1. What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes? How can we delimit the field of disaster risk reduction? Where possible provide examples and case studies.
2. How do we measure progress where success may be demonstrated by what has not happened, by the avoidance of death, injury, damage and loss?
3. How do we identify and describe indicators of
   - Outcomes or achievement
   - Output or policy and programme activities
   - Process and activity.
4. How do we take account of the disaster risk environment and context of different countries?
5. How do we describe and how do we link and combine indicators of quantity and quality.
6. Is managed relocation of settlements from high-risk areas a measure of success, for example moving communities away from traditional areas to new sites that are safer but may have less social and historical meaning?
7. How do we take account of an evolving environment where local and national conditions and data and hazards are themselves changing, for example changing hazard regimes resulting from climate change?

29.09.05 Nibedita Shankar, UK

Dear Philip, Marsh and others,

Sorry for this late contribution. I would like to add some more additional points (which I think has been missed out) to this debate.

1) What tasks are involved in setting priorities for indicators and objectives?

- Socio-economic context of the place and the people; and thier exposure to different types of risks and hazards .

Here I would like to see specifically 'differential vulnerability' within the context of socio-economic parameters. One such 'differential vulnearbility' would be 'gender' and I would like to see it as one of the integrated indicators with other objectives.

And when I am saying exposure to different types of hazards and risk I want to stick to natural hazards (because we often tend to confuse the practitioners when we try to bring in non-natural hazards in this domain - though I believe it is a pseudo division). Therefore what I am trying to say disaster risk managment has to be not only localised but also dependant on hazard types. In addition to it, the government, (I)NGOs and others alike need to acknowledge the importance of multiple natural hazards that are creating havoc distress in certain countries (like India, Africa) and paticular places, which are recurrently affected by different types of natural hazards like (droughts, flood, cyclone and earthquake) simultaneously and consecutively. Therefore there's a need to have differential disaster risk managment to addres those places which are highly at risk of multiple natural hazards.

I hope this is useful. Sorry for the late posting. Thanks.

Nibedita.
Nibedita Shankar,
Ph.D student, Department of Sociology,
University of Warwick,
UK, CV5 8DL.

28.05.09 Silvio Cerda H., Nicaragua

Dear Friends :

Sorry for coming late to the Topic 1 discussion. In the next lines I´ll try to share with you my viewpoints about the theme.

Having in focus that main goal of the 1 st topic discussion is the measuring process for disasters risk reduction, we have to diference some faces of the problematic:

1. There are necessary indicators for several levels: the ones used by the int -l organizations that work on disaster risk reduction like a part of the socio economic development of the countries they help; the national indicators needed for governments to measure the results of their work for the risk reduction at all levels; but the most important are the indicators about the communitary progress on disaster risk reduction.
   
2. The other kind of indicators is related with the term we are constructing them for, I mind, we need different indicators to measure the national, sector and local progress in creating communitary disaster reduction culture ? community resilence (long term); indicators for mid and short term associated to disaster impact mitigation ( ); and indicators to measure response preparedness at all levels.
   
3. I think that indicators about lives and material loses do not measure disaster risk reduction/ prevention, they simply measure the disaster impact.

Best regards
Silvio Cerda H.
DVR Project - SINAPRED
Nicaragua

28.09.05 Paola Albrito and Praveen Pardeshi, ISDR

Dear all,

We have read with interest the comment made on the link between disaster risk reduction and MDGs.
Disasters exert an enormous toll on development. In so doing they pose a significant threat to prospects for achieving the MDGs.

At the same time, efforts to attain the MDG targets can inadvertently increase the level of disaster risk. It is important to understand that a dilemma exists between, on one hand, efforts to achieve the MDGs and, on the other hand, efforts to decrease the levels of disaster risk. The question that faces decision makers and sometimes also places advocates of disaster reduction in disagreement with some MDG planners is how to develop a strategy that leads to the achievement of the MDGs without increasing the level of disaster vulnerability or vice versa.

	Millennium Development Goals and Indicators sensitive to Disaster Risk Reduction
	Suggested measures to incorporate DRR in areas of intervention to attain the MDGs

28.09.05 The ThaiTogether Team, THAILAND

I wanted to respond to some of the discussions that have been sent out today.

Maps of at risk areas would be useful but it is what is done with these that is important. If they are to be of any use they also need to be accessible to local people, along with education programs that can show their meanings. While moving the poor out of at risk areas sounds like a good solution the reality is that in many countries this is not going to work. It is not because of low rent that fishermen in Thailand live near the sea, and this can be said for many other countries. For many of the people who were affected by the tsunami, where they live is very much a part of their identity. In fact this has been one of the issues that has arisen in the aftermath of the tsunami, people are going through identity crisis's. In fact in Thailand it was the Morgen people who suffered the least loss of life, although it is these groups who live closest to the sea. This is because of their deep connections with the sea and also because of stories past down through the generations of other tsunamis.

Education programs should play a key role because there is no point in determining what risks exist in a country, what needs to be done and who is responsible without educating the local people and including them in the process.
I don't think that there is a blanket solution to the questions raised as historical, political, religious and cultural contexts need to be taken into consideration and these are going to differ in each country.

Yes governments need to be involved in discussions such as these but the most important thing is in linking ALL sectors together to come up with strategies and plans. In Thailand there has been a law for many years which says that it is illegal to build within about 200m of the shoreline. Before the tsunami everyone ignored this law. The above mentioned identity issues had a lot to do with this.

You can not fully assess the impact of a disaster without including the local people. The official number of houses destroyed in the tsunami in Thailand does not necessarily include the many houses that were not registered. The number of dead is also very complicated to asses because there were people living in the area who come from other provinces who were not registered. Some people came to the area illegally. Every body could not possibly have been recovered and most local people will say that the death toll was probably twice what the official records say.

I agree with Dr van Niekerk in that to asses the number of dead and the houses destroyed is to asses the impact of the disaster once it has happened and not the risk or the reduction mechanisms and overall preparedness.
I know that logistically it requires a lot more work but if this discussion had been open in more languages there may have been greater participation from community groups and government representatives.

Thank you
The ThaiTogether Team
Contact ThaiTogether
E-mail: info@thaitogether.org
On Line Forum: http://www.thaitogether.org/forum/
Yellow Pages: http://www.thaitogether.org/yellowpages/
Web Site: http://www.thaitogether.org
Field Worker's Phone:
04 053 4283 (Mimi)
Office phone: 076 322064-8 ext 107
Office Direct Line and Fax: 076 322 115
Office Mobile: 09 993 2322
IT and Web Master: 01 747 3000 (Paul)
Thai Together Office, Room 1
Baan Maksong 96/1
Moo 7 Witchitsongkram Rd
Kathu Phuket 83120
THAILAND

27.05.09 Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago

It is amazing to me that we do not see young people, students as stakeholders, in todays world where both parents are working the children are quite often alone at home, or traveling to or from school, in the very poor and/or third world countries.

Some natural disasters warnings are on television, radios, what of the ones that come without any warning. how are we to plan, knowing that we have such short memories, after the season all of this will be forgotten, except by the victims or their families.

Gia Gaspard Taylor
International Education and Resource Network, Trinidad and Tobago

27.09.05 Guillaume Chantry, Viet Nam

Dear all,
I would like to add a simple comment to the evaluation from the colleague from Guatemala.
One important indicator should be the (administrative) level & (political) power of the chief of the public organisation / committee in charge of disaster management : this measures well the commitment of the country with the question of disasters...

