|
|
| |
| Dialogue |
|
|
| |
|
|
 This
on-line dialogue on DRR and MDGs is timely needed since the linkage
between the two has been pointed out recently in many international
conferences and summits. We at ADRC also stress the need to establish
a strong linkage between disaster reduction frameworks and socio-economic
development frameworks in order to achieve ‘sustainable development’.
Based on this line of approach, the Total Disaster Risk Management
(TDRM) approach, developed jointly by ADRC and UN/OCHA Kobe, clearly
specifies the pragmatic ways to identify the existing gaps between
development and disasters and bridge the shortcomings by strengthening
all developing countries, including LDCs, to cope with the emerging
challenges such as changing global phenomena on social, cultural,
environmental and economic issues.
I believe that DRR must be related to human development index
(HDI- which is compounded weighted average of key socio-economic
indicators (life expectancy, literacy and per capita income) of
a country. It is known that any improvement on these three basic
indicators, without any doubt, would increase the awareness of
the need for DRR and strengthen the capabilities to deal with disasters.
Therefore, we strongly suggest that any DRR framework or action
must be referred to improving these indicators. Links between disaster
and education, disaster and health, and disaster and economic growth
continuation are of vital importance. Development plans should
engulf these as a final package. From now onwards, it is important
to include a special focus on the increasing aging population (declining
active population and labor force) and new countermeasures to respond
to it as one of the new tools in the DRR-MDG link.
The constructive and innovative comments so far mentioned here
would be of productive input for designing the strategy matrix
for DRR-MDGs. In order to identify pragmatic ways to implement
disaster risk reduction initiatives and to design effective operational
modalities at the ground level, the following points seem to be
crucial.
- It has been established by various studies and discussed
at so many forums that disaster reduction is MUST for lingering
sustainable
development. Positive correlation between disaster characteristics
and human development variables always suggest that there should
be a community centered and proactive implementation mechanism
to ensure the development sustain.
- WSSD
has identified the MDGs and the expected target levels in
2015 and the Hyogo Framework for Action also identified
the guideline up to 2015. Hence, it is of paramount importance
to develop
a linking mechanism to these two important frameworks for creating
a safer world and to ensure sustainable development. Without
a strong linking mechanism between the disaster reduction
initiatives
and formulas to achieve the MDGs, I trust that the desired
results and benefits of development cannot be achieved. Specially,
essential
livelihood assets and options necessary to support the poorest to bounce back should be facilitated through this linking
mechanism.
- There must be an initiative to mainstream access to public
and development resources by the local households in the context
of disaster risk reduction. This could be materialized through
the linkage and relationship-building with inter and intra
community service providers, leading to the empowerment of
the grass-root
people who will be the first victim and respondent of disasters.
I would like to add that community organizations and local
NGOs could be brought under this framework to ensure the
horizontal
and vertical relationship between the line agencies to ensure
smooth implementation of strategies.
I hope these points would further stimulate the arguments under
this topic and positively contribute to the final summary which
would in turn serve as a valuable input to designing a long-term
development strategy that incorporates disaster risk reduction.
Masayuki KITAMOTO
Etsuko TSUNOZAKI
SriGowri SANKER
Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) |
|
| Importance of Indigenous Practices |
I support the comments made by Kaylene Williams about the importance
of preserving indigenous practices that have been effective in
mitigating disasters, and ensuring that new technology does not
increase vulnerabilty to natural hazards. This is particularly
important in housing and infrastructure development. Development
at a minimum should not increase vulnerabilities; and preferably,
it should reduce exisiting vulnerabilities.
Richard Buck
|
|
| It
is good to see efforts linking development with disaster risk reduction.
I have some comments on the 2 matrices: ‘MDGs
and indicators sensitive to DRR’, and ‘Suggested measures
to incorporate DRR’
1. The indicators
(DRR) will measure to an extent the disaster resilience, or lack
of
disaster resilience, of the process of achieving
MDG targets. They will allow large trends to be noticed, eg. the
increase in poverty after a disaster. It will be necessary to collect
data specifically after disaster events and to especially monitor
the indicators with regard to the disaster-affected population
comparing it to baseline data. It is essential that this disaster
related data eg. poverty and morbidity is included in data analysis
for monitoring the progress of achieving the MDGs. I don’t
think disaster specific data collection will be classed as an excessive
data collection exercise.
The indicators should include Goal 6, targets 7 and 8 as some
disasters like floods have direct relation to the prevalence
and spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Disasters
often increase the incidence of these diseases. Therefore add
as an indicator, the HIV/ and other disease prevalence after
a disaster..
