|
|
| |
| Topic
3 |
| Procedures
for Reviewing National Progress |
| 4
- 10 October |
|
|
| |
The purpose of this third topic is to consider and develop procedures
for reviewing national progress. Contributors can make suggestions
on how to develop schedules and procedures for reviewing national
progress the Hyogo Framework through the use of indicators.
This is a step beyond the development of indicators, tools and
the attribution of responsibility for evaluating progress towards
DRR.
However, in doing this we would like participants to consider
what has gone before in the dialogue and the summaries of topics
1 and 2 will provide background for this reflection. In Topic 1
we looked at the indicators themselves. In Topic2 we considered
who should eb accountable for implementing the evaluation and using
the indicators.
In this dialogue we have moved progressively from the detailed
to the more strategic and in topic 3 we want to discuss strategic
processes for implementation and evaluation.
Indicators may be useful at international levels but any transposition
of data from national level, or any comparison of individual countries,
will be a sensitive and complex task which will need to take account
of the starting point, priorities, resources and risks faced of
each nation and their communities. The procedures for applying
indicators will therefore be as important in some ways as the indicators
themselves.
Any development and application of indicators will primarily be
a matter for national governments themselves although any use of
indicators will need to take account of local circumstances and
conditions.
We want to re-affirm that a tangible and direct outcome of this
dialogue will be a guidance document which will suggest tools that
may be used to monitor progress towards the Hyogo Framework and
particularly the 5 priority areas, which are to:
- Ensure
that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority
with a strong institutional basis for implementation
- Identify,
assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning
- Use knowledge,
innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels
- Reduce
the underlying risk
- Strengthen
disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
The tools that are derived from this dialogue and which may be
incorporated into the guidelines may include the following:
- Checklists
- Principles of assessment,
- Strategies for monitoring and evaluation,
- Setting targets and goals (progressive and final desired results)
- Means of identifying and acquiring cost effectively data and,
- Methods for developing and applying the above.
And we ask the participants to also address the issue of tools
and their appropriateness in the third topic.
For discussion
and feedback:
- What procedures
and strategies are appropriate to implementing indicators
and assessing progress?
- What
form should guidelines on monitoring disaster risk reduction
take and what content should they have?
- Should
there be regional or global oversight of progress in Disaster
Risk Reduction?
We are considering a fourth element to this dialogue where participants
will be invited to briefly comment on the key documents and how
these may be used to create and structure a monitoring process
and we will advise you of this later. |
| |
| Dialogue |
|
 |
11.10.05
Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta,
Mexico |
|
11.10.05
Omar D. Cardona, Colombia |
|
11.10.05
Alessandro Lugari,
Italy |
|
11.10.05
Patricia Ramarojaona, Madagascar |
|
11.10.05
Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh,
Moderators |
|
10.10.05
Enoch Harun Opuka,
Mozambique |
|
10.10.05
Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago |
|
10.10.05
Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago |
|
10.10.05
Mlenge Fanuel Mgendi, Tanzania |
|
10.10.05
Pr. TELLAL R., Morocco |
|
10.10.05 Peter
Collins, France |
|
07.10.05
Elena Polanco de Bonilla, El Salvador |
|
07.10.05
Christopher Effgen,
United States of America |
|
06.10.05
Tomukum Chia,
Cameroon |
|
06.10.05
Jim Cory, United States of America |
|
04.10.05
Christopher Effgen,
Anchorage, AK |
|
03.10.05
Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh, Moderators
|
|
|
| |
11.10.05
Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta,
Mexico 
Colleagues,
One way in which countries can develop and review national progress
could be through a standardized program to design and evaluate
different types of exercises (drills/tabletops/functional/etc).
Even though exercises, as part of the emergency management component
of a risk management framework are not a structural part of the
identification of risks, they can serve as a means to determine
whether certain indicators (as discussed in topics 1 and 1) are
being achieved. Such is the case with compliance with codes and
regulations, emergency services capability (including surge capability),
housing needs, enrivonmental sustainability, social acceptability
(not included but important nevertheless) and medical services
use, among others.
