Participants agreed that the WCDR background document setting
out overall goals, objectives and priorities for action provided
a solid foundation for progress in the implementation of disaster
risk reduction. They had many constructive suggestions to make
about how this foundation could be strengthened further.
The idea of setting overall goals was generally approved. The
three proposed goals were considered relevant and valid. Similarly,
most participants agreed that the proposed objectives and priorities
were appropriate and covered most of the main issues to be addressed.
In both cases, additional issues or matters requiring particular
attention were identified.
The main issues that emerged from the online dialogue were as
follows.
Many participants highlighted
the challenge of ensuring that goals and objectives are met;
that good words are turned into
good practice.
The need for disaster risk reduction is generally accepted by policy
makers, yet practice often lags behind the international and national
consensus on this: stronger political ‘ownership’ of
the agenda is needed.
Participants made a number of suggestions about how such ownership
could be secured. Several suggested specific, time-bound targets
for disaster reduction in order to establish commitments and responsibilities
(e.g. closer definition of goal 1: 'substantial reduction of disaster
losses'). To encourage governments that might be wary of targets,
it was argued that the targets could be primarily qualitative,
with quantitative targets used only where strictly necessary. This
approach would also allow communities to engage more easily with
the process. Alternatives were to focus on processes that would
allow countries to meet their targets, or to look at establishing
common standards (perhaps derived in part from those for building,
land use and professional conduct). More direct linkage between
the WCDR goals and objectives and the Millennium Development Goals
was recommended, as was establishment of a baseline position to
identify where different countries and stakeholders are at present.
Target setting in whatever form would, in turn, require methods
for auditing progress (which would have to be robust and transparent)
and perhaps mechanisms for ensuring compliance. One suggestion
was for a binding international agreement under which countries
would regularly monitor and report on their achievements.
Another significant issue raised in this context was the need
for an explicit discussion of incentive structures to encourage
implementation - an element thought to be missing from the WCDR
objectives and priorities. Development of such structures would
require better understanding of what motivates decision makers,
particularly at implementation level. Acquisition of such understanding
would also help in lobbying for greater political support for implementation.
International donors therefore had a key role to play in creating
appropriate incentive structures. There was general agreement that
risk reduction remains a low priority for many international donors,
for a variety of reasons but principally: lack of knowledge and
understanding, organisational and cultural divisions between the
relief and development arenas, and competition from other pressing
development needs. This might be overcome through developing more
effective leadership, better communication, providing appropriate
(i.e. more risk-aware) planning tools for development initiatives,
establishing the linkages between disaster reduction and poverty
reduction more clearly, and making the case for cost-effectiveness.
It was also noted that the ease with which international funding
could be obtained for disaster response (and with which loans could
be diverted towards it) hindered real development progress and
diverted funding from longer-term risk reduction.
The difficulties in
securing commitment at national level were highlighted by several
participants. Recent research by one contributor
in a developing region has shown that, although decision makers
stated that disaster risk reduction should have high priority within
disaster management, they admitted that in practice it was ranked
very low. The actual priorities were activities related to emergency
response and reconstruction because the incentives to focus on
these – visibility, ability to obtain resources, political
consensus and ability to measure the results – were much
stronger. This was echoed in findings from research in the Caribbean,
which showed that national-level stakeholders took a broad view
of risks and disasters encompassing social and economic problems
as well as hazard-induced shocks, and hence put great emphasis
on the need for prioritisation of efforts.
Such findings had to
be seen in the context of developing countries’ lack
of resources to deal with all the urgent issues of sustainable
development confronting them. Lack of financial resources and
competition for them are important issues that cannot be sidestepped
when creating
goals and setting objectives; so are external factors such as
debt and donor-driven adjustment programmes. There were some
signs of
poverty reduction, vulnerability reduction and sustainable development
being linked in national strategies, and of individual sectors
adopting disaster risk reduction approaches. This did not appear
to be widespread as yet, but more evidence was needed.
Much of the discussion touched upon issues of governance, directly
or indirectly. There was a consensus that political will is an
essential element in effective disaster reduction, at all levels,
in government and society at large. However, it had to be recognised
that decisions about disaster risk reduction are the result of
wider political negotiations, ideologies and cultures. Developing-country
participants in particular referred to the need for effective compliance
mechanisms such as constitutional and legal frameworks.
The question of rights was raised in this context. There were
suggestions that protection of citizens from hazards or disasters
should be recognised as a fundamental human right. An international
convention on disaster reduction (along the lines of those on climate
change, biodiversity and desertification) was also suggested.
