Migrants In Disaster Risk Reduction - IOM Online Bookstore

1y ago
6.67 MB
122 Pages
Last View : 11d ago
Last Download : 5m ago
Upload by : Adele Mcdaniel

Migrants inDisaster Risk ReductionPractices for InclusionIOM OIM

Migrants inDisaster Risk ReductionPractices for Inclusion

ForewordMigrants, asylum seekers and refugees constitute a significant and growing proportion of the general population ofcountries in Europe. Globally, more than 60 million people— refugees and internally displaced persons — are forciblydisplaced by conflict, violence, disasters and human rightsviolations. This is the highest level of forced displacementsince World War II.The Council of Europe has encouraged the protection of therights of migrants, refugees and displaced people for yearsand supported their integration by identifying and sharinggood practices as well encouraging access to better livingconditions.The Parliamentary Assembly adopted in particular in 2010 itsRecommendation 1917 “Migrants and refugees: a continuingchallenge for the Council of Europe”, encouraging the signature and implementation of the European Convention onthe Legal Status of Migrant Workers by member States andrequesting the Council of Europe to further develop hard andsoft law instruments and practical activities pertaining tomigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons.The Parliamentary Assembly has also dealt with environmental and climate refugees in its Resolution 1655 (2009)on “Environmentally induced migration and displacement:a 21st Century Challenge”, noting in particular that naturaldisasters and environmental degradation will cause humanmigration, with humanitarian and security dimensions.In 2016, with member States facing an unprecedentedlarge scale arrival of migrants, the Secretary General of theCouncil of Europe appointed a Special Representative onMigration and Refugees to coordinate Council of Europeactivities and international efforts in this area, in order tobetter support member States to ensure the implementation of their commitments under the European Conventionon Human Rights, whilst managing overwhelming numbersof refugees and migrants.

In 2016, with member States facing an unprecedentedlarge scale arrival of migrants, the Secretary General of theCouncil of Europe appointed a Special Representative onMigration and Refugees to coordinate Council of Europeactivities and international efforts in this area, in order tobetter support member States to ensure the implementation of their commitments under the European Conventionon Human Rights, whilst managing overwhelming numbersof refugees and migrants.In this context, the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) — a collaboration platform of theCouncil of Europe, supports cooperation amongst its memberStates in the area of natural and technological hazards. Itswork has been focused on the resilience of vulnerable groupssuch as migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, people withdisabilities and children.Since 2014, EUR-OPA has encouraged and supported projects that strengthen the inclusion of Migrants, asylumseekers and refugees in the preparation of emergency andevacuation plans as a political, ethical and social duty for ademocratic society so as to leave no one behind.Indeed, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are more vulnerable in the face of a disaster given their limited access toresilience information (they may not master the languageof the State where they are displaced, not be aware of risksfamiliar to locals, etc.). These groups may also experienceincreased vulnerability if their living conditions are below average (refugee camps, marginal settings in dangerous areas) orif, as a consequence of their situation, they have poor health,relatively low education, etc.EUR-OPA worked therefore to identify how civil protectionbodies take into account the specificity of such groups whileconceiving and implementing protection and evacuationschemes. How to encourage these populations to take anactive part in this work and contribute to the development ofeven more effective schemes, adapted to their specific needs.As a result EUR-OPA adopted at its 13th Ministerial Session(Lisbon, Portugal, 26 October 2016), recommendations onthe Inclusion of Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees indisaster preparedness and response, and developed guidelines in order to provide member States with concrete toolsfor the use of civil protection professionals at local, regionaland national level.This publication builds upon the knowledge and experiencesgathered throughout this EUR-OPA programme as well as onthe Migrants In Countries In Crisis Initiative, in collaborationwith the International Organization for Migration, and Overseas Development Institute. It presents existing practices andlessons learned on the integration of migrants into decisionmaking, policy-setting and implementation of disaster riskreduction initiatives.In line with the people-centred approach emphasized in theSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015—2030, itaims to support practitioners and policy makers in developingpolicies and operational activities integrating more effectivelymigrants in DRR efforts.Claudia LucianiDirector,Democratic Governance DirectorateCouncil of Europe