In Maryland, we have found out that jurisdictions had been
planning and carrying out exercises that were not meeting certain
standards
(as those specified in the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation
Program), that the deficiencies of their systems were not being
addressed realistically and, in some cases, needs were being
ignored or not
considered as seriously as they should. In some of these exercises,
highly vulnerable populations were included in the emergency
operations plans, but were not being actively included in the
exercises themselves.
This meant that the needs were not being heard (vulnerable groups
were not sharing their views with those agencies responsible
for disaster services provision, their needs were not being
addressed
in the emergnecy operations plans and disaster services were
not "aware" of
them).
These scenarios represent opportunities for disaster preparedness
and response, but also for identifying risks and vulnerabilities
not considered before (for whatever reasons) and integrating them
into the overal risk reduction framework in much more inclusive way.
We can try to reduce morbidity and mortality by ensuring emergency
services will be able to respond, rescue and provide emergency treatment;
we can also apply the information obtained to identify communities
that will not be able to access these services due to social, economic
or even physical barriers that are more appropriate for a risk reduction
approach rather than a preparedness approach.
I recognize that this has limited opportunities in many other circumstances;
nevertheless, we will not have a single way to provide such revision
at any level. Along with ensuring that communities are participating
in an inclusive way in any and all of the exercises, evaluation of
any type of exercise must also be done appropriately to ensure that
the resources invested in these activities are not being wasted.
Emergency exercises that are not planned or evaluated appropriately
will only increase the risks that were supposed to be addressed.
Regards,
Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta, M.Sc., EMT-P
Emergency & Disaster Health Services Specialist
Mexico
|
|
11.10.05
Omar D. Cardona, Colombia
Dear collegues,
In order to conceive a model of indicators for risk and risk management,
we need, in general, to first reflect on the concept and utility
of indicators as such. This requires an epistemological critique
and an analysis of their appropriateness in terms of the dimensioning
of risk and management options. This comprises the relationship
between knowledge and policy definition and this relationship must
be as solid as possible.
The usefulnes of indicator depends on how they are employ. The way
in which indicators are used to produce a diagnosis has various implications.
The first relates to the structuring of the theoretical model. The
second refers to the way risk management objectives and goals are
decided on. This aspect is important given that it is preferable
to promote an understanding of reality not in strict terms of the
ends to be pursued, but, rather, in terms of the identification of
a range of possibilities, information on which is critical to organize
and orientate the praxis of effective intervention. History is seen
as a movement in the structure of reality and in the genesis of social
profiles, rather than as a description of its morphology. This means
that we need a risk diagnosis that, as far as possible, permits decision-making,
recognizing the double dimension that risk represents: a given situation
and a possible future. Recognition of this double dimension using
indicators allows us to reflect on the potentialities present in
a given situation. Knowledge of this offers a basis for organizing
effective intervention through risk management. This is the way to
use risk assessment to identify (the lack of) risk management, but
due to many reasons we (IDB-IDEA project) believed it is necessary
to have directly indicators to evaluate risk management performance
and not only risk indicators to have an indirect estimator of risk
management.
Result indicators must be used with care where reality is conceived
as a process with transitory properties that are not necessarily
reflected by the indicator. This does not signify that result indicators
should be thrown out. Rather, we need to anticipate their uncritical
and ingenuous use. This is apparently the case today with diverse
methods proposed for the estimation of risk and vulnerability at
different spatial scales. The indicatum or reality comprises a
series of processes that need to be reconstructed. We are dealing
with risk or risk factors (hazard and vulnerability), which in
themselves may be complex and composed realities. There are different
types of hazard and many dimensions of vulnerability. Moreover,
vulnerability is conditioned by the type of hazard. This makes
the reconstruction of reality and possibility, referred to here
as risk and risk management, more complex.