Guillaume Chantry
DWF
Prevent typhoon damages to housing, central Viet Nam
Hue, Viet Nam

27.09.05 Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago

We in this part of the world the Caribbean are very concern about the talk of tsunami, we know that these islands cannot survive even a short 10 minutes thunderstorm, therefore we must learn from you.

The reason we (we are an NGO) join this debate, to learn and to share the lessons learned with others,students, youth, perhaps one of the lessons here maybe to know when to stop giving or what to give, sometimes more than food and shelter or money, maybe what's needed.

Just a thought!
Gia Gaspard Taylor
International Education and Resource Network, Trinidad and Tobago
http://www.iearntandt.interconnection.org

27.09.05 Ricardo Zapata-Marti, Mexico

1. There are numerous isolated efforts to measure progress and develop indicators, thus there is a need to discuss an adopt standard criteria and definitions.

27.09.05 L. Ocola, Perú

1. What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programs? How can we delimit the field of disaster risk reduction?

L. Ocola
Research Scientist
Instituto Geofísico del Perú

26.09.05 The ThaiTogether Team, THAILAND

Unfortunately I did not have time to contribute to the first topic on time so I will just write a few of my thoughts and perhaps you could see where they fit it.

26.09.05 Jim Cory , United States of America

Hello all,

The topic question on indicators is framed in terms of assessing the aftermath. This is necessarily part of the equation, for only recently have we been able to collect detailed information about natural phenomena. I would like to explore also the positive side of the equation as mentioned by another participant.

We have the means to predict outcomes based on past behaviors and to model scenarios based on a variety of parameters. A possible product of this analysis would be a map of affected areas susceptability to flooding or to drought). If we then overlay these areas (as in a GIS) with a mapping of poverty, we could report on the number of poor living in those areas of risk.

As evidenced by Katrina, the poor are most likely to be living in areas that are prone to flooding. Rents and property costs may be lower there as a result of a history of risk. If positive efforts are made to reduce the poor in at risk areas, the loss of life and cost of rescue would be lessened. The more well to do populace is able to afford the higher cost of insurance in those areas, thus reducing the public cost of rebuilding. They are also more mobile and able to evacuate to alternative locales.

A map showing fewer poor in at risk areas would be a positive indication of risk reduction. The question remains how to reduce the number of poor in areas that are affordable to them as a result of economic factors related to risk. This effort must combine several initiatives at all levels of government. Property taxes should be adjusted based on the geographic distribution of risk. A portion of the taxes needs to be placed aside in risk abatement funds.

Relief agencies should reduce designation of funds to areas that are at risk and have risk reduction incentives in place. This is only possible if the poor have been relocated from these areas. Higher taxes should only be assessed on property where rebuilding or new building occurs. The people who are displaced need to be given support and subsidies to find housing in less at risk areas.

This is very over simplified, but I would be interested to know if anyone sees any value in this kind of approach.

Jim Cory
Systems Analyst
eoAnalytics, Inc.
1716 Fordem Avenue
Madison, WI 53704
United States of America
tel: 608.241.7100 ext. 232
fax: 608.241.7116
www.geoanalytics.com
http://webpages.charter.net/jcory17/

26.09.05 Omar G. Flores Beltetó, Guatemala

Dear colleagues:

26.09.05 Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, Mexico

Juracy,

My experience here inMaryland(I am originally from Mexico City, but happen to work in the US) is this. We have struggled very hard to bring stakeholders to the table in matters related to emergency preparedness for special populations, because it is not on their radar to include them in the planning process. The approach is the same for any emergency management process, with changes only in strategies and initiatives depending on what specific goals, steps and milestones you are looking for. Most of our work has focused on getting to their planning meetings, reunions, tabletops... any event they may have in which we can participate and learn how our resources can best assist them; our purpose has been to offer our technical assistance in upgrading their current plans (or even in creating them) for emergencies, being careful not to seem as we are there to tell them what to do, but on how we can fit in their territory. I have been an emergency professional for many years, and know that (at least here) turf wars are real and in many cases they prevent great initiatives from becoming great programs.

We organized regional conferences and invited emergency managers, law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical services, public health, public works... and individuals with disabilities (our target population) so that they all could exchange their views and network with us being the bridge and interfering as little as possible, although always making sure that our goals were met (giving information for individuals to be prepared for emergencies with disabilities included).

We also created an advisory committee and invited all those stakeholders we thought of to be a part of it, to provide expert advice and to share their experiences, knowledge, information, etc, and that has worked very well.

I think that before you attempt to bring people to the table and discuss how to reduce their risks, you could try to focus on making them aware that they are at risk for many hazards (and focusing on those with the highest probability in the area). Another strategy that has worked well for us is to focus not on great floods, catastrophic eartquakes or other incredibly devastating incidents, but on day to day emergencies. The reason behing this is that individuals percieve greater risks for crime, fires, road traffic injuries, lack of electricity, gas, water (other utilities and for prolonged periods of time), etc, than risks from earthquakes. It seems easier for them to prepare if they feel at risk, if they experience these emergencies on a regular basis; then you have cleared the way for building efforts in other areas or with other hazards.

Anyway, you might consider some of these approaches and see if they can work. I understand how difficult it is in Mexicoto build a culture of managing by objectives instead of just managing by reaction.

Saludos,
Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, M.Sc., EMT-P
Emergency & Disaster Health Services Specialist
Mexico

23.09.05 Griselia Bohorquez, Venezuela

Good Afternoon for all of you.

I think is very interesting this way for meet discussion about Reduction Risk Disaster. In Latin America have been few interest in this topic part of Government. University are important point for reduction risk disaster for close relation between community and university in extension activities. Community Capacitation can be make for students of different career: engineer, medical students, veterinary, agricultural and others.

Now, how measure impact this interventions have in the Community and know if they are prepared when a disaster stroke? I think that is very important to establish indicators that allow measure progress in all stage.

I´m reading the information about this subject for contribute more in discussions.

Sorry about mistake in this mail but English is not my language.

Griselia Bohorquez.
Preventive Department
Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado
Venezuela.

23.09.05 farai magombedze, Zimbabwe

Ladies and Gentlemen

Measuring progress is essentially taking stock. Progress in disaster management, therefore, has to be measured against the package of principles, strategies and activities envisaged in the HFA and its predecessor. In this context I suggest an inventory approach which is qualitative in nature. A list of the ideals a country should have in order to reduce disaster risk and vulnerability should be drawn up. This should include ,inter alia, scientific research institutions, highways, stockpiles of emergency supplies and qualified disaster management personnel. This a simple indicator every one can interpret. Indicators of vulnerability already exist in HDI indexes. they just have to be compiled.

farai magombedze
Zimbabwe

23.09.05 Juracy Soares, Mexico

In my opinion, in the third world countries, these problems are not addressed until a disaster happens, as in Mexico City, 1985.

In Baja California (state), there are no real emergency plans although we are practically living over a large part of the San Andreas Fault.

What do we need to do to convine the city planners, managers, and government in general to invest on risk reduction programs?

Juracy Soares
Seismologist
Engineering Faculty
Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
Mexico

23.09.05 piet kurpershoek, Netherlands

Some positive goals of reducing the risk of a disaster:
-specify areas under threat of a disaster,
- compare the situation with other areas,

make goals like: in any defined area under threat of a disaster should

• after 15 years more people live longer then now;
• after 10 years the average age of the houses (or real estate in general) be 1,15 the average age they have now;
• after 4 years amount of inhabitants be 230% compared with now;
• after 3 years population has te be educated more then 250% compared with
• the population now;
• after each year the growth of the population be 1.5 more then in any other
• area in the surroundings;
• after each year economic activities are 1.3 bigger then in any other area.
• after each year the variety of cultural exposures will be twice as much as
• in any other area.

just some suggestions

piet kurpershoek
Netherlands

23.09.05 Marla Petal, Turkey

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you all for this discussion. I find myself very much in sympathy with not caring to carve out drm, but rather to push mainstreaming. Two observations:

1. Despite recognizing that we need true participation of all stakeholders at all levels, all of our indicators are very macro in nature.

