|
|
| |
Summary
Topic 2
|
From
16 June to 4 July
Implementation mechanisms at local, national, regional and international
scales. Links with existing developmental mechanisms and frameworks.
Support to national and local implementation and follow-up. |
|
|
|
| (Moderator's
note: Please note that while the questions in Topic 2 were
discussed between 26 June and 4 July, participants who are
interested in contributing further to that discussion can still
send in their messages for incorporation into the final summary.) |
| |
|
Dear Online
Dialogue Participants,
Thank you to
everyone who has subscribed and contributed to Topic 2. More
than 680 people have now subscribed to the dialogue, and 48 messages
relating to Topic 2 had been received at the time of writing
this summary.
The contributions
so far have been very interesting and useful. They are full of
insights into the potential challenges, as well as indicating
a wide range of potential solutions. This summary highlights
the main issues raised (the contributions can be viewed on the
dialogue's website www.unisdr.org/wcdr-dialogue/). Comments on
the specific wording of individual goals, objectives and priorities
are listed in a separate Topic 2 document, and a third document
lists examples of 'good practice' submitted by the participants
during the discussion.
Contributions
to Topic 3 (now under way) are welcomed, especially from the
many participants who have yet to post a message. |
| |
|
Purpose of Topic 2
The purpose of Topic 2 was to hold a general exchange of views
on, and address specific questions relating to, mechanisms for
implementing the objectives and areas for action proposed for the
World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in January 2005.
The particular questions for discussion were:
- Are the proposed tasks at national, regional
and international level sufficiently detailed and precise for
the establishment
of effective follow-up to the objectives and priorities for action
to be adopted at WCDR? Comments on the focus and formulation
of requirements and assignment of responsibilities for the various
functions envisaged will be particularly useful.
- What additional guidance can be provided to establish necessary
synergies with existing developmental mechanisms and frameworks,
including Poverty Reduction Strategies, National Sustainable
Development Strategies, the United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks,
SIDS strategies and Millennium Development Goals, climate change
National Adaptation Programmes of Action, desertification National
Action Programmes and other similar frameworks?
- Please
provide information, contacts, lessons from experience and
examples of good practice to assist governments and
other stakeholders to follow-up and monitor progress of their
implementation of
WCDR outcomes.
Contributions addressing all levels (national, regional and international)
were invited. In view of the numerous assessment and reporting
frameworks countries already have to respond to, an important issue
was to establish synergies between these various requirements,
in order to avoid duplication and streamline the use of scarce
resources. Participants were encouraged to support their remarks
with examples of good practice wherever possible.
Summary of discussion
In general, the participants endorsed the suggested implementation
mechanisms and actions at the different levels, and had relatively
few specific textual amendments to suggest.
One of the main issues that arose during the discussion was
the need to link actions at the different levels, which were
generally
believed to be weakly connected at present. Better information
sharing (see below) would be one means of improving linkages. This
would be best approached from the standpoint of integrated risk
management, deploying a wide range of complementary approaches
and involving a wide variety of stakeholders. More opportunities
for inter-action and partnership building – e.g. through
workshops, consortia and other capacity-building initiatives – would
be welcome.
As in the discussion of Topic 1 (goals, objectives and areas for
action), participants pointed out the importance of defining more
specific outcomes and identifying who should be responsible for
the particular actions proposed in the background document. This
would make it easier to co-ordinate activities, to measure achievement
and where necessary to lobby those responsible.
The importance of convincing policy-makers to take action – another
significant issue raised during the Topic 1 discussion – also
arose during Topic 2, with participants identifying the need for
better evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk reduction measures
and stronger community pressure. There were repeated reminders
that natural disasters should not be artificially separated from
other threats or from development objectives and processes.
Participants were keen that the proposed actions should be seen
not as one-off actions but as part of a continuous process for
improving disaster risk reduction. In this context, the need for
better learning from experience was highlighted. It was suggested
that a global organisation, perhaps part of the UN system (as a
separate agency or a programme within existing structures), be
given the role of collecting evidence on the effectiveness of policies
and practices on disaster risk reduction, analysing this evidence
and sharing the findings at all levels, and identifying knowledge
gaps.
