George:

Nice one: you and NHO's Rob Pudim  should get together; I hope you saw his contributions to Ilan's condensed version of our "The good, the bad and the ugly" (re Ilan Kelman 26 September:  http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/archives/2013/jul13_observerweb.pdf ).

James


On 28/09/2013 20:47, George Kent wrote:

James, you said:

"Now that the climate change report has firmly concluded (after 30 years debate) that humankind is responsible, it might be an appropriate moment (after 40 years debate) to suggest that humankind should add disasters to its conscience."

What comes to mind is a mental cartoon: As water rises up around a man's shoulders, he asks, "Why should I do anything about it? It's not my fault."

Aloha, George

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 1:27 AM, James Lewis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

George and Radix network:

I appreciate your suggestion, George, but Ben's reference to Tim Radford etc has reminded me that there does exist a UNISDR publication: "A guide for journalists covering disaster risk reduction" (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/20108_mediabook.pdf ,editor Brigitte Leoni, undated but about two years ago and must be closely related to the UNISDR terminology document you refer to) on which Tim Redford worked, amongs others (tucked away in Annex III is my "Corruption costs lives" written at least two years before that). What difference have these UNSIDR documents made I wonder - journalists being a fiercly independent breed.

Apart from  a personal resolve not to take on more long-term writing committments, I had in mind a more direct approach to individual journalists who expressed an interest or who appeared from their work to be so inclined. I have indirectly tried John Vidal, the Guardian environment editor, but didn't get far; Fiona Harvey writes well and she was to be my next target (see today's Guardian on the climate change report: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change).

Now that the climate change report has firmly concluded (after 30 years debate) that humankind is responsible, it might be an appropriate moment (after 40 years debate) to suggest that humankind should add disasters to its conscience.

These ideas, such as they are, should not preclude others and should another document materialise then, also, well and good; I'm appreciative of all other participants of this so far brief Radix exchange.

With my regards -

James



On 26/09/2013 19:39, George Kent wrote:

Hi James and all --

 

Maybe we should consider putting out a consensus document called, “Guidelines for Reporting on Disasters”, to be addressed to media people, but shared with many others as well. In time, the document could include a list of endorsing agencies at the end. The endorsers could include disaster agencies, media agencies, and others—but I think it should not list individuals.

 

The work of building consensus on the manuscript might have even more positive effect than the final finished product. For that reason, perhaps it should be revisited and refined every few years.

 

James, would you be willing to rewrite the concerns you raised in a few paragraphs aimed at people who are not disaster specialists? Those paragraphs would be needed to begin a guidelines document.

 

The document certainly could draw on sources of the type Ilan cited yesterday. However, I am suggesting that it would be useful to prepare a new document that frames the issues in a way that would be meaningful for non-specialists.

 

What are your views on the UNISDR terminology advice at http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/7817 ? If you all like it, the guidelines document could draw from it. If you don’t like it, the document could explain why. Or the document could do a bit of both. I think it’s important to avoid working to build a new consensus on language and concepts if there’s no reason to do that.

 

Does this sound like a good way to go?

 

Aloha, George

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Ilan Kelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Now is the time for journalists on this list to reveal themselves--and to let us know what we could provide you with in order to answer James' question. We are here to help you, but you know best what you need from us. Let's work together!

Ilan

---

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:46:07 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RADIX] Pakistan earthquake and Mexican floods-deadly landslides -- Challenge for HFA2
To: [log in to unmask]

George:

I agree, the public don't read reports but an intelligent media does and can serve as interpreter to public readership. This is happening repeatedly in areas such as reports on health, population studies and climate change (to some extent), for example, so how to get some sensible interpretation of disaster studies?

Ilan and I have tried (see his current message) and I am hoping to try again soon.

Hence my appeal: how to contact an intelligent media where contact with amorphous associations may not be so easy or so productive?

With regards -

James



On 26/09/2013 02:09, George Kent wrote:

Hi James –
 
I agree that concepts such as vulnerability and causative processes are not well understood. What to do? Yes, more and better post-disaster analytical reports could be helpful. But they won’t lead directly to the public pressure you hope for. The public doesn’t read those reports.
 