Indicators have so far been described in terms like of countries or national Policies in place etc. Some have rightly pointed out may just be bureaucratic generation of what we want to hear as opposed to any indication of what will happen next time. Despite recognizing the important role of NGOs and CBOs, these folks, and local communities are seldom involved in participatorily identifying their own indicators and measuring them. So perhaps we need another criteria that says that local communities have identified and are monitoring their own mitigation indicators.

We have used something in Istanbul, that has been helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of our mega-city public awareness efforts, which is adoption of household hazard adjustments. There is good literature on this subject. We have simplified the elements of a family disaster plan into assessment and planning, physical protection and response capacity development (skills and provisions). This enables us to point out that these foci are common at every scale of society, and participation required and expected at all social levels. We emphasize doing the right thing rather than talking about the right thing. Following training we have seen tremendous growth in household disaster mitigation behavior. (see attached family disaster plan). A similar document is geared towards organizations and small businesses. In this vein we should be measuring of micro-credit recipients who have a contingency plan for business continuity in case of disaster.

2. It seems that we must also measure negative indicators, because positive indicators simply don’t tell the whole story. Careful random samples at the district or city level should tell us:

• of non-compliance with building codes or
• of land used not according to land-use plan, or
• of development construction $ spent without disaster-proofing or
• who know their evacuation route,
• confident that they will evacuate and meet their children at safe haven,

Indeed our first task is to make the political also personal which means doing ourselves, as we say should be done - and proving that we have! The second is to get the development community to walk-the-walk with us, to stop throwing good money after bad, building schools and hospitals that will not withstand the next disaster. Let’s be practical and find ways to make our esoteric terminology relevant to millions of micro-credit recipients, thus giving substance to building a culture of safety from the bottom up.

Marla Petal
Disaster Mitigation Education Program
Kandilli Observatory & Earthquake Research Institute
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey

22.09.05 Hernan L. Villagran, Chile

Dear moderators ( Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh ) and colleagues :

In first place I want to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to exchange some ideas/views with regards the main subject of this e-dialogue.

Frankly speaking, I have just finished to download the main material (to be read carefully...) and I have analyzed all the replies that have reached my computer.

The first feeling I want to stress has to do with the so called "scale problem"...It has not been appropiately stressed in the messages I have reviewed. I want to suggest that before start talking about any policy/measure or even planning we have to define the right scale and think accordingly...

Please, find attached a paper I published on ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) and public policy making. it was written in Spanish but you can find a English written abstract.

A second point I want to make deals with the techno-institutional dimension of any mitigation strategy and/or planning. No mention has been made regarding what is the role to be played by the insitutions in creating a good planning/responsive/warning system at all. As many can not believe it, technology is a core factor in facing natural disasters. So, I don´t want to see technology out of this discussion.

A third issue I want to hightlight is related with the "sociological" approach...We have been witnesses of many disaster that have hit several countrys, poor ones, rich ones and intermediate ones. The question here is to discuss on global policies that should be implemented by any country. If we mix the planning scale with the emergency scale we are wrong and thenwe will falll in the sociolofical approach (vulnerable communitiies, the poor and so on). We can help the more vulnerable people (including the poor) if clear and effective public policies are developed on international, regional and national scales.

I will participate more actively in the next topic. Sorry for any English mistake in my writting. The next will better.

El Fenómeno ‘El Niño’ y Políticas Públicas: Un Desafío Científico, Tecnológico e Institucional

Regards,
Hernan L. Villagran
Physicist (MSc)
Analyst /Consultant
Science, Technology and Public Policy
Chile

22.09.05 Ambrose Oroda, Kenya

Dear Moderators,

I am pleased to submit my contribution to Topic 1 of the on-going discussion on "Ways of Measuring Progress towards the Hyogo Framework and Disaster Risk Reduction over the period 2005 - 2015". My contribution is given in the attached document. Please let me know, as soon as you can, should you have any problems with the document.

With my warmest regards, I remain a participant.

Ambrose Oroda
Kenya

22.09.05 Ricardo ZAPATA, Mexico

Another study that complementes the risk management indicators developed by the Interamerican Development Bank is the ongoing work by ECLAC for IDB with five national case studies to determine: the quality of disaster-related information, the cumulative impact of disasters in those countries and the changes in their risk bearing arrangements (risk reduction, risk transfer and risk management). To see the methodological contents of those studies see: http://www3.cepal.org.mx/iadb-eclac-project/ .

For access to the ECLAC disaster evaluation methodology see:

http://www.eclac.cl/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/7/12707/P12707.xml&xsl=
/mexico/tpl/p9f.xsl&base=/mexico/tpl/top-bottom.xsl , or http://www.eclac.cl/mexico under the heading "desastres".

Ricardo ZAPATA
Mexico

22.09.05 Gerardo Huertas, Costa Rica

Intriguing concept...

This note addresses the mental framework societies prefer to work with, the way we present the issue, to make it work.

I may be lazy, but could Mr. Kurpershoek give a few examples of POSITIVE terms and goals???

Thanks in advance,
Gerardo Huertas
WSPA
Costa Rica

22.09.05 Met Graciela Salaberri , Uruguay

Hello all of you!

Here we are trying to learn what must be done here in my country, Uruguay. We are meteorologists and we are working from our NGO to give everything we learn for reducing risks of disasters.

I am very sorry because my poor English but I will try to make me understand for you all.

In my country there is no exist prevention culture. We are working on it, making diffusion about prevention, prediction, and early warning. We are an NGO, and our concern is people.

We know the land use planning and zoning are absolutely necessary here and many disasters attributed to climate change are the result of land use. We are studying and making people know the result of our studies.

We think everything is collective work, and we think we must

understand the process and make the changes inside public politics.

Every thing you say about is very important to us because you are giving us instrument to use. We are saving information on hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence, the impact and the losses. The most important here is to show how much it cost...unfortunately not only is people life the most important. When I read all you say here, I can understand we have to continue with our job, and we are not alone like we feel.

Thanks to all of you

Met Graciela Salaberri
Sociedad Civil
Amigos del Viento
Meteorología Ambiente Desarrollo
Luis Piera 1931/001
C.P 11200
Montevideo,Uruguay

22.09.05 Alekssandr Kuzmenko, Ukraine

Dear colleagues,

I thank all organisations and persons who make this discussion possible.

First of all I would like to mark there is a difference between disaster risk reduction and disaster loss reduction: the last is preservation of values and resources and the first is decrease of a probabilistic estimation so such decrease may be a result of changes in assumptions or techniques of calculations - wrong or correct.

I recognize the initiators bear in mind disaster risk reduction as a result of right both assumptions and calculations. Nevertheless the judge of a theory is practice and experience namely reduction of loss in our case.

Radiation, temperature, fire, wind are not dangerous in themselves. Danger appears in our mind when we become aware of deficiency means of our activity. Moreover when anybody designs a device he/she needs to know specific information regarding conditions of use; a thermometer for a swimming pool and a thermometer for a blast furnace will be different.