An alternative suggested was development of a global disaster
information ‘marketplace’ to facilitate the free exchange
of disaster information among providers and users. This would not
take the form of a single international entity, which might duplicate
existing efforts; rather, it would be an agreed mechanism for information
brokerage, linked to initiatives at national and local levels.
These were among several suggestions regarding stronger international-level
linkages to strengthen disaster risk reduction. Another recommendation
was for a body linking international agencies involved in disaster
preparedness (e.g. International Atomic Energy Authority, World
Health Organisation, World Meteorological Organisation), together
with their national counterparts and any new organisations. Again,
this might be a UN agency, whose role might also encompass the
information gathering and sharing referred to above. Some detailed
suggestions were received about the remit of such an organisation.
An international NGO to stimulate disaster reduction was also suggested.
More generally, there was awareness of the need for greatly improved
co-ordination as well as information-sharing mechanisms at all
levels to reduce redundancy of efforts; participants felt there
was already considerable duplication of activity. This could possibly
be through designated agencies, but whatever mechanisms were deployed
they should be generally agreed by all the relevant stakeholders.
At regional and international levels, the creation of networks
for education/training, technology transfer and dissemination of
data and research was recommended (in effect, a more specific formulation
of international level, task v: ‘Promote and support the
generation and dissemination of advanced knowledge, data, methodologies,
legal and financial instruments and best practices.’). There
was a vigorous discussion about the value of ‘high-tech’ tools
such as satellite technologies, earth observation data and geographical
information systems in promoting integrated risk reduction, especially
in developing countries and at local levels. Improved international
collaboration on research and development was also called for.
However, one contributor noted that in many cases, practical material
(manuals, guidelines, handbooks, training modules, etc.) was already
available from a number of experienced international agencies:
at-risk communities and their organisations needed to be made more
aware of these resources. Several participants were wary about
the creation of new institutions – and hence, new bureaucracies – where
this was not clearly called for by a gap in existing expertise
and capacities. A further issue raised was the need for better
collaboration between different disciplines, particularly between
the social and natural/technical sciences.
Developing-country participants expressed some concern about
the capacity –including the financial resources – required
to carry out the proposed national- and local-level tasks. International
agencies needed to bear this in mind when advocating and supporting
programmes at these levels. A further challenge that was identified
was that of securing the required levels of collaboration between
the many relevant stakeholders – this issue is at the heart
of the discussion about voluntary partnerships which is the subject
of Topic 3. International financial mechanisms (donor and market-driven)
had an important role to play in encouraging national-level action
but ultimately this depended on having the appropriate instruments
of governance: legal, institutional and policy frameworks.
Last, but by no means least, efforts had to empower vulnerable
communities and local-level actors, which are sometimes in danger
of being marginalised by the high level of interest in developing
higher-level structures. It was recommended that the background
document’s section on implementation and follow-up paid specific
attention to means of ensuring people’s participation in
risk reduction initiatives and building capacity from the bottom
up. Many contributors wrote of the value of educational and awareness-raising
work.
(John Twigg, moderator, 8/7/04)
|
|
| |
| Suggested
changes to wording of goals, objectives and priorities |
|
| |
|
This list is confined to participants’ specific comments
on the draft text. More general comments about the contents and
focus of implementation mechanisms are reflected in the Topic
2 summary.
National and local levels
iii. Develop procedures for monitoring national progress on risk
reduction and the achievement of chosen targeted actions.
·
Add the factors natural phenomena, hazard, and vulnerability, as
follows: ‘Develop procedures for monitoring national progress
on natural phenomena, hazard identification, vulnerability assessment,
risk reduction and the achievement of chosen targeted actions." (Leonidas
Ocola 5/7/04)
(additional items)
- Develop publications for the public, private and informal sectors
on the benefits of risk reduction. The publications should use
official and native languages to reach the whole population (Maria
Otero 1/7/04).
- Prepare systematic and appropriate methodologies for sector diagnosis
concerning the relationship between development and risk reduction
(Maria Otero 1/7/04).
- Prepare programs for disaster and emergency reduction in the national
sectors (Maria Otero 1/7/04).
- Co-operation with leadership from developed nations (since these
are the ones with the most resources) (Luis Mauricio Pinet Peralta
2/7/04).
- Set up an institutional mechanism for co-ordination of disaster
mitigation activities within the country. This task can be assigned
to a government body or a collaborative agency (R Kuberan 2/7/04).