ForewordMigrants have an increasingly important place in our modern,interconnected and diverse societies. Every country in theworld hosts communities of migrant workers and their families, refugees, displaced persons, international students, andbusinessmen. Their presence contributes to the economic,cultural and social vitality of their countries of destination —however, their specific needs and capacities are not alwaysfactored into public policy or considered in the planning ordelivery of basic services.This is also the case for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).Disasters that have taken place over the last few decadeshave shown that the challenges migrants face in accessinginformation, resources and services make them particularly vulnerable to the impacts of natural and man-made hazards. At the same time, they have also shown that migrantsare exceptionally resourceful individuals, whose resourcefulness and capabilities are key for the resilience of theirhost communities.Building on growing international attention to issues relatedto human mobility and the environment, the 2015 SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) has explicitlycalled for the inclusion of migrants in DRR the policies andpractices of their host countries and communities. However,efforts to put this provision into practice has so far been farfrom systematic.Over the last years, IOM, in collaboration with its counterparts and partners, has been working to strengthen such efforts through targeted capacity-building activities — including as part of its engagement to implement the Guidelinesto Protect Migrants in Countries Experiencing Conflict orNatural Disaster. In particular, IOM and the Council of Europe,through its EUR-OPA Agreement, have been working together to raise the awareness of emergency management actorson the need to include migrants in their work, and to equipthem with relevant skills, tools and knowledge.IOM remains committed to supporting the design and rollout of DRR policies and practices that fully account for migrants and their needs and capabilities, and build upon theiractive participation.This publication showcases a number of activities, approaches and products by a variety of different actors, which illustrate migrant inclusion in DRR. It is IOM’s hope that this bookwill contribute to the development of whole-of-society approaches to DRR that reduce disaster risk for all members ofthe community.William Lacy SwingDirector General,International Organization for Migration

IndexPage 09 — Introduction: A Case for Migrant-InclusiveDisaster Risk ReductionPage 62 — A Land of Flooding Rains: Building the DisasterResilience of Asylum Seekers at High RiskLorenzo Guadagno, Mechthilde Fuhrer and John TwiggJohn Richardson, Collin Sivalingum, Vicki Mau and Jess Van SonPage 13 — Refugee Inclusion in Earthquake CasualtyEstimation: A Case Study in South-East TurkeyBradley S. Wilson and Thomas R. ParadisePage 18 — Using Open Data to Improve InclusiveDisaster Risk Reduction in Barangay Humilogin the PhilippinesTsubasa Enomoto and Tran Thi Thuy TrangPage 66 — Disaster Risk Management in SocioculturallyDiverse Societies: An Example of a Two-FoldTraining Approach from GermanyMalte SchönefeldPage 71 — Migrants in the 2011 Floods in Thailand:Improving Migrants’ Access to Emergencyand Rescue ServicesAlessandra Bravi and Katharina SchaurPage 23 — The Diversity Advantage Is the AnswerHow Local Partnerships and EngagementContribute to Disaster Risk ReductionPage 75 — Thailand: Improving Coordination to BetterAssist Migrants in EmergenciesPage 27 — We Are Human Too! Concern Worldwide’sEfforts to Reduce Risks for the HomelessMigrants of Dhaka, BangladeshPage79 — Challenges in Implementing Measuresto Adequately Protect Migrants in Emergenciesin MexicoPage 32 — Resilient Together: Engaging the Knowledgeand Capacities of Refugees for a DisasterResilient IllawarraPage 83 — Community Language Information NetworkGroupPage 36 — Multilingual Disaster Support VolunteerTraining in Japan: Participant Observationof Methods and Practice in Toyama PrefecturePage 88 — Refugee Resettlement and DisasterRisk ReductionKseniya Khovanova-Rubicondo and Akiyoshi KikuchiAaron Clark-Ginsberg and Dom HuntShefali Juneja Lakhina and Christine EriksenSzymon Parzniewski and Jenny PhillimorePage 41 — Empowered Action during Disasters: DisasterPreparedness among Migrant FarmworkerCommunities in the United StatesKonane M. Martínez and Arcela Núñez-ÁlvarezPage 57 — Integrating Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkersin Disaster Response and Relief EffortsJeannie EconomosPage 51 — Including Migrants in Germany’s FederalAgency for Technical ReliefMonika LieberamPage 54 — Engaging Migrant Domestic Workersin an Emergency: The Case of LebanonMaegan Hendow and Dina Mansour-Ille, with Sally YoussefPage 58 — Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: AmericanRed Cross of Chicago and Northern IllinoisCatherine RabenstineSiriwan LimsakulJessica López MejíaLesley Campbell, Maria Fresia, Nicki Reece, Shirley Wrightand Janette PhilpJay MarlowePage 94 — Empowering Migrant Communities: A Steptowards Inclusive Disaster Risk Reductionand RecoveryLisette R. Robles and Tomohiro IchinosePage 98 — Immigration in Montserrat after the VolcanicDisaster: A Tool and a Challenge for theRecovery of the IslandCharlotte Monteil and Peter SimmonsPage 104 — ConclusionLorenzo Guadagno, Mechthilde Fuhrer and John TwiggPage 109 — Further readingPage 114 — Bios