So risk may be considered in terms of knowledge (about potentially dangerous materials and processes) and ability to react (prevent loss).

Note that zero risk corresponds with a) full ignorance, b) 100% knowledge and 100% ability; maximum risk corresponds with 100% knowledge and 0% ability (actually it is not risk but 100% failure).

Following rights on security we might expect to find labels like "This equipment has been tested and found to comply with..." or "We warn smoking is dangerous for your health" on all things and systems for human activity.

Alekssandr Kuzmenko
Director of projects,
Telecommunications and Partnership
Kharkov
Ukraine

21.09.05 Anton Imeson, Netherlands

Dear
Dear All,

We are certain that a strategy for reducing the risk of disasters would benefit by taking actions that address the following issues.

• The causes of disasters often involve slow and long-term changes in processes that suddenly have an emergent catastrophic change on for example the capacity of soils and river channels to store and transmit water; or in the critical conditions needed for mass movements.
• Meteorologists and hydrologists who model runoff and flooding (inundation) usually ignore the above as well as feedbacks between the system. The concepts and paradigms used are optimised to predict discharge but the models ignore critically important processes.
• Moreover urbanisation, land-use and cover changes are changing the hydrological and hydraulic behaviour of catchments very rapidly. In most parts of the world there is too little data. The hydrological changes brought about by development and urbanisation need to be correctly monitored
• Relevant knowledge from different disciplines is fragmented and disconnected. This could be helped by developing integrated water ?land management policy and laws at different hierarchies (from village to region), for example as used in New Zealand .
• Land use planning and zoning are absolutely necessary for the following reasons. Land and soil fulfil many competing functions ( e.g. soil and water conservation and regulation, production and living space). The impacts of land use change on soil and land functions should be evaluated and not encouraged until there is a catastrophic change in the system. Differences in the frequency of some types of disaster can be explained by how the knowledge of how the causes are understood.
• One of the biggest causes of erosion and flooding in Europe is land-levelling and bulldozing. This has resulted in many catastrophes.
• Many disasters attributed to climate change are the result of land use and cover changes. Until this is faced up to, disasters will increase.

Actions
Only actions at the global level will be discussed.

• An intergovernmental panel that can integrates both processes (land ?soil-water) in a process based way that could also include disasters and also the current sectors. At the centre of this are the changes taking place in the soil and earth surface process systems which now fall outside of attention. The UNCCD and its CST could have possibly dealt with these. More synergies are needed between not only the Conventions but also other UN organisations. The fragmentation of responsibilities is the  issue. Experts selected by governments often lack the necessary understanding and experience regarding how the world is changing.
• To combat risks you need to establish an organisation with the capacity and mandate to do this.

Indicators will be discussed separately
Anton Imeson
Netherlands

21.09.05 Patricia Alarcon Chaires, Mexico

I think that the indicators developed by Idea and IDB are a good way. But maybe if we collected the information in each rural and city communities, we can obtain truly indicators.

Each country can developed their self indicators, in order to establish performance targets for improving management effectiveness.  But it?s necessary to develop a qualitative measure the advance of each country.And according with the results help between us for get this goal.

Patricia Alarcon Chaires
University of Michoacan
Mexico

21.09.05 piet kurpershoek, Netherlands

Reduction of a risk will only be undertaken if their is a change to overcome, so disaster management needs a positiv outlet. Delimiting a field of policy is an issue when the target of the policy can be determined; as an eaxmple: environment became a grown-up policy after having grown -from- anti -to- goals to be reached within specifid range. Disasters are normal and belonging to the world, avoidance is the negative definiton which has to be tranferred to a positiv term.

Starting with a checklist, based on the taking into account of the threat of a disaster, to be used for people and activities. The first positiv goals are determined The checklist grows after using some years to the level of a societal and individual disaster analysis. And an overall view out of the different goals has been built.

Again after some years the need rises to tranform the list and the anaysis to  a societal and individual cost-benefit analysis. Disaster managment has become grown-up and stes goals to be reached by other fields of policy.

piet kurpershoek
researcher dut
Netherlands

21.09.05 Saroj Kumar Jha, United States of America

Dear Moderators(ISDR),

1. Measuring progress towards the Hyogo Framework for Action(HFA)  must be seen in the broader context of ongoing global and local efforts to mainstream disaster reduction in the growth and poverty reduction policies and programmes.
   
   As a 'disaster reduction' community, we have been challenging the development planners and managers that disasters are unresolved developmental problems and therefore development must include disaster reduction elements, which would mean that 'disaster community' is to collaborate more and more  with 'development planners'. We must admit that as a group we have not yet been able to successfully mainstream this in national development processes and perhaps for this reason, 'disaster reduction' is yet not an  integral element of growth and poverty reduction agenda  if budgetary support or public expenditure on disaster reducing development approaches is any indication.
   
2. Our prime concern today is attainment of MDGs and draft paper  by ISDR has attempted to link the strategic goals of HFA with MDGs. To my mind, this is being developed  from a disaster management lens, which goes against the basic philosophy of mainstreaming.  There are national processes for poverty measurement and assessments, income and growth estimates, indicators to measure growth in various sectors of economy and so on. Our set of indicators to track progress towards HFA will have to be embedded in  the national indicators for poverty reduction and growth.  Once we have an agreement on this, it is much easier to identify the indicators and also institutionalize the process in the institutions which are responsible for tracking poverty and  growth. We can learn a lot from 'gender' and 'environment' mainstreaming approaches.
   
3. The existing national growth and development indicators need to be analyzed in the context of disaster impacts and then identify auxiliary development indicators which have a direct  correlation with disaster reduction. This integration of auxiliary indicators  with national development monitoring system can take place at two levels--1. auxiliary macroeconomic  indicators which country planners  will be interested to own and monitor-e.g. reduced disaster losses(direct and indirect) enable rising GDP and  per capita income; reducing agriculture  production losses due to disasters enable increase in agriculture productivity etc. and 2.  process indicators which the nodal Ministries/agencies in charge of disaster management at federal/provincial and local level could monitor thru the sectoral Ministries, e.g. growth in hazard resilient building stock(due to better enforcement by trained municipal staff and technical supervision by trained municipal engineers)--the census in many countries does include data  on housing and with small changes in the parameters we can have
   data on hazard resilient housing.
   
4. The real issue here is that we don't have a good quality/high resolution historical disaster loss database in most of the countries. To lend credence to our argument, development of national disaster loss database  has to begin quickly so that there is a substantive evidence of disasters affecting poverty and growth. Most of the research papers and tools we have today,  are not based on systematically developed national inventory of such records. There are data systems,  tools and methodologies available  with  national institutions   for growth and poverty assessment.  We must  get disaster vulnerability parameters identified(may vary from country to country) in the national monitoring systems. Integrating these parameters in growth and poverty measurement  will have lasting impact in our efforts to mainstream disaster reduction in development planning.
   
5. My worry is that  we continue to be quite sectoral in our approach, and yet talk about mainstreaming.   It will suffice to say that in our journey towards measuring HFA, we have to begin thinking from a development perspective and how development is influenced by vulnerability reduction strategies. I suggest that draft attempted by ISDR  be developed from a  growth and poverty reduction lens else this may adversely affect our collective endeavor towards mainstreaming disaster reduction in development.

Best regards
Saroj Kumar Jha
Senior Infrastructure Specialist
Hazard Risk Management Team
The World Bank Group,
phone: (202)-458-2726
fax:(202)-522-3227
United States of America

21.09.05 Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, Mexico

The discussion and comments have been excellent, informative and simple as well. I would like to make another comment, although much shorter. In measuring progress in disaster risk reduction and also in preparedness, I have focused (at my current job) on communication. Not only the technical aspects of the communication process and not only those related to Information technology either.