- Set up mechanisms for information sharing among all parties (R
Kuberan 2/7/04).
- Organise national conferences for sharing experiences and discussing
policy issues and financial support (R Kuberan 2/7/04).
- Build awareness among people, including women and children, especially
through the school curriculum (R Kuberan 2/7/04).
- Organise mock relief exercises in most disaster prone areas (R
Kuberan 2/7/04).
Regional level
iii. Support and motivate governments and organizations in the
region by means of, inter alia, initiatives to develop regional
networking, coordination and problem solving, the exchange of information
and experience, the provision of information products, training
and other capacity building, and the strengthening of specialized
centers of expertise and education on natural disaster management
and risk reduction.
- Support and
motivate governments and organizations in the region by means
of, inter alia, initiatives to develop regional networking,
co-ordination and problem solving, the exchange of information
and experience, the provision of information products, training
and other capacity building, and the strengthening of specialized
centers of expertise and education on natural hazard evaluation,
risk reduction, and natural disaster management. (Leonidas Ocola
5/7/04)
(additional items)
-
Foment the development of appropriate technologies for risk reduction
considering the implementation of basic information services, scientific,
educational, cultural centres, and the population’s formal
and informal capacities (Maria Otero 1/7/04).
-
Prepare and promote regional programs to achieve the population’s
participation in risk reduction activities without distinctions
of race, creed, education, social group, cultural level, etc.
(Maria Otero 1/7/04).
- Prepare programs to strengthen the rational and democratic use
of high-priority natural resources in disaster reduction (Maria
Otero 1/7/04).
- Prepare and promote regional programs considering the educational,
socio-economic and technological limitations of most of the population
in Latin America and the Caribbean (Maria Otero 1/7/04).
International level
v. Promote and support the generation and dissemination of advanced
knowledge, data, methodologies, legal and financial instruments
and best practices.
- Development of networks for education/training and technology transfer
(Alekssandr Kuzmenko 28/6/04)
- Promote and support the generation and dissemination of advanced
knowledge, data, software, methodologies, legal and financial instruments
and best practices, through free-of-cost global information distribution
centers. (Leonidas Ocola 5/7/04)
The role of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction and
the UN/ISDR Secretariat
iv. Coordinate the development of databases on natural disasters,
disaster impacts and risk reduction, particularly in terms of the
aforementioned objectives and action thereon, and publish periodic
analyses of these data.
- Coordinate the development of interrelated databases on natural
phenomena, vulnerabilities, risk reduction, disasters, disaster
impacts, particularly in terms of the above-mentioned objectives
and actions thereon, and publish periodic analyses of these data.
(Leonidas Ocola 5/7/04)
(additions)
- Evaluate and mitigate
the negative socio-economic and environmental changes caused by the
globalisation processes that cause the
growth in risks (Mario Otero 1/7/04).
- Develop an evaluation index to assess yearly the effect of the
disaster reduction programs in the developing nations,
by calculating the ratio of the total loss (in monetary units) due to disasters
over the Gross National Product (i.e.: IDRI = Total
year loss
/ Gross National Product.) (Leonidas Ocola 5/7/04).
Regional and international support
i. Provide systematic support to developing countries to assist
in disaster risk reduction, particularly through capacity building
and financial and technical assistance.
- Provide systematic
support to developing countries to assist in hazard evaluation,
vulnerability assessment, risk analysis and
management, and risk reduction, particularly through capacity
building and financial and technical assistance. (Leonidas Ocola
5/7/04)
v. Collaborate in advanced studies, cost-benefit studies and demonstration
projects to develop improved approaches to risk management and
risk reduction.
- Collaborate
in advanced studies, cost-benefit studies and demonstration projects
to develop improved approaches to hazard evaluation,
vulnerability assessment, risk analysis and management, and risk reduction.
(Leonidas Ocola 5/7/04)
(John Twigg, moderator, 8/7/04)
|
| |
|
| |
| 'Good practice'
examples |
|
| |
| Many participants
referred to activities that could be considered ‘good
practice’ or examples for others to learn from. These are
listed here, grouped according to their level of operation. In
some cases, further details can be found in the relevant contribution
(the name of the contributor and date are given in brackets), and
references are given where these were supplied. Others, though,
are short or anecdotal references.