Perhaps a shorter route to the outcome you would like could be achieved by preparing a very compact statement about the concepts in a form understandable to most lay people. If that framework became readily available, and was used regularly by specialists and media people, I think uptake of the framework by the general public would be more likely.
 
Also, drafting and getting consensus of disaster specialists on the short statement would help to ensure that they all sing the same tune.
 
Aloha, George

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM, James Lewis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Whenever UNISDR comes up I habitually tend to despair and to move on to something else but Ben and Ilan have caught me off guard.

My view on all these issues has been for some time that vulnerability and its causative processes are not sufficiently widely understood.
This may be because politicians, policy makers and administrators just don't want to know because understanding would be an embarrassment - the causes of vulnerability being very largely in their hands and a result of their actions and inactions.
Another reason is that the word 'vulnerability' is obliged to carry many interpretations; its interpretation to one person being not the same as to another - and therefore the most comfortable interpretation may easily be a matter of selection of the least embarrassing.
Meanwhile, those who are 'place-based' vulnerable have their vulnerability exacerbated by stigmatisation and victimisation, vulnerability's double whammy.
In spite of all the work there has been on the vulnerability issue, what to do about this very disheartening state of affairs?
My own view is that little will change until public pressure demands change - and public pressure will not happen until there is public understanding via the media that reaches them. For example, even the most intelligent newspapers still refer to 'natural disasters' - the term which for too long facilitates a cop-out to higher deities by all who would prefer not to get involved.
So it is my view that protestations to UNISDR will get nowhere until:
a/there is funding for post disaster analytical reports that expose long and short-term causative processes of vulnerability and
b/public pressure, generated by our approaches to and via the media, has reached UNISDR and others.
Its not a matter of anyone having the ear of anyone advising UNISDR or HFA2 - its anyone having the ear of inteligent journalists in newspapers, television and radio.
It will be a long process so its best to start soon.

I have started my own small campaign but what do others think?

James
Datum International
www.datum-international.eu

On 24/09/2013 18:31, Ben Wisner wrote:

Dear RADIX’ers, Hazards network readers, GDN members as well as Hola and abrazos fuertes, companero/as de la Red,

You are probably aware by now of both the large floods and many landslides that have affected Mexico and the very bad earthquake that affected Pakistan earlier today.

I am sorry to say this brings me, and doubtless Maureen, back to the sickening events in Gujarat and El Salvador that caused us to launch RADIX in 2001.

I am just catching up with the Pakistan situation where I am, Greenwich minus five hours.  My thanks to Ilan Kelman, who was also involved with the founding of RADIX and maintains the excellent web site and list server, Disaster Diplomacy, who alerted me to the earthquake and to others for posting updates.  

I grieve for the people injured, who have lost loved ones and friends, who feel the anger and frustration of KNOWING how homes, schools, health centres can be retrofitted or built more strongly, how communities can prepare, and still see this pattern of destruction and loss again and again.

This earthquake and the Mexican bi-coastal flooding I wrote about to Gender and Disaster Network and other places a few days ago are not NATURAL.  No disaster is 'natural'.  There are root causes and dynamic pressures pushing the affected people into situations of vulnerability and, again, for those with applicable knowledge of school safety, etc., into situations that block effective use of their capacities.  

We have to convince UNISDR and, especially, UNISDR's financial supporters (some of whom are quite skeptical about UNISDR's performance) that HFA2 has got to include these root causes and dynamic pressures among the currently bland and superficial list of 'underlying risk factors' in HFA1.

Who has the ear of anyone advising UNISDR on HFA2?  Who will be writing and sending ideas for GAR 2015?

In both sorrow and in anger,

BEN

--

Professor George Kent (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
University of Hawai'i
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822
USA

Publications:  http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/PUBLICATIONSKENT.DOC

--

Professor George Kent (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
University of Hawai'i
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822
USA

Publications:  http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/PUBLICATIONSKENT.DOC

--

Professor George Kent (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
University of Hawai'i
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822
USA

Publications:  http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/PUBLICATIONSKENT.DOC