Effective communication strategies should include:
Established relationships among stakeholders: This can be focused by functional area, by emergency management processes or by other categories. 14 months ago some colleagues and I worked on a study focusing on health sector preparedness and its impact on emergency management. Among other things we found that communication among many agences was inexistent; there was no relationship and therfore no knowledge of the others' missions, expectations, capabilities, etc.

Information sharing: supported by the example above, good interagency relationships promotes sharing data and information that can be critical not only during emergency response, but also during preparedness and can be utilized to support disaster risk reduction as well.

Accessiblity: Information must be inclusive, not only integrated. All members of the community must be capable of accessing actionable information. For example, during my consulting work in the disability field, we have gathered data related to the deaf and hard of hearing community, and have realized how excluded these communities are from basic information. They cannot act, participate, promote or improve any part of the emergency process and therefore, increase their vulerability. The same may occur at  other levels, were groups do not have access to information that is useful and promotes actions.

We can measure progress by defining and determining the type(s) of relations in place (number of interagency roundtables, tabletops, etc), the degree of information sharing among them and the degree to which such information is shared.
Regards,

Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, M.Sc., EMT-P
Emergency & Disaster Health Services Specialist
Mexico

21.09.05 Paola Albrito , Switzerland

Dear Colleagues and Glenn,

Thank you for sharing valuable experiences and questions stimulated by the dialogue.

Glenn, the challenges identified by UNEP in Paris and the solutions you put forward are part of a process that implies: to recognise activities that are contributing to the Hyogo Framework and then identify an area where the agency can convey energy from different actors to make sure that information, activities and achievements can be shared at all levels.

Reporting on progress is very much part of the process mentioned above that starts by identifying who is doing what within the Hyogo Framework Priority Areas and to highlight any gap (issues that are not covered or addressed by any actors). This is precisely the purpose of the Matrix of Commitment and Initiatives mentioned in the Strategic Direction document (annex Annex 3 below attached for your easy reference). The purpose is to use the information received to map existing commitments, programmes,  partnership, resources and identified gaps.

The matrix should also serve to identify key organisations willing to assume responsibility for the promotion of networks or other operational platforms in support of specific priority areas.

The matrix should also reflect existing reporting mechanisms in the areas concerned that can contribute to monitoring progress.

This on-line dialogue is actively contributing to the creation of guidelines to support the monitoring of progress towards disaster risk reduction outcomes identified in the Hyogo Framework therefore providing another tool to advance on the HF goal.

So far, within the UN/ISDR secretariat we have received a number of feedbacks from different agencies and organisations and countries advancing in identifying their activities and initiatives within the context of the HF priorities for action.

While this information is going to be shared for easy reference on the ISDR website shortly, we are working on the process of conveying all these elements so to have a clearer picture on the disaster risk reduction activities, commitments and reporting progress.

Paola Albrito
Programme Officer
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, UN/ISDR
Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Office A.581 (Doors 15 &17)
Tel.:++41(0)22.917 28 54, Fax:++41.(0)22.917 05 63
http://www.unisdr.org & http://www.eird.org

21.09.05 John Norton, France

I appreciated your comments about measuring money; the work we have been doing in Viet Nam on preventing economic loss caused by typhoon and flood damage to homes has the same focus, and it is very easy to compare the real prevention costs of strengthening existing homes and public buildings against direct reconstruction costs for a destroyed house or school, albeit much harder to measure the knock-on economic and social effects of losing once home and contents.

Thanks for your input.
John Norton
DWF
B.P.13, 82110 Lauzerte, France
tél: +33 (0) 563 95 82 34
fax/télécopie: +33 (0) 563 95 82 42
www.dwf.org
DWF est une Association de Solidarité Internationale régie par la loi de 1901

20.09.05 Gerardo Huertas, Costa Rica

Sure,

20.09.05 Ilan Kelman, United States of America

An indicator of effectiveness which power brokers tend to prefer these days is money. Cost-benefit analyses and related species are so artificial and have so many weaknesses that their credibility should be exceedingly limited. Unfortunately, they tend to have the most credibility and are the basis upon which many decisions are made.

20.09.05 Mayumi Yamada, Japan

My opinion may be close to Abdel?s ones below. The indicators could be further explored based on:

• Identification of vulnerable areas in terms of peoples? perceptions as well as scientific data/information;
• Identification of existing solidarity groups within so-called ?community?; normally, one community is not just ?one?, but diverse.
• Identification of community facilitators within solidarity groups, who can lead the member to disaster reduction
• Reliability of community/solidarity group based models of disaster reduction (i.e. coping strategies/mechanism), which can be extended to other places/communities, without much support from outside interventions.

Best wishes,
Mayumi Yamada (Ph.D.)
Researcher
Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office,
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD)
Hito-Mirai-Kan, 1-5-2 , Wakihama-Kaigan-Dori, Chuo-ku,
Kobe City , 651-0073 Japan
Tel: (81)-78-262-5560, Fax: (81)-78-262-5568
Email: yamadam@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp

20.09.05 John Salter, Australia

Keeping it Short and Simple is fundamentally important ? especially across so many variations of use, users and? stakeholders?.

Using the seven plus or minus two rule and the risk management framework of ASNZS4360 (the Australia New Zealand Risk Management Standard), the five point performance framework at http://www.continuitycentral.com/EPCBFivePoint.xls provides a useful basis for adaption.

Regards,
John Salter
Director, EPCB
Postal: PO Box 484 , Blackwood South Australia 5051
www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
Telephone: 08 81780121
Mobile: 0417 050 910
Fax: 08 8178 0037

19.09.05 Omar D. Cardona, Colombia

Certainly, disaster risk management "performance" benchmarks are needed to facilitate decisionmakers? access to relevant information as well as the identification and proposal of effective policies and actions. The Risk Management Index, RMI, in the framework of the "Disaster Risk Manage ment Indicators Program for Americas", meets this need. It has been applied to 12 countries, some subnational regions and to some cities. This program was developed during the last two years by Institute of Environmental Studies (IDEA in Spanish), of the National University of Colombia, with the financial support of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and with the participation of worldwide well-known experts (see cc:) and national advisors and officials of the national institutions related to the topic that collected the information and made the qualifications according to the risk management benchmarks defined. The RMI, is one of the set of indicators proposed for Americas that permits a systematic and quantitative benchmarking of each country (region or city) as well as comparisons across countries.

The System of Indicators developed by IDB-IDEA enables the depiction of disaster risk at the national level, allowing the identification of key issues by economic and social category. It also makes possible the creation of national risk management performance benchmarks (the RMI) in order to establish performance targets for improving management effectiveness. The System of Indicators was applied between 1980 and 2000 (in periods each 5 years) to see the evolution of the countries. This project has been involved in the activities of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction Working Group 3: Risk, Vulnerability and Disaster Impact Assessment and in the initiatives of ProVention regarding disaster risk indexing. The four indices of the System of Indicators for Americas are the Disaster Deficit Index (DDI), the Local Disaster Index (LDI), the Prevalent Vulnerability Index (PVI), and the Risk Management Index (RMI). The latter is particularly relevant and useful for this HF dialogue/virtual conference. See conceptual framework, project phases, international workshops, outcomes, reports of results and the technical details in the web site http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/
In a few words, t he RMI brings together a group of indicators that measure risk management performance and effectiveness. These indicators reflect the organizational, development, capacity and institutional actions taken to reduce vulnerability and losses, to prepare for crisis and to recover efficiently from disasters. This index was designed to assess risk management? performance?. It provides a qualitative measure of management based on predefined? targets? or benchmarks? that risk management efforts should aim to achieve. The RMI was constructed by quantifying four public policies, each of which has six indicators. The policies include Risk Identification, that comprises the individual perception, social representation and objective assessment; Risk Reduction, that involves the prevention and mitigation; Disaster Management, that comprises response and recovery; and, governance and Financial Protection, that is related to institutionalization and risk transfer.