A number of questions may be useful in guiding the design of
a model or system of risk and risk management indicators. In
the design of risk indicators a series of aspects must be taken
into account, such as the character or type of evaluation, the
objectives, approach, and methodology, the availability of information,
quality control, and the extent to which the indicator repreents
reality. The port " Methodological Fundamentals on Indicators,
IDB-IDEA Phase I " retrived from http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co presents a group of oriented questions to facilitate the formulation
of a model of indicators for the relative measurement of risk
and risk management.
The quality attributes of a model are represented
by its "applicability", "transparency", "presentation" and "legitimacy".
Respect for these
attributes determines the scientific pedigree of a particular technique.
Applicability refers to the way a model is adjusted to the evaluation
problem at hand, to its reach and comprehensiveness and the accessibility,
aptitude and level of confidence of the information required. Transparency
is related to the way the problem is structured, facility of use,
flexibility and adaptability and to the level of intelligibility
and comprehensiveness of the algorithm or model. Presentation relates
to the transformation of the information, visualization and understanding
of the results. Finally, legitimacy is linked to the role of the
analyst, control, comparison, the possibility of verification and
acceptance and consensus on the part of the evaluators and decision
makers. This type of characteristics only can obtain if a team
of experts develop the model of indicators. Indeed, one conference
like this one only can give some general ideas to develop a model
o system of indicators for risk management.
In our case, the central feature or objective of
the "IDB-IDEA
Programme of Indicators" was to construct a model of indicators
that describes comparative levels of disaster risk in different
countries (subnational or urban areas) and allows the identification
of the principal factors that contribute to the configuration of
risk (from a holistic perpective) in each country. The system of
indicators (the model) was constructed on the basis of a number
of readily available and reasonably robust variables, which allow
a coarse grain or low-resolution analysis of risk at a scale appropriate
for national decision-making. Ideally, the risk model not only
highlight the comparative levels of risk between countries, but
also the factors that should be considered in order to reduce that
risk. By focusing on vulnerability and risk, the indicators are
multi-sectorial in scope and social in focus, looking at the relative
probabilities of a society being unable to absorb the impact and
recover from a given range of dangerous events. The indicators,
would then be used as a tool to focus attention on risk, to stimulate
actions to reduce risks in disaster-prone countries and to set
priorities for the allocation of development assistance. It would
is ?indicative? and not attempt or pretend to be comprehensive
or precise. It is useful to inform decision- takers on priority
areas for action and resource allocation, but it would not replace
the need for detailed risk assessments and profiles as a basis
for planning at the national and sub-national levels.
For your information, attached you
will find a paper thata is a summary
of the system of indicators made by the IDB-IDEA
Project.
The outcomes (for example the discusion of experts on the methodologies
of indicators), reports, information of the project over time
(4 phases in two years) can be downloaded from http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co I have sent before to this dialogue other example of an especific
indicator of risk management performance made by this programme
and applied in twelve countries in the Americas.
Omar D. Cardona
Technical director of the IDB-IDEA programme of
Disaster risk and risk management indicators
|
|
11.10.05 Alessandro
Lugari,
Italy
Dear all,
I would like to say a word on Topic 3:
there's obviously a need of an independent authority making an
overseeing of the progress in DDR (according in that with Mr Christopher
Effgen), and my concern is that this body, as well as at a global
level, should be capable to operate also at a local level, so that
to unite detailed informations with an overall contextual knowledge.
Thank you and regards,
Alessandro Lugari
La Sapienza University - Rome
Italy
|
|
11.10.05
Patricia Ramarojaona, Madagascar
1- What procedures and strategies are appropriate to implementing
indicators and assessing progress?
First of all I totally agree with Mlenge Mgendi (Tanzania). Some
countries are becoming ?specialists? on producing papers (policies,
strategy, etc.).
I think one of reasons of failur
e by trying to implement indicators
is that the persons who have been involved in the concept are different
from the others who implement.
Another reason is that it frequently takes too long time between
the definition of indicators and the implementation itself.
