 |
 |
Dear Radix participants and others, I am very pleased with the vigorous discussion of the last few days of the implications of the Mexico storms & landslides and Pakistan earthquake for HFA2. (Even as I write the deaths in landslides in Mexican mountainous coffee growing zones has been revised upwards and another 'red alert' earthquake -- very strong aftershock -- has stuck the same zone in Pakistan). However, thinking beyond HFA2, there is the question of institutional reform. Is the UNISDR fit for purpose? Tom Mitchell of ODI in London has published an essay on Thompson-Reuter's ALERTNET asks this question about the IPCC http://www.trust.org/item/20130925124953-ayjuo/?source=hpblogs . Of course there are enormous structural and functional differences between IPCC and UNISDR; nevertheless, some passages in Tom's essay strike a familiar cord in the UNISDR context. TOM M: "...the IPCC has demonstrated it can produce special reports on single topics in just two years, involving members of all Working Groups in joint assessments (for example, SREX - the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation). "The IPCC is perfectly capable of producing comprehensive, but shorter and more focused assessment reports every four years. This would also help ensure the assessment includes the very latest science. Further, the current Working Group structure means that scientists struggle to fully integrate physical science, impacts and mitigation assessments. Consequently, the review should ask whether separate working groups really make sense anymore, or whether they could be merged and streamlined to offer clearer messages, shorter processes and better collaboration." What about UNISDR? It's GAR reports (Global Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction) are interdisciplinary and involve a wide range of scientists (social as well as natural scientists) and practitioners. However, in the two year periods between GAR reports the UNISDR senior management simply does not modify messages, recommendations or in other ways changes its prescriptive or operational activities to reflect the evidence based recommendations of its own GAR. For example, from GAR 2009 onwards through GAR 2011 and GAR 2013, there has been evidence presented that small and moderate disasters, many of them climate related, account for more economic loss and greater disruption of ordinary people's livelihoods than the large events that make it into the international data base EM-DAT -- the data source used and promoted by UNISDR. Similarly, GAR has brought up the issue of corruption, devolved funding, partnerships among local government and communities among many other concrete instances of what the UNISDR continues to hide under the bland term 'governance'. TOM M: "A review should address this point, as in 30 years’ time the IPCC’s reputation may be dashed – not because of getting one or two facts wrong, but because it was inhibited from telling the whole truth." Here again, Tom is writing about the IPCC, but the question can and should be asked about UNISDR. Is the UNISDR too conservative? The relations UNISDR has with the 168 countries that signed HFA1 in 2005 is a typical UN stance: head no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. The UNISDR does not even conduct quality control or fact checking of the reports countries provide on their achievements in implementing HFA1 every two years. Moreover, UNISDR does not engage in 'naming and blaming'. Is this truly the way that will produce the 'significant reduction in disaster losses' by 2015?nd Pakistan earthquake for HFA2. (Even as I write the deaths in landslides in Mexican mountainous coffee growing zones has been revised upwards and another 'red alert' earthquake -- very strong aftershock -- has stuck the same zone in Pakistan).