Hi Lisa,
Terminology
and glossaries are useful for the “problem understanding” and certainly the
epistemology and conceptual frameworks have been very relevant for many of us
during the last three or four decades. Unfortunately, in most cases, for many
researchers and officers, the terminology has been more relevant itself than
the real problem understanding... Most researchers are naive or have been more
interested to have, for example, papers in international journals than to get
effectiveness regarding risk reduction or are professionals interested to be
officers of a NGO or a national or international agency... for their modus
vivendi; i.e. to be part of an incredible and now huge
bureaucracy.
After the UNDRO report (1980) about the expert meeting
of July 1979, many of us have been attempting to improve the conceptual
frameworks. In 1990s we started to use DRM and DRR (during the IDNDR) to make
emphasis in risk better than in disaster (disaster risk reduction better than
disaster reduction) but today they are almost the same in most
places.
At the end of 1980s Colombia had a National System for
Disaster Prevention and Attention (ex ante and ex post actions) and Mexico a
National System of Civil Protection (after the volcanic eruption of Nevado del
Ruiz and the earthquake of 1985 respectively). During the 1990s and 2000s the
Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and the UNDP promoted
“National Systems for Disaster Risk Management” in most countries in the
Americas (all created or updated by law). Most of these countries did not
follow the terminology of the UNISDR. DRM was the umbrella for four public
policies: Risk Knowledge (or identification/assessment/communication of risk);
Risk Reduction (corrective, prospective, prescriptive); Risk Transfer
(insurance and financial protection) and Disaster Management (preparedness,
warning, response and recovery –rehabilitation/reconstruction). In some
countries, they were missional processes and the risk transfer was included
into risk reduction... but overall this is the view in the Latin American
region. Clearly DRR was considered one of the components or policies of the
DRM.
At the end, what is important is the purpose, the
objective and in some places DRM is understood not as an agency, or as a
discipline, or as a sector of development, but as: a strategy of development,
or of sustainability and transformation.
All the best,
Omar-Dario
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
shape=rect rel=nofollow target=_blank title-off=""
ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">emma lisa freja schipper
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 12:10 AM
Subject: Definition help! DRM vs DRR
Hello colleagues,
I am looking for some brief
suggestions for how to distinguish DRM and DRR. I am using the IPCC SREX
definitions, pasted below. Could you please tell me if (1) you agree with them
and (2) you have another, better (and hopefully more simple) way of
distinguishing these two things? Do you think the definitions below reflect
the way that climate change people view DRM/DRR? There were obviously lots of
disaster risk people involved in the SREX (including many of you) but
ultimately it was an IPCC-driven report.
Thanks!
Disaster
risk management (DRM)
Processes for designing,
implementing, and evaluating strategies, policies, and measures to improve the
understanding of disaster risk, foster disaster risk reduction and transfer,
and promote continuous improvement in disaster preparedness, response, and
recovery practices, with the explicit purpose of increasing human security,
well-being, quality of life, and sustainable development.
Disaster
risk reduction (DRR)
Denotes both a policy goal
or objective, and the strategic and instrumental measures employed for
anticipating future disaster risk; reducing existing exposure, hazard, or
vulnerability; and improving resilience.
Lisa
--
.............................................................................
Lisa Schipper, Ph.D.
+84 (0)162 62 89444
.............................................................................