All the best,
Omar D. Cardona
Former Technical Director of Americas Program

Evaluation of the risk management performance
M. L. CARREÑO, O. D. CARDONA, AND A. H. BARBAT
1Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
2Universidad Nacional de Colombia, IDEA, Manizales, Colombia

19.09.05 Anita Dwyer, Australia

Hello Moderators and Members

In addressing Topic 1, I will focus on three of the questions that the Moderators suggested:

1. What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes? I view natural disasters as magnifying the complex socio-economic and political situations already existing within the affected societies, rather than creating completely new social conditions. As a result, disaster management, which includes a focus on disaster risk reduction, must link into wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes. This requires national coordination with a focus on local priorities, as suggested by the Hyogo Framework.
In Australia, there is a Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, which is coordinated by the federal government and focuses on reducing risk (which we largely refer to as mitigation in Australia). This program supports local mitigation activities that are specific to the socio-economic, political and environmental needs of that community. For example, mitigation activities in Indigenous Communities have focused on community awareness programs, which is similar to how health and education activities are delivered. In agricultural communities, mitigation activities have focused on structural engineering projects that support local farming practices. While mitigation activities do take into account some of the complex social conditions, there is still room to improve the link between the delivery of the disaster programs with the social programs. It is only then will we truly capture the meaning of 'building resilient communities'. (Information about the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program can be found at: http://www.dotars.gov.au/localgovt/naturaldisasters/index.aspx )

2. How do we measure progress where success may be demonstrated by what has not happened, by the avoidance of death, damage and loss? This is an extremely important question, for it relates to the cost effectiveness of mitigation/risk reduction activities, and recently has become of great interest to the Australian Government. If national funding is being directed towards local mitigation activities, how can both local communities and national governments measure the benefit? I have noticed that both the US and Canadian Governments began focusing on this before Australia and are still grappling with clear measures. In Australia, we face two problems: the first relates to the lack of available data for measuring 'loss', which makes it difficult to then prove that losses have been avoided. The second problem relates to the issue addressed in Question 1: successful disaster mitigation/reduction management should be integrated with wider social programmes so that resiliency can be measured by the general health, economic status and well-being of a society. In Australia, we have not yet achieved this level of integration, therefore some benefits of mitigation are very difficult to measure.
3. How do we identify and describe indicators? While this debate is not new, I think it continues to be very important, especially with regards to developing indicators for the effectiveness of mitigation and resilience. I developed a study a couple of years ago, attempting to measure aspects of vulnerability of households to natural hazard events. There are some problems with the methodology and it has a focus on quantitative processes, but does look at some issues relating to the difficulties of using indicators. The study can be found at: http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA4267.pdf (Apologies for not yet putting this into the peer-review sphere).

The document on indicators for measuring the Hyogo Framework is very useful - while there is perhaps too much detail and some of the measures are slightly onerous, I think the approach is to be commended. The move towards a national approach/focus on indicators for local priorities is an important step in integrating national legislative frameworks with local governance. I look forward to future documentation.

Thanks to the Moderators for this opportunity and I look forward to future discussions.

Anita Dwyer
National Risk Assessments Project
Geospatial & Earth Monitoring Division
Geoscience Australia (An Australian Government agency)

19.09.05 Anna Hovhannesyan, Yerevan, Armenia

Dear colleges,

• One and most crucial thing in disaster risk management is ability to prevent to minimize possible loses. Lets try to analyze the budget allocations and place for the risk reduction activity in government programmes. Usually it is a formal Disaster management plan (usually translation to a local language of some existing document, creation of Disaster management unit or office which is more a liaison body between government and international organizations active in the affected by certain disaster). Time goes IOs leave the country, the fortune of the unit becomes gloomy, there is no funding, the Disaster management plan usually prepared within short period of time is loosing it?s accuracy and priority. So we can Indicate the revision of Plan and place of the unit in the general structure of the government as one of the most important indicators.
• Next indicator the existence and status of scientific researches to identify most vulnerable to disaster parts of the country and the fortune of recommendations they are submitting to government.
  There are can be strong arguments to advise stopping the commercial development of the area and reallocation of the population.
• Permanent information campaigns to keep people inform, that is their right and Relevant Information sharing stop the speculations and nervous atmosphere among people (f.e. peoples were reallocated from some areas recognized dangerous in Asia, but the lack of information insecure future gave arise to speculations that that areas with be use commercially).
  Disaster management plan and disaster management centers should not be founded after disaster will happen it should be a part of nation infrastructure and economy. It is a coordination body with superb
  ability to ensure reliable and relevant communication. It should develop update and revise its plans and activities every year.
• Disaster governing network with its ability to join people vertically and avoid government burocracy is the next solution and a number of network members (NGO, professional associations, civic groups, active individuals) with definite abilities is a very good indicator for measuring progress.

19.09.05 Abdel Wahab Ahmed, Sudan

Dear Moderators

19.09.05 Jim Cory, United States of America

Hello all,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I have been working as an IT/GIS consultant in the US for many years and recently have dealt with clients where emergency management was the primary or secondary initiative. In the wake of Katrina several journals related to IT/GIS have reported failures and successes of technology as a result of the disaster. Thinking about these things and the question at hand, I would like to propose several concrete ways that preparedness could be assessed.

The parameters I suggest we measure are technological and therefore somewhat quantifiable. I realize that some countries and regions are less able to support these capabilities than others. I do not think we should compare different countries to each other, but we should measure the progress made along these lines, given the initial infrastructure of each.
There are some very generic ways to prepare for disaster from an IT point of view. This includes system backups, redundant servers, off site storage of archives and remote application services. These abilities should be assessed across the board for communication, energy, water, governing and security services. The recovery of these basic services is important for the return of things to normal.

At another level, there is a class of IT systems that are specifically designed for dealing with disasters. One common characteristic of these systems is the integration of numerous related databases. Often these separate data stores are maintained by different agencies in support of their particular initiatives. There can be a number of ways these different systems overlap and deal with similar entities. For example, people and addresses are part of many municipal databases, from property taxation to water supply. During emergencies, the location and contact information of people whose job it is to respond becomes very important, and crosses normal administrative boundaries.

In order to integrate databases, there is usually the need for the construction and maintenance of a central repository that is updated regularly. There is also a need for applications that can access this information and provide reports and analyses based on it. Others have already noted the importance of GIS in emergencies or disasters. This technology can provide both planning scenarios based on geographic-dependent susceptibility and aid in the real time response by managing resources and identifying areas most affected.

Progress could therefore be measured by the existence and maturity of these integrating systems and applications. As has been suggested in other comments, preparedness could also be measured by the effectiveness of these systems when actual disasters are dealt with. While this has a somewhat ?too late? quality, it should not be overlooked.

Jim Cory
Systems Analyst
GeoAnalytics, Inc.
1716 Fordem Avenue
Madison, WI 53704
United States of America
tel: 608.241.7100 ext. 232
fax: 608.241.7116
www.geoanalytics.com
http://webpages.charter.net/jcory17

19.09.05 Gerardo Huertas, Heredia, Costa Rica

I respectfully disagree. I have tried to promote disaster reduction workshops for the livestock industry, ministries of agriculture and the like, with little success.