I mean the approaches should no more be ?pilot? or due to exceptional
actions. Thus, without needing great procedures and strategies, simple
approaches can be undertaken by (1) starting to give the floor to
decentralized structures (districts, region, provinces, etc.), (2)
allowing those structures providing information, data and input (giving
them means to do it), and (3) developing information/ communication
mechanism in order to ensure that the Government is ready to priorise
this issues.
2- What form should guidelines on monitoring disaster risk reduction
take and what content should they have?
The elaboration of guidelines ought to involve multidisciplinary
actors: social, economic, historic, statistic, IT, anthropologic,
geographic, etc. It is up to each country.
The guideline could take a form of a global monograph.
3- Should there be regional or global oversight of progress in
DRR?
Absolutely!!
However it should give more opportunities for sharing and learning
from each other?s rather than for copying what/how other countries
deal with the issues.
Disaster and risk management should keep ?the unexpected? in mind.
Warm regards,
Patricia Ramarojaona
Administrateur de Programme Environnement/Sécurité Alimentaire/Eau/
Gestion des Risques et Catastrophes
PNUD/ Antananarivo/ MADAGASCAR
tel: 261 20 22 370 73/261 20 22 366 50
mobile: 261 33 11 811 73
www.onu.mg/pnud.html
|
|
11.10.05 Philip
Buckle and Graham Marsh,
Moderators
Dear Participants,
Thank you for your contributions so far. They have been very interesting
and individually and combined have provide a very useful resource
already for this project.
Topic 3 is about to start and will run from 4 - 10 October on
the subject of Procedures for Reviewing National Progress. We encourage you to continue participating and also to prompt
others also to contribute.
Kind regards
Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh
Moderators
|
TOPIC 3
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING NATIONAL PROGRESS IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
IN THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK OF ACTION
The inherent link between disasters and development continues
to be ignored in most developing countries. Unfortunately the
same problems impeding development are the same ones that increase
vulnerability to disasters. It is, therefore, very important
that the disaster and disaster mitigation measures are mainstreamed
into all development measures and policies.
Poverty has been found to be the leading cause of vulnerability.
The first and greatest step in mitigating disasters is poverty
alleviation. The national development policies must be geared
towards poverty alleviation.
National policies must also be geared towards strengthening
existing livelihood coping strategies while coming up with development
initiatives that may create and diversify opportunities.
In Kenya the most devastating disasters are climate related,
mainly droughts, and to some extent floods. Droughts have been
so frequent in the eastern Africa region impacting greatly on
the livelihood of a very big proportion of the population. Pastoralists
sometimes suffer near total destruction of their livelihood.
In some instances there is loss of lives. Key sectors that have
been badly affected include agriculture, livestock production,
wildlife management, health, and infrastructure.
Overall, the national policies should encourage research in
most of these sectors. Research is very important in ensuring
that adequate and relevant information is available for purposes
of decision making at both the national and local levels. In
agriculture, policies and actions should be geared towards the
development of crop varieties that are drought tolerant if not
resistant. Also in agriculture climate related disasters include
pest infestation and diseases. Research policies and activities
should be aimed at developing pest and disease tolerant crop
varieties. Other strategies in agriculture should also include
environmental conservation measures to help restore or conserve
fertility hence enhancing yields. Considerations may also be
made of insurance policies that guard against crop failures.
In livestock production and wildlife management, there is need
for research in rangeland production activities. Rangelands form
the main areas of livestock production and wildlife management.
Policies and research must be aimed at increasing the abundance
of more palatable species for both livestock and wildlife while
guarding against biodiversity loss in order to ensure ecological
balance in the rangelands. The government should also work towards
improving livestock husbandry and enhancement of existing coping
strategies such as pastoral associations and networks.
Health sector is very important in the disaster mitigations.
Elimination or reduction of vector breeding sites is very important
step towards health disaster mitigation. While minimizing vector
facilitation, strengthening of health facilities is equally
very important in case of disease outbreaks.. Again research
is very
important, particularly with regard to understanding the nature
of vectors as well as understanding the existing indigenous
knowledge with regard to disease cycles and people’s
vulnerability.