Also, add to Goal 7, Target 11 the following indicator/measure: ‘The
proportion of slum dwellers does not increase in the years after
major hazard events.’
2. I found the measures to be generally adequate. They provide
a good example of DRR considerations for applying MDGs, though
they cannot be the sole DRR accompaniment to the MDGs.
For a number of the measures, I think there is a need to add, ‘The
preservation and application of indigenous practices that have
proved effective in coping with the hazard environment. This
can be in relation to crops types, agricultural patterns, natural
resources management, building design and material.’ This
statement can perhaps be included in MDG 1 Target 1 and 2, MDG
7 Target 9 under ‘agriculture’ and ‘urban planning’ or ‘science
and technology’. I think this is an important point as ‘development’ can
often mean the introduction of new methods and technologies that
increase disaster risks, whereas indigenous methods have adapted
to cope with disaster risks. Eg. raised dwellings, building materials,
crop types.
The measures will generally help with the dovetailing of DRR
into the MDG process but there is a need to have a blanket statement
to cover all of them that ensure that any actions for the progression
of the MGDs should be done on a foundation of disaster risk assessment,
environmental and social impact assessments to ensure the proposed
development action does not increase disaster risks, and that
risk reduction actions are taken so that development efforts
are not eradicated by disaster.
Overall, I think that the indicators sensitive to DRR will prove
that in many cases, the MDGs are being hindered by disaster occurrences
therefore a strategy, or action plan is required to address this.
The Hyogo Framework for Action can then be recommended as the
strategy required to work hand in hand with the MDGs in order
to make it effective.
Kaylene Williams
|
|
Rationale
behind the links between DRR and MDGs
|
|
It is necessary that without the stronger linkages
to the existing development frameworks such as MDGs and to disaster
risk reduction frameworks or platforms, the desired result in
reducing the damage, both human and economic, cant be achieved.
This is the true situation in the Asian and African region, as
they can’t achieve the MDGs by the decided date of 2015.
So, these regions need an accelerated development framework along
with a practically implementable and development friendly DRR
platform or framework. If the world is interested in really achieving
the target in 2015, that is also the target date for the Hyogo
Framework!! So, hereafter, every DRR issue or framework needs
to refer their implementation strategy and viability to their
possible linkage to the MDGs and decide how to carry on based
on these combined base. Since a single disaster could wipe out
a country's annual GDP at once, stronger DRR related development
frameworks are indispensable.
SriGowri Sanker, Ph. D,
COE Researcher, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University, Japan
|
|
Comments
on the Indicators
|
|
For Goal 1:
Target 1:
Those proportions are fine but rigid. Maybe a link to employment (loss or reduction)
is a good idea.
Target 2:
Again, reference to "productivity" indicator rather than to an "outcome
result" is better
For Goal 7:
Target 9:
A link to an enabling mechanism, that is, the percentage of budget allocated
to implementation enforcement
Target 11:
The distribution of the USD100 million is critical - as well as the number
itself. Why not 300 million as a higher proportion from the 6.5 billion
people?
For Goal 8:
Target 15:
The number or percentage of enabled & capacitated portion of
the population in productive work
Overall, I find the measures and areas of intervention
to incorporate DRR quite good, however, they lack the element
of participation, especially encouraging Government and Non-government
interaction, as well as science-community interaction.
Mohamad Khawlie
|
|
Moderator’s
Response
|
Dear Mohamad,
I fully agree with your
comments on Goal 1, Target 1 that they are indeed rigid. Due
to the moratorium that exists on making any
changes to the indicators, however, we are limited in the extent
of our ability to modify them. Therefore, we have developed a matrix
that examines how the indicators can be adapted to measure the
extent of disaster risk reduction. This has been done without adding
new indicators but by tweaking the existing MDG target indicators
with additional time or geographic dimensions to make them sensitive
to the question: is the progress in attaining the MDG target disaster
resilient, or is it susceptible to exogenous shocks from hazard
induced disasters. However I agree that ‘employment impact’,
should be included and we will try and factor this in.
I also agree
with your suggestion of providing links to an enabling mechanism
such as the percentage of budgetary allocation. We will
add this by modifying this indicator. The 100 million figure was
agreed upon in the UN Resolution on the Roadmap to the Millennium
Declaration (refer http://www.unisdr.org/eng/mdgs-drr/pdf/a-56-326.pdf to
view the document).
As you know we have also been working towards ensuring that interventions
to achieve the MDGs are consistent with disaster risk reduction.
I have noted your valuable suggestion to increase the element of
participation in the areas of intervention.
Praveen Pardeshi
UN/ISDR
|
|
|
