[Radix] Feeling better, doing worse?

[Jonatan Lassa]

Many thanks Ben for the appreciation.

Yes, I heard of GAR 2009 but not yet see the draft yet. And I hope
sooner, we will share later with the View from the Front Lines on the
CSOs work in Indonesia.

The CSO paper position paper is now being used as the basis for
national advocacy work, lead by the Indonesian Society for Disaster
Management (MPBI) together with about 20 DRR focused CSOs/NGOs.
Therefore, it will be the voice of the DRR CSO forum. based on
Indonesian CSOs' meeting in Bali three weeks ago, every body wants to
support the same voice. What is actually happened on the field within
the last two years, OGB also supported CSOs led disaster risk
assessment which transformed into local government strengthening for
disaster risk assessment, including playing some roles as 'pseudo
legislation' - as the CSOs (I recon about more than 6 of them) help
drafting local bills on disaster management for local legislative
bodies at provincial and districts level. A few cases show
'deliberative' processes in disaster reduction policy making.

Very good idea of bringing the issue to the Geneva meeting in June. I
will asked the colleagues to set that plan B.

What I know from the latest progress is that MPBI is taking lead in
having a hearing process and (expected to) direct meeting with the
scientists with the national office together with CSOs reps. from the
rest of the provinces, combined with press conference.
Hopefully it works before the endorsement of such a document. Could
not judge the successful rate at the moment. Will share at a later
stage.

With thanks and best regards,

Jonatan

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:47 PM,  <bwisner at igc.org> wrote:
> Great job on the op-ed piece, Jonatan!
>
> As you probably know, at the global level the UN-ISDR has just finished the first draft of it's Global Assessment of Risk (GAR 2009).  Chapter 5 deals with implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action.  Meanwhile, a global network of NGOs working on DRR is conducting a counterpoint, bottom up assessment of HFA implementation that mirrors the top down assessment summarized in GAR 2009.  The difference is that for the top down assessment some 98 national governments filled out an on line questionnaire telling the UN-ISDR how they had done on a five point scale at implementing several dozen specific tasks agreed under the HFA's five priority areas.  In the bottom up exercise, called "View from the Front Lines" (VFL), NGOs in 40 countries are getting a sample of localities to fill out a questionnaire that asks what evidence of any of the top down commitments are visible.
>
> Comparing the two will be very revealing.
>
> In a similar way, in your op-ed and in the Indonesian NGO report I had the honor to comment on, there is certainly progress to applaud, but at the same time, you and the report notes a continuing fetishization of engineering and natural science and reluctance to take on social issues.
>
> That's sad, because as weak and confused as the HFA is, and as poor as implementation so far seems (even according to the draft GAR 2009 chapter), at least social imperatives such as provision of information and tools for planning to communities, risk awareness raising, and analysis of the impacts of mega-projects on nearby communities risk profile are there in the document.  The HFA is a document agreed to in 2005 by 168 countries including Indonesia, by the way!
>
> How would you rate the chances that the Indonesian NGO critique will have an impact on the final draft of the government's guidelines?  If not, are there plans to lobby on this issue at the Global Platform meeting in Geneva in June?
>
> All the best,
>
> BEN
>