16.09.05 M.I.Zuberi, Bangladesh

Dear Moderator and Members,

16.09.05 Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, Mexico

Colleagues,

This is an important topic and the responses so far have been very interesting and encouraging. After many years working and studying in the US and being from a developing country, I have learned that disaster management and programs intended to support society, economics, environment and politics are not frequently seen as synergistic, but mutually exclusive. During the last year or so, I have been working at the State level in the US, collaborating with various groups and agencies interested in establishing social programs for the homeless, minorities, individuals with disabilities, the incarcerated, and others. All the strategies and plans are being put together independently, without considering the potential of resource sharing, interoperable systems for communication, warning, transportation, evacuation, sheltering and healthcare. Of course, some countries have misguided resources that provide some level of protection from hazards that are great natural threats ?but seem to have little political or economic impact- and have directed them to meet the agendas of selected groups only.

For question 1 (which I have partially addressed above) I believe risk reduction strategies must be included during the planning process with the objective of reducing poverty and socioeconomic differences. Planning must be inclusive, similar to what Enrique Castellanos suggests, where great impacts can be seen from making individuals stakeholders in disaster management. For example, in Maryland, we have offered special conferences on emergency preparedness for individuals with disabilities, targeted at individuals with disabilities expecting them to not only understand their vulnerabilities, their needs and who can meet them, but also to understand how their other abilities and skills can be utilized to protect themselves and their communities. Unfortunately, some groups have been excluded for such long periods of time, that they have developed a ?resistance? to sharing resources, ideas, experiences, expertise, etc. I believe that if disaster risk is perceived as important as other risks (such as road traffic accidents) then there are better opportunities to encourage protective behaviors, such as disaster preparedness. For all it is important to recognize that the roots of disasters are within societies, not outside them. During 2002 in theUSnatural disasters affected more than 175,000 people and killed more than 500 (not significant numbers when compared to other countries), but road traffic injuries affected ?only? 39,237 people and killed 727 individuals. When I see these numbers I start to think how much effort has been put forth into preventing road traffic incidents and how much has been put forward for preventing disasters.

With respect to question six, I think that relocation to safer areas is a measure of success even when social and historical meaning are affected. There has been a lot of talk about hurricane Katrina (for obvious reasons) and relocating New Orleans, for which opinions seem greatly divided. Even when New Orleansprovides not only social and cultural meaning to Louisiana, there is also an economic and political interest, but relocating individuals from one high-risk area of the jurisdiction to another less risky one, would not adversely affect either of these meanings, at least significantly enough to break the ties already in place.

Naomi Udom correctly indicated that disasters are marked by loss; this is a concept individuals must understand, all of us, at all levels. But I also think that prevention is and should be (at least epidemiologically speaking) applied before injuries occur, before the disaster affects communities. I would also venture into adding to her posting by saying that developed countries should have lower risk to disasters, but it is known that technological disasters are more common in developed countries. Even natural hazards can be as damaging for developed countries compared to developing ones, if ineffective, uncoordinated disaster management strategies are not in place, which is what happened with hurricane Katrina. There was no culture for preventing and reducing risks, even when flooding had been feared for such a long time, when poverty was putting more people at risk and forcing them to live on riskier areas of the city, with less access to services and goods, with less capacity to respond, and with no option but facing the hazards directly.

For now I will conclude that progress has to be measured by inclusiveness strategies at the local level (between emergency management, social services agencies, disabilities, minorities and other vulnerable populations, health departments, fire/police, etc). How accessible are emergency services (warning, transportation, evacuation, sheltering, etc), how affordable are housing options and where are these located? Adequate social policies that prevent near-homeless to become homeless, convicts to afford habitable housing, health services, childcare, transportation, etc also promote disaster risk reduction, because individuals are less vulnerable.

More comments later.

Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta
Mexico

16.09.05 Prof. R. Struzak, Italy

1 Measuring disaster risk reduction is a difficult, and not well-defined problem. We should perhaps start with unambiguous definitions of what we are discussing about. It would help us to understand better each other, and be understood by those who do not participate in the discussion, but will read its outcome. It would also help to answer the question what is the purpose of the measuring and who will use the results and how?

2 The discussion would probably benefit if we differentiate between
a. technological infrastructure (equipment),
b. social infrastructure (people),
c. resources
d. processes

16.09.05 Miranda Dandoulaki, Italy

First of all I would like to thank you for initiating this dialogue.
Please accept some thoughts on issue 1 of Topic 1 Understanding how to measure progress in disaster risk reduction

16.09.05 Wim Looijen, Netherlands

Dear participants,
A few observations, some in line with comments made earlier:

16.09.05 Jianping Yan, Canada

Hi Philip and Graham,
Many thanks for your interest. Attached please find the structure of country risk indicators system. Sorry, I don't have documentation. In fact, the selection of indicatots and their quantification are still in design progress. I really hope this dialogue will bring interesting and valuable results.

I hope this structure can bring up an extensive discussion as well.
Best

Jianping Yan, Ph.D.
Consultant
Natural Disaster Risk Management & GIS
308-110 Keewatin Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1Z8 Canada
Tel.: +1-416-4810084

16.09.05 Tanya de Corrales, Andean region

What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes?

15.09.05 Florence Egal, FAO/Rome

1.- What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes? How can we delimit the field of disaster risk reduction? Where possible provide examples and case studies.
One issue we may want to pay more attention too is resilience of livelihood systems to natural disasters as well as the causes and consequences of changes in livelihoods systems.

A series of factors are generating changes in livelihood systems, among which economic development and population pressure, but also - often related - inappropriate macro-economic policies and conflicts. This induces changes in natural resource management which in turn increase vulnerability to natural disasters, as well as changes in lifestyles (in particular housing) which may become more vulnerable to natural disasters. This is often a downward spiral where poverty leads people to adopt environmentally dangerous and unsafe practices, and natural disasters increase destitution.

2.- How do we measure progress where success may be demonstrated by what has not happened, by the avoidance of death, injury, damage and loss?
We should look ar resilience of livelihood systems and capacity of households to cope with the crisis. "Positive deviance" approaches documenting what helped some households or communities cope with the natural disaster and minimize its impact should provide us useful insights.

3.- How do we identify and describe indicators of
- Outcomes or achievement
International and national policies and programmes checked for relevance to 1/ natural disasters and 2/impact of natural disasters.
% of population significantly affected
% of affected people able to resume sustainable livelihoods within X-days

4.- How do we take account of the disaster risk environment and context of different countries?
Natural disasters and coping strategies rarely respect borders. Effective regional collaboration will be required for prevention, preparedness as well as mitigation and rehabilitation/reconstruction

6.- Is managed relocation of settlements from high-risk areas a measure of success, for example moving communities away from traditional areas to new sites that are safer but may have less social and historical meaning?
One should wonder why these traditional areas have become unsafe and see what could be done about it (understanding the impact and mechanism of the natural disaster on the local population and identifying interventions to prevent or mitigate some of these factors).
In the case of recurrent natural disasters where improved practices and better preparedness cannot be expected to make a significant difference, livelihoods diversification - including training and support - will likely be the most appropriate approach.

7.- How do we take account of an evolving environment where local and national conditions and data and hazards are themselves changing, for example changing hazard regimes resulting from climate change? We assess and monitor changes in livelihoods systems

Florence Egal (FAO/Rome)

15.09.05 Jianping Yan, Canada

While working for the World Bank, I have drafted some country-level indicators for measuring DR and DRM.