The poor conditions of infrastructure usually hinder the movement
of good and services, and the people during disasters. The national
policies should be geared towards infrastructure improvement.
Other very important areas in assessing the national progress
include:
- Establishment
of early warning systems. This is critical in collection and
dissemination of information regarding disasters.
There is need to create functional institutions that will
be responsible for collecting, processing, packaging and disseminating
early warning information. In Kenya disaster management is
a
jurisdiction of a committee rather than a technical institution.
- Institutional
arrangement is critical. As suggested above, there is need
to for an institution that will be responsible
for disasters. Such an institution must work in close collaboration
with other technical institutions such as the Kenya Meteorological
Department and several other national and international
technical institutions. The capacity of such institutions
needs to be highly
strengthened. The disaster institutions must have structures
at both local and national levels and must link up with
international disaster institutions.
- Training
institutions are also very important in human resource capacity
building. In Kenya there has not been
focus in building
human capacity in disaster management. Institutions of
high learning and training need to develop curricula
in disaster preparedness
and management.
- Public
awareness is also very critical in disaster management. In
a number of cases disasters are seen
as far off occurrences
hence disasters are never taken seriously until they
strike. There is, therefore, great need to constantly
prepare the
public against such eventualities. Let disaster preparedness
and management
be part and parcel of education curricula at all levels
of our education system.
- Capacity
building and decision making are very important components
and aspects of disaster management. This
must cut across the
entire community fabric. At all levels of our society
people must be empowered both in terms of capacity
and decision
making. Remember the saying “A stitch in time saves nine”.
In summary, the following are very critical and important in
disaster preparedness and management. They should form the basis
of evaluating national progress in disaster management:
- Mainstreaming
disaster management in all spheres of national development.
- Poverty
alleviation must be part and parcel of all national development
planning policies.
- Strengthening
of existing livelihood coping strategies
- Strengthening
of research in major sectors often affected by disasters such
as agriculture, livestock production,
wildlife management, health, and infrastructure.
- Establishing
of information collection, processing and dissemination systems,
particularly the early
warning systems
- Institutional
arrangement to facilitate information collection, processing
and dissemination
- Capacity
building in terms of institutions, and human resources
- Public
awareness
|
|
|
10.10.05
Enoch Harun Opuka,
Mozambique
Many countries
inAfrica have had continued problems and even poverty escalated
due to the way they have dealt with disaster management.
Indeed countries have continued to wait for floods to come due to
burst river banks during rains, they have waited for drought to come
and the list continues. My take in this is that
(a) As part of the aid package (in the area of food security) and
more so to developing countries in Africa, the recipient countries
should show their commitment to prevent predictable annual disasters.
(b) There should be an inter-ministerial committee in developing
countries to asses the extent to which risks are being dealt with.
Countries like Ethiopiawhich have seen terrible famine causing extreme
suffering to human beings would have lessened the effect of this
suffering if such committees existed and put in place mitigating
factors.
(c) The developed countries should not politicize risks. Take the
example of Katrina in the USA recently. There were hints that Katrina?s
destruction could have been less had President Bush been a better
administrator. I find this totally unacceptable. Remove politics
from disasters.
(d) In developing countries where the opposition is usually shunted
out of the mainstream management of the country, a culture of working
together should be developed.
Thanks
Enoch Harun Opuka
Humanitarian and Development Coordinator - AfricaRegion
American Friends Service Committee
58 Bairro Josina Machel
Manica
Mozambique
Tel: +258.251.62187
Fax and direct line +258.251.62480
Cell: +258.82.5099860
|
|
10.10.05
Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago
We are in full support of ideas expressed here, see what we are
doing attached, without funds but it is urgently needed
Gia Gaspard Taylor
National Coordinator
International Education and Resource Network, Trinidad and Tobago
1 868 622 7731 Ph.