Introduction: A Case for Migrant-Inclusive DisasterRisk ReductionLorenzo Guadagno, Mechthilde Fuhrer and John TwiggMigrants and disaster risk reductionThere are some 250 million international migrants in today’sworld, living abroad for work, education or family reasons.Tens of millions of people have moved across borders tofind refuge from conflicts or disasters, and many more travelabroad every year for tourism, business or to visit friendsand relatives. International population movements are a keydynamic of modern, interconnected and increasingly diversesocieties all around the world and contribute to shapingtheir cultural, social and economic life. Migrants1 representsuch a sizable component of many communities, and in particular of global, regional and national urban hubs, that accounting for their presence and for their specific set of skills,experiences and needs has become essential to the inclusiveprovision of services, opportunities and resources in theirplaces of destination.Migrants also need to be considered in host countries’ disasterrisk reduction (DRR) policies and activities. When hazardsstrike, migrants may face specific challenges and barriersthat result in more acute protection and assistance needs.Over the last few years alone, the 2011 floods in Thailand,the great east Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident in 2011, and superstorm Sandy in the United Statesin 2012 have shown how migrants often struggle to accessresources, services, opportunities and information that arekey to ensuring safety and well-being in the face of hazards.Factors affecting the lives and security of migrants, both inordinary times and in disasters, include limited languageproficiency; limited knowledge of their destination’s hazards, laws, institutions and markets; limited social networks; a lack of trust in authorities; restrictions on mobility;and discrimination, hostility and xenophobia. When theseare not adequately addressed, migrants can be disproportionately affected by natural hazards.1Many of these factors are intrinsically linked with beingabroad (or, rather, of being away from home, as they arefaced also by those who have moved within their country,such as internal migrants and internally displaced persons);however, they do not affect all migrants equally. In general,the extent to which migrants’ rights, dignity and participation are guaranteed on a day-to-day basis by a host country’sinstitutions determines their vulnerability during and afterdisasters. Migrants with irregular status or from particularlydiscriminated or marginalized groups are most likely to beespecially at risk. This is due to livelihood and housing insecurity, a lack of access to basic services, a lack of publicwelfare coverage, reduced access to relief assistance, andlimited trust in host communities and responders.The presence of migrants, however, is essential to the economic, cultural and social vitality of their communitiesof destination. They represent a key demographic withinworking-age groups, especially in developed, ageing societies, and facilitate the circulation and mobilization of a diversity of knowledge and assets across places and societiesthrough their movement and networks. Whenever the dignity, lives and assets of migrants are affected in disasters, theirhost communities as a whole are also negatively impacted.Whenever migrants’ skills, experiences and capacities areleveraged in support of DRR efforts, their host communitiesas a whole are made more resilient.Including migrants in DRR efforts is fully consistent withthe whole-of-society approach to DRR adopted by theSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030:in order to reduce the impacts of natural hazards, it is essential to ensure that risk reduction efforts “leave no onebehind”, addressing the vulnerability of all societal groups,and especially the most marginalized; at the same time,For the purpose of this introduction, “migrant” designates any person living, working or staying in a country other than her or his country of citizenship, regardless of her orhis legal status, reason for entry in the country and length of stay. It therefore includes migrant workers, international students, business travellers and tourists, as well asasylum seekers and refugees.Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for InclusionPage 9