Although the proposed WCDR objectives provide for community participation
in decision-making (objective 1, priority iv), there was concern
in many quarters about the exclusion of citizens (especially the
most vulnerable) from such processes, and so a number of participants
emphasised the need for fuller articulation of the need to ensure
that their voices were heard, and the value of learning from their
indigenous knowledge of risks and coping. Greater participation
of citizens in disaster reduction policy-making, planning and implementation
was widely supported as a fundamental principle and on account
of its demonstrable practical benefits. Civil society needed to
have better access to information and decision-making processes,
in order to press for greater accountability and change, and there
were a few encouraging signs of civil society stimulating authorities
to address disaster risk reduction issues. One participant called
for a credible, independent international NGO to prod governments
and society into action on the issue, along the same lines as Amnesty
International for human rights and Greenpeace for the environment.
From a more administrative
perspective, it was accepted by most participants that the ultimate
responsibility for policy and implementation
rested with the highest level of government: but the view was put
that this should go beyond designation of a senior public officer
or organisation responsible for overseeing implementation of activities
(objective 1, priority ii), instead requiring a committed ‘champion’ of
disaster risk reduction at ministerial level. Fear was expressed
that delegation of responsibility to subordinate levels could result
in disaster risk reduction becoming isolated from mainstream government
decision-making. Moreover, decentralisation of responsibilities
for disaster risk reduction (objective 1, priority iii), though
desirable, depended for its effectiveness upon complementary improvements
in general standards of governance and political leadership.
At all levels – international to local – there was
concern that creation of separate units responsible for disaster
reduction would lead to the subject becoming a ‘ghetto’ isolated
from other policy issues, and would thereby undermine attempts
to mainstream risk management into development policy and practice.
Responsibility for disaster reduction therefore had to be assumed
by every sector, as well as at all levels.
Capacity building featured
in many contributions, as an essential element towards achieving
the WCDR objectives. It was felt that
capacity – like policies – should be developed at all
levels, with activities directed and prioritised according to need,
and with each level integrated with those above and below it. Sustainable
improvements in capacity could be built effectively from the bottom
up, starting with vulnerable communities and then linking to local,
provincial and national levels. Several participants, especially
those working in developing countries, pointed out the importance
of engagement with local and grass-roots initiatives, suggesting
both implicitly and explicitly that this area be given more attention
in the objectives and priorities.
Development and dissemination
of good practice in all aspects of disaster risk reduction was
identified as an important component
of capacity although it was admitted that this might be difficult
to find in many instances (a website for documenting best practice
was suggested). Associated with this was the need for better monitoring
and evaluation of interventions. The ‘emergency management’ paradigm
remains widespread in disaster education and training: the alternative ‘risk
management’ paradigm is still far from being generally known
and adopted and needs to be promoted more strongly.
It was generally agreed
that disaster reduction ought to involve all relevant stakeholders
if the proposed ‘culture of resilience’ was
to be realised (see the comments above on involvement of vulnerable
communities). Education – of all kinds – was seen to
have a key role in this, and should not be seen as a one-way process
but more as a dialogue and exchange of views between all relevant
groups. Some contributors referred to the challenge of creating
the complex partnerships required for effective disaster risk reduction
- integrating social, technical, administrative, political, legal
and economic considerations - and the frequent failure to achieve
this to date. Much might depend on having fully-functioning ‘national
platforms’ comprising all key stakeholders (objective 1,
priority i), yet establishing and maintaining such mechanisms might
prove difficult.
Information featured in many contributions to the dialogue, because
policy formulation needs to be directed by adequate information.
Several relevant gaps and needs were identified. One was for more
authoritative and impartial information on disaster risks and impact,
with more standardisation of data collection and analysis methods,
indicators and presentation of information (this was also implied
in the suggestion that there should be measurable targets for disaster
reduction). Better analysis of events and interventions, and improved
dissemination and interpretation of what is often complex and technical
information were also essential, at all levels.
Perspectives on the importance to be assigned to technology at
the goals and objectives level tended to vary according to country
and level of operation. Developed-country participants put greater
emphasis on technology transfer and research than their developing-country
colleagues, who were more likely to highlight the value of indigenous
technical knowledge and coping strategies in disaster risk reduction
and felt that this ought to be acknowledged more directly across
the objectives and priorities for action.
A number of contributors
raised the often-discussed problem of overlap between ‘natural’ and ‘man-made’ disasters – for
example, in the case of disasters induced by climate change, or
the contribution of conflict/insecurity and macro-economic policies
and trends to vulnerability – thereby emphasising how important
it was to ensure that the debate on disaster risk reduction was
not detached from other political, economic and social processes.
Finally, it is important
to note participants’ awareness
of the complexity of disaster risk reduction, in terms both of
the multiple and interacting causal factors leading to disasters
and the range of complementary approaches and actors required
to address the problem. These challenges were not underestimated.
(John Twigg, moderator, 1/7/04)