Fax: 1 868 622 6816
|
|
10.10.05
Gia Gaspard Taylor, Trinidad and Tobago
We are in full support of the elements reffered to here and
in fact began on such a process using the schools and community
youth groups to learn and share information to adults we are also
using games to get the messages accross. And welcome any sugestions you may have to offer
Gia Gaspard Taylor
National Coordinator
International Education and Resource Network, Trinidad and Tobago
1 868 622 7731 Ph.
Fax: 1 868 622 6816
|
|
10.10.05
Mlenge Fanuel Mgendi, Tanzania
Dear Moderators,
What procedures and strategies are appropriate to implementing
indicators and assessing progress?
* Some less developed countries are increasingly becoming good
on producing national paperworks (policies, strategy papers, plans)
that are not implemented at all. To assess progress there need
to be more than just for example a checklist to see whether a government
has Disaster Reduction in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper,
but whether it (also) implements whatever it has in national papers.
What form should guidelines on monitoring disaster risk reduction
take and what content should they have?
* The guidelines can include checklists that gauges the country's
progress against the indicators suggested in previous topics.
Should there be regional or global oversight of progress in Disaster
Risk Reduction?
*'It's advisable to gauge how your health improves, not by only
comparing colleagues with similar bad health, but by comparing
it with even those who are healthy', so says the old
and wise. If we only compare countries within a region, it may
happen that we do so in a region
where ALL countries are not doing that much progress,
but relative to each other a country could be seen better off,
giving false sense of
security. It is better that we do it globally.
Kind regards,
Mlenge Fanuel Mgendi
Manager, Disaster Management Training Centre (DMTC)
University College of Lands and Architectural Studies (UCLAS)
P.o. Box 35176, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
East Africa
Fax: +255 22 2771590 / +255 22 2775391
Mobile: +255 744 372902
|
|
10.10.05
Pr. TELLAL R., Morocco
Above all, prayer to excuse my middle English. My intervention
consists on the one hand in answering for a global way to the proposed
themes especially the theme 3 and on the other hand to propose some
instructions for capable to help to minimize the impacts of the disasters.
The types of disasters are numerous but me I address to the natural
disasters.
Three points will be treated in this intervention.
| 1 / |
Needs of detailed studies and precise statistics: |
| |
a / |
Necessity of census of all cases of possible risks. |
| |
b / |
Necessity of Study every case of risk: |
| |
|
- |
To make take out again the major impact of the risk (through
the survey many cases). |
| |
|
|
* |
on the population |
| |
|
|
* |
on the infrastructure |
| |
|
|
|
etc..... |
| |
|
- |
To make come out again through the analysis of every case:
The reasons of the disasters, that is to say the failings in the system. As examples
of failings one mentions: |
| |
|
|
* |
Population too much exposed to the risks |
| |
|
|
* |
Absence or lack of application of regulation for the construction. |
| |
|
|
* |
Lack of shelters in case of disasters. |
| |
|
|
* |
Lack of suitable paths for the flight. |
| |
|
|
* |
Lack of infrastructure for the struggle against fire. |
| |
|
|
* |
Lack of struggle means against the asphyxiating gases etc... |
| |
|
|
* |
To make come out again through the survey of concrete cases,
the positive points that contribute to minimize the damages
caused by the disasters at the warned nations and to take them
like example. |
| |
c / |
THE UNO by the slant of one of its institutions, can count
the precautions permitting to reduce to the maximum the impact
of the disasters and to impose by one its programs to all states
members the application of these precautions at home.
