion of aid goes on disaster risk reduction (DRR). In 2010, the world spent 23 times as much on emergency relief for the 10 countries hit hardest by disasters as it spent on disaster prevention.

    There have been international efforts to shift aid priorities towards risk reduction. After the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed almost 230,000 people in 2004, the UN general assembly agreed the Hyogo Framework for Action, in which 168 countries put their names to a 10-year-commitment to disaster risk reduction.

    This little-known agreement was mentioned at the Rio+20 summit in June, when governments were urged to "accelerate implementation" of the framework. Hyogo, a non-binding framework, called for a 1% allocation of national development budgets to DRR, along with 10% of humanitarian aid financing and 10% of reconstruction and recovery funds.

    Islamic Relief said progress is being made. Australia, the European commission and the UK have put resilience at the centre of their aid efforts, while Colombia, Indonesia and other at-risk countries are developing strong disaster programmes. Nevertheless, risk reduction and prevention remain the "Cinderellas of the aid world".

    Its report cited research by Development Initiatives showing that only 1% of all development aid goes towards DRR. Islamic Relief said the most disturbing results were in west Africa, which is now dealing with floods after drought. The situation is particularly stark in west Africa, where millions of people in the five countries worst affected by drought, received only 12p for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in every £100 of aid spending over the five years to 2010.

    "[In the Sahel] From 2005 to 2010, disaster risk reduction amounted to only 0.12% of all aid – less than for any of the other countries we examined, and far less than the 1% overall percentage identified by Development Initiatives," said the report.

    Islamic Relief criticised donors for "fiddling" aid figures, citing the case of money for climate mitigation and adaptation. Donors had promised to provide new funding of about $30bn for 2010-12. In 2010, $22.9bn was provided for climate mitigation, about 15% of total official development aid (ODA).

    "If the funding was truly additional, we would expect ODA spending to have been substantially higher than in 2009. ODA did indeed rise over 2009 levels, to $128.5bn. But if climate funding is deducted, ODA actually dropped – by 11.85%. What we are witnessing is a donors' shell game in which funding is being reallocated under different budget heads and cut at the same time," said the report.

    Islamic Relief urged the UN and governments to come up with a "bold and binding international agreement to protect poor communities better when the voluntary and rather toothless Hyogo framework for action expires in 2015".
  • 1) Humanitarian crises may in no small way be due to planner’s inability to anticipate potential hazards and anticipate their significance. Reticence to sensitive and effective planning and decision making due to psychological and institutional constraints may lead to more serious consequences in the future. Decision makers’ most likely feel compelled to reconcile in a ways that reflect short term compromises rather than a long term vision. So, there exists always a doubt if the policy planning and decision making communities have sufficient capacity to adapt proactively to rapid change and complexity. Funding to risk reduction seems to any planner and decision makers as speculative investment. If the return is not a clearly visible product that can be showcased, no decision maker is interested in risky investment. Little value is placed on speculation as core institutional activity. But for a sensitive institution speculation is vital to adapt with dynamics of complexity and rapid change. Prompt response to humanitarian crises is more comfortable for an institution than speculation.
    Priority area-I of HFA regarding DRR should have a strong institutional basis for implementation. Substantial progress needs to be made for mainstreaming and amalgamation of DRR into various social sectors. Sensitisation (top-down) at institutional level (governance and political institution) is utmost necessary to give momentum to HFA implementation. Horizontal and vertical integration of institutional interest towards DRR should be articulated well. Staff ‘ownership’ of both risk reduction and the process of mainstreaming itself is key to attaining ‘full integration’.
    2) Enhance early warning means not only its ‘reach’, but it also means the understanding of its content. Capacity development of the community is required to deal with complex situation. Perception of risk is a vital area that to be addressed, as risk varies from community to community and individual to individual. When outsiders reach community for implementation of CBDRR, they analyse risk in much an aggregated way. The community as a whole may be involved but not participate. Participation is one way to accelerate HFA.
    3) Scientific knowledge is confined to only academic community. Dissemination of explicit knowledge upto the last mile with all its applicability is required to implement HFA. We have to find ways to foster knowledge networks and communities of practice.
    4) Climate change adaptation, Development and Disasters differ only temporally and spatially. All these three sectors should be addressed considering them in a same framework of activity. Setting target is essential. Countries set goal to be achieved at 2015, but not the achievable target. So, accountability is missing, and likewise acceleration.
  • Dear Colleagues

    It would seem that my suggestions related to the major challenges to action on DRR and building resilience also provides some of my answers to this question "How do we accelerate HFA implementation and enhance the momentum for DRR in the remaining three years till 2015? Hence I am re-emphasizing them.

    1. Greater financial resources need to be given to the UNISDR along with greater power and responsibility for them to implement globally interconnected strategic actions to avert and mitigate disasters.

    2. Resources need to be allocated specifically from development budgets for the realization of risk reduction objectives at the international, national and regional levels or through international cooperation and financial mechanisms. This could potentially be done through exploiting existing resources and established practices for more effective disaster risk reduction measures. One of these resources is the defense budgets of U.N countries. As little as 1% of the defense budget of each U.N country could make it possible to implement DRR prevention strategies that could save the lives of millions along with the massive expenditure needed to deal with post disaster crisis.

    3. The defense budgets are supposed to protect each countries civilian population from invading forces. These days 'Climate Change' and environmental catastrophes are threatening the well being of civilians worldwide in a more dramatic way than invading forces and can only get much worst if not tackled effectively. 1% of defense budgets used in this way could even create vast savings in defense budgets, when weighed against the costs arising from conflicts linked with migration due to environmental crisis.

    In the U.K we have an old proverb which is worth considering here:
    "A stitch in time saves nine".

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