Comments

• Reply

  Andy Maybury said:

  said:

  Resilience is key. Where communities are resilient, they can survive problems that come their way and they don't become disasters. The question is then, "how do communities become more resilient?" Technology can often help and, as has been noted, wealth can help to buffer the effects of problems. Cohesive communities are also better off as they support one another and the vulnerable suffer less. Sometimes governments need to act on behalf of their people and establish infrastructure, like Kenya's grain stores an our coastguards.

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Ellie Hopkins said:

  said:

  Early warning systems also won't work if they're not appropriate to the community. Planning and systems need to be put in place by the communities at risk themselves, otherwise they run a serious risk of not being right for the community, not addressing the right problems or risks, and not getting the buy-in for the people who should benefit. I agree with Alastair though, communication is a big part of it. I was at the World Climate Conference in 2009 which focused very much on getting weather and climate data from those who collect it to those on the ground. Early warning systems would be much more useful if they did just that - warned early - not when the disaster is just around the corner. If we can better communicate the potential for disaster to hit, people can be better prepared.

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Victim of Unjustice said:

  said:

  DRR is a complecated task. So, just one time efforts cannot meet the needs. A culture of safety and prevention is easy to understand but difficult to apply. Various factors both natural and socio-economic act and react together or one after another. So, we need to work at before, during and after stages. Risks can be minimized but not eliminated. EWS are the last mile solutions and very much important to save lives and movable belongings. Communicaiton is the most important component of the system, however, monitoring of risk and response by the vulnerables are also equally important. Vulnerability is associsted with livelihoods capacities of those at risk but hazard progression is important to understand. Livelihoods define sensitivity to different hazards. So, there are different issues to look at. I found DRR associated with multiple displines; not easy but important to do.

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Alexis Morcrette said:

  said:

  I'm really enjoying reading through these comments, thanks everyone. On Gemma's first question of what makes a disaster a disaster, Alistair's first point explains it really well. A disaster is a disaster because of the damage. Not because of the natural phenomenon itself (or for that matter man-made phenomenon: The International Disaster Database EM-DAT includes transport accidents and industrial accidents in the lists of disasters they track), but because of how much mayhem is creates. The International Strategy on Disaster Reduction's criteria are far from perfect for many reasons (often very difficult to track the damage and death counts and different countries count them differently, and foreign and domestic policy affects how and when countries call a state of emergency or ask for internation assistance). However these criteria do illustrate that distinction between a hazardous phenomenon and a disaster. Onto the second question about early warning systems a couple examples come to mind. I remember researching the experiences of adolescent girls in flood disasters in Bangladesh a few years ago and one shocking statistic I remember seeing was about how many young and able bodied women die in their homes. Unmarried teenage girls are often sheltered and often encouraged to stay at home. Many prefer to do so, not feeling comfortable in public.They wear long clothes, making it difficult to swim. All this highlights how socio-cultural issues are a big contributor to what turns a hazard into a disaster. The second example is from Nepal. In the district disaster risk management plans that Practical Action Consulting put together for FAO a couple years ago, a big part of the plan was to mobilise insurers to serve the poor. Why is that? Well if you don't own much and you are not insured because insurers don't offer appropriate insurance for you, then you'll spend more time trying to gather up all your stuff, or harvest your crops and store them in a safe place, or lead your animals away from the danger zone than you would if you were insured. And then you have less time to evacuate. This example highlights the economic factors the go into the mix to transform a hazard into a disaster.

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Julie Brown said:

  julie said:

  I thought members might like to see this video of a student in Nepal who is part of her local Disasters Risk Reduction Committee. I spoke to this wonderful student ( via an interpretor!) when i was in Nepal last year. What struck me was how great it was that such committees included young people, and valued their contribution. We have neighbourhood watch here in the UK but as far as i am aware don't involve students or schools. Another example of how we can learn something about good practice from the South. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxw16ANlrRc

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Jonathan Minchin said:

  said:

  I really liked Andy Maybury's comment on Resilience.... Its the adaption to particular needs and situations which is Key, and not the lack of innovation perhaps but the lack of communication. It is rarely earthquakes that kill us, it is the falling buildings that do! ... If we consider Innovations for an earthquake disaster - the point we are entering into the field is important. It is valuable to consider both technologies that mitigate against disasters and those that work to mop up the mess and to rebuild afterwards. If we follow a scheme of preparedness and mitigation then; this means looking at tech concerned with Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) or with Risk mapping. (check out the tweets) To follow the earthquake example - 'adaptive technologies' that change existing constructions to cope with possible future events would be appropriate, advanced warning and communication systems may be useful too. If we find ourselves in a post-disaster and rehabilitation situation the tech used will differ greatly. We may then be concerned with implementing altogether 'new' technologies that replace - rather than adapt: Rapid shelter constructions, building kits, clearance and sanitation technologies for example. Key Words: DRR. Mitigation. Preparedness. Rehabilitation. Recovery

  on 5/10/11
• Reply

  Gemma Hume said:

  said:

  Point well made, thanks Jonathan for your comment, This is certainly what Practical Action is about - considering both technologies that mitigate against disasters and those to 'build back better'. Using the International Day for Disaster Reduction, we have a chance to go beyond disaster preparedness and recovery. We have a chance to ask leaders to tackle the underlying causes and makesure poor people have better livelihoods. This is where Practical Action's 'innovation' comes in. Our approach to disaster risk reduction is based on research and operational experience gained over many years in South Asia, Africa and Peru. This has shown that secure and sustainable livelihoods not only lift communities out of poverty but also reduce their susceptibility to disasters. So, for example, Practical Action has been working with agricultural communities around the world to cope with drought by helping to develop drought resistant crops, protect livestock and conserve precious water. Thanks for you comments everyone and we look forward to seeing you at the next Geek Club.

  on 5/10/11

Post a Comment