(Necessity of formation of experts évaluateurs of damages
and failings). |
| 2 / |
sensitization:
The sensitization of the populations to the
disasters made defect currently in many countries otherwise
all. The necessity of formation of animators in
this
sense could only contribute to warn the population against the risks. |
| |
|
- |
The day of the first cares and first interventions in case
of disasters (disasters) remains import. Morocco celebrated
this day of the 27/09/05 under the sign of: Day of education
to the first cares in case of disasters. Only the necessity
of intervention of animators by the schoolchildren is appropriate. |
| |
|
- |
Necessity of organization of fairs for the presentations
of models of infrastructures etc... necessary to protect of
the disasters with sensitization of the public and authorities. |
| 3 / |
solidarity: |
| |
|
- |
The UNO must work to reinforce solidarity between the countries
(under the aegis of the UNO) and this by the creation of a
bottom special disaster. In this case, it's necesserly to classify
the disasters on a scale given to value better and quickly
the degree of disaster (the information can be rushed there
by experts just after the disaster) and therefore to value
the need of help to grant to the damaged populations. |
| |
|
- |
The UNO must encourage the associations of solidarity that
remain an asset in the first interventions in case of disaster. |
Pr. TELLAL R. Morocco. |
|
10.10.05 Peter
Collins, France
ICSU is not in a position to engage with this dialogue in detail.
However, as I reported to the ISDR meting on 25 May we have been
looking at what action ICSU could usefully take in respect of natural
hazards, and a Scoping Group chaired by Gordon McBean has prepared
a report. This will be discussed at the ICSU General Assembly on
19 October.
I attach a copy of the report for your information. You will understand
its status is simply that of a set of recommendations and, in advance
of the General Assembly discussion, it is not a statement of ICSU
policy. The main recommendation is that, in the field of natural
hazards, ICSU's niche lies at the intersection of science and policy
and, in particular, the uses that are made of scientific knowledge
concerning natural hazards.
Dr Peter Collins
ICSU
51 Bd de Montmorency
75016 Paris
+33 (0)1 45 25 06 01
|
|
07.10.05
Elena Polanco de Bonilla, El Salvador
Greetings to all. There are three elements that can give the idea
us if the different aspects to take care of the disasters in the
countries are really progress signs:
a)Organization quick and effective before the impact
b)Comunication and difusiòn adapted of basic information
c)Activation (TURN ON) quick of the different devices to take
care of poblaciòn. In El Salvador, before of the disasters
of the 2001, have been remarkable efforts to improve boarding
integral
of the poblation.
Nevertheless, one of the things that demand much work, is to convince
the people who accept evacuation. Like as to supply very quickly
the shelters to take care of all the refugees.
Cultural barriers and distrust of the security that can give the
institutions to the homes usually are great limitations to take
care of the people satisfactorily.
But in the measurement that the countries and his institutions
in charge to take care of the population in case of disasters,
win credibility, exercise their functions and tasks, use and distribute
in form it is
transparent the resources and donations and respond to the people
effectively doubtlessly who this is going to reflect in the smaller
possible time in people that will be done better the indications
and this is going to diminish the nùmero of deaths and vìctimas.
Best regards from El Salvador.
Dra. Elena Polanco de Bonilla.
UNIVERSIDAD
DE EL SALVADOR.
|
|
07.10.05
Christopher Effgen,
United States of America
Dear Tomukum Chia and Colleagues,
Thank you for your kind words.
I am not suggesting that disaster relief or disaster planning
funds be associated with the compilation of disaster risk indicators.
I am suggesting that international bodies, that make development
funds available, use these as factors in determining what terms
to offer in making grants and loans.
Within and often outside of government, emergency managers, risk/threat
planners, and advocates for sustainable development are very small
fish in a big pound filled with bigger fish that have sharper teeth.
If an nation or state's international development funding is tied
to its mitigation activities, because an international lending
agency is more likely to make funding available, or offer better
terms, then our work will be easier because it will carry more
wieght.
I don't think that this idea originates with me. I think that
it fits the ground work that others have laid down, and I believe
that it will work because it fits the problem.
The individuals that I know that are involved in emergency management
in the United States tend not to take public positions because
they know that they are small fish, whose continued employment
is dependent upon the support of their elected representatives.
Their representatives in turn depend upon the support of economic
interests that often don't see the longterm value in disaster mitigation.
As a result they have to be compromisers.
The scheme that I am suggesting will not solve the problem overnight.