Note: This
is a list of the examples provided by participants. It has not
been selected
or validated by the dialogue’s moderator
or ISDR.
National and local levels:
-
Creation of ‘socio-technical networks’ at community
level in the Philippines and China to monitor seismic activity
and impending earthquakes http://www.undp.org.ph/frontliner/archive/2-2003/cscan.htm ; http://www.undp.org.ph/frontliner/archive/3-2003/cscanlong.htm ; http://www.globalwatch.org/ungp/xinjiang98.htm ; http://www.globalwatch.org/ungp/matrix.htm (Jean Chu 28/6/04).
-
Work under the aegis of Guatemala’s national disaster reduction
agency CONRED to broaden responsibilities for risk reduction to
encompass sectoral government agencies and NGOs, and to identify
areas at high risk (Juan Carlos Villagrán de León
29/6/04).
- The National Disaster Mitigation Partnership: a range of initiatives
to integrate disaster mitigation activities in Vietnam, supported
by the UNDP and international donors www.undp.org.vn/dmu/ ; www.undp.org.vn/ndm-partnership
(R Kuberan 30/6/04).
- Establishment of a geographic information centre for the watershed
of the Rio Grande in Matagalpa, Nicaragua, which is a key resource
for risk assessment and integration of risk management in planning
(Francesco Pisano and Alain Retiere 30/6/04).
- Work by the Slovak Hydrometeorological Instute on flood forecasting
and warning and weather forecasting (Milan Kacer 1/7/04).
- Studies and risk maps for Mexico City, and development of an emergency
contingency plan for the city to execute and co-ordinate emergency
efforts (Luis Wintergerst 2/7/04).
- Identification of seismic priorities in Yemen by the National Seismological
Observatory Centre (Jamal Sholan 2/7/04).
- Creation of a Multi-Sectoral Commission on Risk Reduction for Development
in Peru, whose main task is to develop a national strategy for
risk reduction integrated with development planning (Leonidas Ocola
5/7/04).
-
Publication of a natural hazards atlas of Peru by the country’s
Civil Defense (Leonidas Ocola 5/7/04).
- Emergency prevention plan implemented by the waterworks company
in La Paz, Bolivia, which mitigated the impact of flooding in 2002
(Maria Otero 6/7/04).
- Current study of flood vulnerability in Vietnam using earth observation
and GIS data www.eeem.nl (Wim Looijen 6/7/04).
Regional level:
- The work of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)
in promoting integrated risk management since 1998 (Roger Jones
28/6/04).
International level:
-
The InterAmerican Development Bank’s guidance on financial
planning and protection to survive disasters (Kari Keipi and Justin
Tyson, Planificación y Protección Financiera para
Sobrevivir los Desasters, IADB 2002 www.iadb.org/int/DRP/esp/Red6/Docs/KeipiPlanificaiconMay2002.pdf)
(Arturo Rodríguez 29/6/04).
-
Examples of cost-benefit analysis of disaster risk reduction initiatives
demonstrating good results, on the FEMA website www.fema.gov/fima/bp.shtm and research on assessment of net benefits of mitigation for the
ProVention Consortium (Charlotte Benson and John Twigg, ‘Measuring
Mitigation’: Methodologies for Assessing Natural Hazard Risks
and the Net Benefits of Mitigation – A Scoping Study. ProVention
Consortium, 2004 forthcoming www.proventionconsortium.org) (Arturo
Rodríguez 29/6/04).
-
The role of the Global Disaster Information Network (GDIN) in providing
a ‘marketplace’ for exchange of information between
providers and users (Al Simard 30/6/04).
- The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, which is promoting the use
of space technologies/earth observation data in disaster management www.oosa.unvienna.org/SAP/stdm/ (Steve Drury 30/6/04).
- A factsheet on disaster reduction programmes currently active within
the UN system www.arct.cam.ac.uk/curbe/infosheets.html#factsheet2 (Ilan Kelman 1/7/04).
Regional and international support:
- Successful adoption by the Red Cross in Indonesia of approaches
to coastal disaster preparedness that had been tried and tested
by the Red Cross in Hawaii (Calliope Tavoulari 29/6/04).
(John Twigg, moderator, 8/7/04)
|
| |
|
|