They can be devided into two sets of indicators, which in turn can be integrated upto two indices-Country Risk Index and Country Resilience Index. The first one is designed to measure the risk a country is facing, composed of disaster indicators, hazard indicators and indicatiors of physical and social-economical vulnerability; the second one is designed yo measure coping/adaptative capacity of a country that include DRM strategy and plans, institution, risk awareness, finanicial preparation, emergency preparation. During aggragation of indicators, i find it's hard to weight each indicators.

Another question is that the unit of analysis has also take into account. here the unit of analysis is referred to as country, province, city, and community. For each analysis unit, indicators should be a bit different.

Jianping Yan, Ph.D.
Consultant
Natural Disaster Risk Management & GIS
308-110 Keewatin Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1Z8 Canada
Tel.: +1-416-4810084

15.09.05 Elias Mabaso, Zimbabwe

I would be hesitant to call a situation where hazards are increased a type of development e.g. increase in landslides. Development interventions need to factor in risk reduction measures by doing a comprehensive hazard analysis. Development should entail a change for the better be it social, economic, political or physical.

As a starting point, development indicators can be very helpful to assess risk reduction in a number of developing countries, though the greatest challenge and question is whether developed countries have reached such an advanced stage and level in risk reduction. If we consider development indicators such as poverty reduction, what ever measure of poverty is used, this may give indications on risk reduction levels. Measures which may be easy to quantify such as economic indicators should also be linked with issues of governance. Good governance though difficult to universally agree on what it is means is critical in risk reduction since it has a bearing on economic performance and poverty reduction initiatives and commitment. Isn?t this part of what constitutes development so most development indicators can be used to develop indicators for measuring disaster risk reduction?

The link between disasters and development is no longer a disputable fact so lets work more to perfect and agree on development indicators for risk reduction.

Elias Mabaso
Zimbabwe

15.09.05 Grant COULTMAN-SMITH, Australia

ENRIQUE,

Good synopsis. Cuba seems to be keeping it essentially simple. Simplicity is the key as it devolved the understanding of the problems and mitigatory strategies to the lowest common denominator, the very people most effected. The lower economically advantaged. It is imperative to remember, the people most effected aren't those with the degrees or in public office. they are the people who, due to the socio-economic status are required to live in crowded slums or build on flood prone or landslip areas. try to tell them you're bulldozing their home in the interests of their safety.

Grant
AUSTRALIA

15.09.05 Grant COULTMAN-SMITH, Australia

 I agree. Immediate survival day to day is a far more important and critical concern than concentrating on what MIGHT happen. To really contribute we must all get back to the basics - long term survival. Science & technology is great but in the immediate future, you can't eat it.

Grant COULTMAN-SMITH
AUSTRALIA

15.09.05 Glenn Dolcemascolo, UNEP

Colleagues,

1. How have other organizations organized their reports on progress in implementing Hyogo?
2. Has ISDR settled on an agreeable matrix for reporting on progress, or will the matrix only be developed after indicators have been agreed upon?
3. Have any other organizations set their own internal targets and milestones for disaster risk reduction?

Best Regards,
Glenn Dolcemascolo
UNEP

15.09.05 Enrique Castellanos, Cuba

Dear moderators Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh:

15.09.05 M.I.Zuberi, Bangladesh

Dear Director, ISDR, Moderators and Members,

15.09.05 Catherine Giovas, Australia

My experience working with people at a grass roots and community levels is that they rarely if ever measure risk reduction in terms of quantified figures re. disaster risk reduction. They are more interested in trends in their general quality of life, livelihood, environment and the local economy.

15.09.05 Ibraheem Alabi Olomoda, Niamey Niger

Dear Sálvano Briceño,

I quite agree with you on all the points you highlighted and I am sure the project when finally completed will be of immense assistance to sustainable development particulaly in Developing Countries.
My fear all the time is that we in Developing Countries are not always prepared enough or even given disaster mitigation a high level of thought needed rather our interest all the time is on reliance on assistance to affected people.

15.09.05 Dr. Necati Dedeoglu, Turkey

Dear Moderator,

Recent events in USA has shown once again that the best method of preparing for any sort of emergency is equal distribution of resources ( power, income, education, public services, opportunities) among all citizens of a nation. When there is injustice or marginalisation, you don't have a real community; in times of stress it comes apart. Some already disadvantaged groups, the poor, elderly, disabled, racial and ethnic minorities are somehow neglected and do not receive proper care, in response there may be alienation, looting and violence. In fact, disasters should bring out feelings of sharing, cohesion and community support. They mostly do in communities where there is democracy, trust, friendship, equity.

15.09.05 Naomi Udom, Nigeria

Dear Moderators,
Below are my response.

15.09.05 Campaign Service center

Campaign Service center is established in 1999. From the beginning it has been working in the field of flood disaster, social auditing peace and development. Its main working area is Gandak region. From the long experience of working in flood disaster the following understanding are found.

15.09.05 Ilan Kelman

I have recently been reading Ken Hewitt's (ed.) book "Interpretations of Calamity" (1983). The critiques and comments which he and the others make regarding disasters and risk could have been written today--in the aftermaths of the Indian Ocean tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina, or to describe the views of many governments. The references and evidence which are used, of course, are from before 1983. We have had more than a generation of these insights and discussions, from both researchers and practitioners, yet the ideas still appear to be new, fresh, relevant, and needed.

1. What linkages are there between disaster management and wider social, economic, environmental and political programmes? How can we delimit the field of disaster risk reduction? Where possible provide examples and case studies.
2. How do we measure progress where success may be demonstrated by what has not happened, by the avoidance of death, injury, damage and loss?
3. How do we identify and describe indicators of
   - Outcomes or achievement
   - Output or policy and programme activities
   - Process and activity.
4. How do we take account of the disaster risk environment and context of different countries?
5. How do we describe and how do we link and combine indicators of quantity and quality.
6. Is managed relocation of settlements from high-risk areas a measure of success, for example moving communities away from traditional areas to new sites that are safer but may have less social and historical meaning?
7. How do we take account of an evolving environment where local and national conditions and data and hazards are themselves changing, for example changing hazard regimes resulting from climate change?

Invitation

ISDR on-line dialogue starts 12 September: Assessing progress towards disaster risk reduction within the context of the Hyogo Framework

You are invited to participate in an on-line dialogue to discuss the key-elements for "Assessing progress towards disaster risk reduction within the context of the Hyogo Framework". It will take place from 12 September 2005 to 10 October 2005.

Objective:
The dialogue will explore the views of actors directly engaged in identifying, applying and using indicators to monitor progress in disaster risk reduction issues within the context of the Hyogo Framework. The result of the on-line dialogue will constitute the basis for guidelines to support the progress reporting, priority setting and development of indicators at the national level to monitor disaster risk reduction accomplishments.

The Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) discussed and agreed upon strategic directions of how to assist countries and stakeholders in implementing the Hyogo Framework, possible indicators and progress reporting in its eleventh session in May 2005. The ISDR secretariat is organizing this on-line dialogue with partners in response to the need to define generic indicators and guidance for progress reporting. National platforms and managers, Task Force members as well as NGOs, national societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, project managers, UN agencies and programme officers and other interested stakeholders are invited to take active part in this discussion.

An invitation with instructions for subscription to the join the on-line dialogue will be sent to you shortly with the specific topics to be discussed, as well as the website address.

Please join!

ISDR secretariat