Yet, for my part I believe that we can within a hundred years or
so develop cultures that are truly disaster resistent. The development
of the science of risk/threat management has taught us that a single
failure in a system can bring down the entire orginization that
depends upon that system for its livelihood. The problem of sustainable
development is one that we all face together. The failure of any
nation to understand this may result in consequences that affect
all of us. Today we confront the problem of avian influenza which,
if not acted upon, has the potential to kill half the human population
of the planet. The problem of sustainable development of every
nation affects the kind of development that can take place in my
county. It affects the nature of the kind of people we can and
will become.
This is why our work is so important.
Christopher Effgen
United States of America
907-248-8363
|
|
06.10.05
Tomukum Chia,
Cameroon
Dear all,
Personally I wish to thank Mr. Effgen Christopher for his immense
contribution. We regret and sympathise for the recent disasters
that occurred in the united states. Please accept our condolence.
Unfortunateny the loan and grants iniative highlighted in his
proporsal cannot be feasible in our context here in africa because
loan or grants are limited and in all disaster risk management
it is the immediate survivals that are available for rescue and
anyassistance or relief operation is for a short while only.
Again our forms of disasters do not take place in cycles as indicated.strenthening
coping mechanisms and monitoring by vulnerable and disadvantaged
grassroots communities is recommendable.
Regards
Tomukum Chia
Cameroon
|
|
06.10.05
Jim Cory, United States of America
Hello all,
There has been some discussion during this dialogue about mainstreaming
disaster reduction and viewing it as an aspect of sustainable development
efforts. As has been evidenced by recent events, unsustainable
practices are often exposed and exacerbated by disasters. It makes
sense then to schedule procedures to review sustainable development
after disasters and to schedule procedures to review disaster reduction
when sustainability is being examined. The extent of devastation
caused by disasters depends in part on where the poor can afford
to live. Without social structures in place to encourage wise land
use, capitalism becomes the determining factor.
By examining land use and population distribution during non-disaster
times, the ability of a community to rebound can be assessed. A strong,
resilient social framework can provide the means to withstand disasters
and to provide a foundation for development. Studying where and how
the social framework is damaged or destroyed by disaster can provide
information about the sustainability of the day to day development
efforts.
Jim Cory
GeoTech
Madison, WI, USA |
|
04.10.05
Christopher Effgen,
Anchorage, AK
Dear Colleagues,
We have had a number of disasters recently in the United States,
which have called into question our approach to risk/threat management
and to Emergency Management. The objectives of this forum are timely
in this respect.
In constructing a national policy, after the attack on 9-11-01,
the government of the United States largely bypassed and ignored
the contributions that its emergency management community had to
offer. It reduced funding to the only organization that had pursued
an all-hazard approach, virtually ceased all mitigation activities,
and was in the process of attempting to shift responsibilities
that are normally those of emergency managers out of FEMA. For
the last month I have been following the disasters and the changes
taking place within the emergency management community. For this
reason I have not participated in the conference till this point
in time.
1. What procedures and strategies are appropriate to implementing
indicators and assessing progress?
- The object of having indicators that enable assessments is
a common practice in the credit industry. The most appropriate
and effect procedure and strategy for implementing the indicators
would be their use in determining the viability of loans and
grants to states and nations.
2.What form should guidelines on monitoring disaster risk reduction
take and what content should they have?
- The first issue that we need to establish a baseline. The problem
with a baseline is that disasters take place in cycles, and so
the baseline needs to be able to accommodate itself to this fact.
States, nations, and the international community need to engage
in risk/threat assessments, and all hazards emergency management
plans need to be established.
3. Should there be regional or global oversight of progress in
Disaster Risk Reduction?
- In order for such a scheme to be viable the process would require
oversight from an independent authority(ies).
Christopher Effgen
Anchorage, AK
907-248-8363
|
|
03.10.05
Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh, Moderators
Dear Participants,
Thank you for your contributions so far. They have been very interesting
and individually and combined have provide a very useful resource
already for this project.
Topic 3 is about to start and will run from 4 – 10
October on the subject of Procedures for Reviewing National Progress.
We encourage you to continue participating and also to prompt
others also to contribute.
Kind regards
Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh
Moderators
|
|
|
