Hi Radix –

 

Recent discussions on this list have focused on the role of the media. Maybe we expect too much of them. After all, these days there is little truly vigorous investigative journalism and, further, there are technical issues relating to DRR that most journalists don’t know. In particular, journalists, like most people, don’t know who is really responsible for doing what. They don’t give it much thought until the ground under them starts shaking.

 

At least in some settings, it might be more fruitful to press for establishment of NGOs that focus on DRR, and function as self-appointed agents of accountability. These NGOs could speak up and insist that existing law relating to DRR is followed properly, and lobby for strengthened law as needed.

 

It might be difficult to create such NGOs because there is no constituency that is specially concerned with NGOs. Typically, political lobbying groups represent special interests, such as those that represent people with disabilities. One way to deal with this would be to encourage existing specialized interest groups to take an interest in DRR as it relates to their group.

 

Maybe it would be possible to encourage subgroups of journalists to focus on DRR reporting. As Dilruba suggests, hey could be offered special workshops, and recognition.

 

Global DRR agencies could devote some of their energy and resources to providing support services to local NGOs concerned with DRR.

 

Placing all of this work into the human rights framework could make it more coherent, especially because it would be based on the idea that ordinary people have specific rights relating to DRR.

 

Aloha, George



On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Dilruba Haider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

One of the most important stakeholder/ critical element in ensuring accountability is the ‘media’. It’s the media who can investigate, expose, and build public opinion against the negligence/wrongs of the concerned parties. Unfortunately, the media are after sensationalism rather than objective reporting/journalism. Secondly, they often lack the capacity to appreciate the real issues. That’s why after the Rana plaza disaster in Bangladesh one of the worst industrial tragedy/building collapse disaster of the century, we saw television channels and newspapers focusing only on the humanitarian aspect of it, the pathos, the struggle to rescue and survive. A feeble attempt was seen at the very beginning of the entire saga to talk about the faults of construction of the building. Soon that was overcrowded by the human stories of sufferings and heroics of the rescuers. Ideally we should have had journalists digging into the story, why did this collapse happen, who were responsible, who should be brought to book. Only the owner of the building was arrested. The local authorities: the engineer who passed the design, the contractors who built the faulty building, the garment owners who forced the ;labourers to work in that risky building in that fateful morning, none were persecuted, and the newsmen, the media were almost oblivious of the real issues. They either didn’t have the awareness/ sensitivity to dig down, or were bought off by the culprits. In any circumstances, the critical element was missing in Rana Plaza reporting.

HFA2 should include media as a critical stakeholder in DRR business. They should be given proper, tailor made orientation/training to cover different types of disasters; issues to dig deep would be different for different disasters; they need to understand that.          

 

 

Dilruba Haider                                                                    

Community Facilitation Coordinator 

Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction Community

Solution Exchange Bangladesh

UNDP Bangladesh

IDB Bhaban, E/8-A Begum Rokeya Sharani, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka

Tel: (88 02) 8150088, PABX: 1245; Fax: (88 02) 8113196; 01713015422

[log in to unmask]

   http://www.solutionexchange-un.net/bangladesh/cdrr

 

 

 

From: Radix [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr. Frederick Krimgold
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 3:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pakistan earthquake and Mexican floods-deadly landslides -- Challenge for HFA2

 

Dear Ben and all,

            i have followed the on-line discussion with interest. I would like to suggest a somewhat narrowly focused target for journalistic investigation and reporting. It is most often the case that in the aftermath of major disasters we find that there has been little effective implementation or enforcement of existing building and land use regulations. This issue has dramatically come to light in recent building disasters in Bangladesh. Often there are formal code documents which in effectively implemented would significantly reduce vulnerability and loss. The missing element is transparent and uniform implementation for all construction.

This is most relevant for new construction in rapidly expanding urban areas. As feasible, standards must be applied to the evaluation and prioritization of existing structures. This fundamental component of urban management must be the target of journalistic investigation and reporting and the focus of serious DRR investment and capacity building.

            Regulatory implementation must be a specific priority of the future Hyogo Framework.

Fred

 

----------------------------------------------------

Dr. Frederick Krimgold
Director
Disaster Risk Reduction Program (DRR)
Virginia Tech
Advanced Research Institute (ARI)
900 North Glebe Road, Room 5014
Arlington, VA 22203 USA
Main: 571-858-3300
Direct: 571-858-3307
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.ari.vt.edu

 

On Sep 26, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Ben Wisner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Dear George, Ilan, James and list,

 

Tim Radford, retired Science Editor for the Guardian Newspaper in London, has worked tirelessly to try to facilitate a dialogue between scientists and journalists on the topic of natural hazards and the disasters they may (or may not) trigger, depending on other factors such as the exposure, vulnerability and capacity of people and assets.  He and I wrote a chapter for The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction (B. Wisner, JC. Gaillard and I. Kelman, eds., London: Routledge, 2012, called 'Media, communications and disaster,' pp. 761-771).  I attach the final page proof pdf of that chapter we received -- usable despite the usual small number of typos -- since that is the only digital form I have to share.  I think you will find that it might serve as a jumping off point for some more detailed workshops with journalists & scientists.  It's not just the journalists who need to learn how to write about hazards and disasters (what questions to ask, how to convince editors to follow up and look behind the 'body counts' for the root causes) but scientists need to learn how to interest journalists and how to translate what they do into accessible language.

 

All the best,

 

BEN



-----Original Message----- 
From: George Kent 
Sent: Sep 26, 2013 2:39 PM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Pakistan earthquake and Mexican floods-deadly landslides -- Challenge for HFA2 

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 athttp://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 


<9780415590655_63.pdf>

 




--
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