DRR efforts are more effective when they engage all community members. Significantly, paragraphs 7, 27(h) and 36(a)(vi)of the Sendai Framework explicitly recognize that migrants’knowledge, skills and capacities can be useful in the designand implementation of DRR, and call for national and localgovernments to engage them in relevant activities.There is an indisputable ethical case for an inclusive approach that guarantees all migrants rights that are equal tothose of the rest of the population with regard to care andsupport before, during and after disasters. States bear theresponsibility to ensure the safety of all persons in their territory in the face of disasters, regardless of their nationalityor migration status. However, migrants often go completelyunaccounted for in disaster risk management and civil protection efforts. Moreover, even when relevant frameworksand institutions (formally or informally) recognize thatpeople should not be discriminated against on the groundof nationality, language proficiency or legal status, nondiscrimination in disaster-related matters often translatessimply into a “colour-blind” approach to the delivery ofemergency services and assistance.Instead, inclusive DRR should be grounded on the identification of the specific barriers different people, includingmigrants, may face, and on proactive, targeted efforts thatmake it possible to address them in an appropriate manner.This requires adapting the way relevant actors, includingthose in charge of life-saving assistance in disasters, work. Itshould be noted that such efforts should not be limited to theprovision of emergency services: accounting for migrants’presence, needs and capacities in all activities to preventdisasters and to support long-term post-disaster recovery isfundamental to reduce risk effectively.A variety of efforts are needed to this end, ranging from theidentification of migrants’ specific conditions of exposureand vulnerability, through the design of migrant-inclusivepreparedness plans and early warning and emergency communications systems, to the active engagement of migrantsin disaster management structures. In most contexts, suchefforts require the commitment of all DRR stakeholders. Localgovernments, civil society entities, private sector actors, andinternational organizations, in addition to State institutions,play a key role in removing obstacles that compound migrants’ vulnerability to natural and man-made hazards.Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices of InclusionAs we move into the implementation phase of the SendaiFramework, gathering existing evidence, practices and recommendations on relevant topics can be useful to guide riskreduction efforts by all stakeholders. Leveraging existingknowledge, disseminating examples of work and creatinga community of experts and practitioners can help achieveDRR objectives more effectively. This is particularly the caseof efforts aimed at including migrants in DRR — an area inwhich examples of work are often small-scale and ad hocand rarely scaled up.Therefore, the principal rationale behind this publication isto ensure that existing projects, approaches and productsdeveloped by actors at all levels to address the various facetsof the inclusion of migrants in DRR help both to inform similar efforts worldwide and to mainstream them into DRR policy and practice. To this end, this publication details a varietyof experiences of national and local governmental actors,Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for Inclusioncivil society entities, international organizations and academics. It does not aspire to present an exhaustive list of interventions that may be needed to build migrants’ resilience todisasters — rather, it takes stock of a range of initiatives thathave been rolled out in the attempt to address certain recurring factors of vulnerability.Data collectionDespite the wealth of anecdotal evidence pointing to migrants’ specific conditions of risk, data on their vulnerabilityto disasters are not collected comprehensively or systematically — which is both a cause and a consequence of theinvisibility of migrants in many DRR efforts. Based on researchin areas receiving large population inflows in Turkey, Wilsonand Paradise (chapter 1) stress the need to adequately account for migrants’ presence and movement in disaster riskassessments. Tran and Enomoto (chapter 2), instead, pointto the need to understand the specific hazard exposure,Page 10

risk perception and factors of vulnerability of minorities,including migrants, as part of DRR planning — showing howinformation crowdsourcing platforms have helped supportsuch efforts in the Philippines.Access to basic servicesRestricted access to basic services and opportunities in normal times compounds migrants’ vulnerability to disasters. Incommunities all over the world, many different actors play arole in ensuring that migrants, regardless of their status, canenjoy a dignified standard of living. Khovanova-Rubicondoand Kikuchi (chapter 3) show how the institutionalizationof approaches that promote cultural diversity as a value forcities as diverse as Bergen, Norway, and Sendai, Japan, canunderpin a diversity of initiatives and collaborations thatimprove migrants’ access to information and resources bothin normal times and in times of disaster. Clark-Ginsberg andHunt (chapter 4) highlight the role that Concern Internationalhas played in Dhaka in addressing migrants’ specific conditions of risk as well as their root causes by directly providingservices and advocating on behalf of migrants with authorities and host communities.Engaging migrants in disaster risk reductionEmpowering migrants and their groups and creating the conditions for them to actively participate in DRR efforts can bean effective risk reduction strategy for the host community atlarge. This can help DRR actors overcome linguistic, trust andcultural barriers and the isolation of migrant groups, gatherinformation on their size and characteristics, and leverageadditional resources and capacities for response and recovery. To this end, it is essential to assess migrants’ relevantskills, knowledge and experience, and understand how theycan be leveraged for the benefit of the whole community, asattempted in the research of Lakhina and Eriksen (chapter 5)in the Illawarra region of Australia. But it is also essential tocreate forums and opportunities for engaging (and retaining)migrants as personnel of disaster risk management structures, as highlighted both by Lieberam (chapter 9), from theperspective of a national mandated authority in Germany,and Parzniewski and Phillimore (chapter 6), from the pointof view of a participant in a relevant training event in Japan.Engagement of a variety of relevant actorsSynergies among a broad set of actors are key to effectivelyMigrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for Inclusionincluding migrants in DRR. These actors include mandatedgovernmental authorities, migrant representatives andgroups, and a variety of non-governmental and communitybased organizations that are key service providers andadvocates for migrant communities, both in normal timesand in times of disaster. The role of such actors in strengthening migrants’ capacity to prevent, prepare for and respondto disasters is highlighted with reference to the experienceof: the Farmworker Association of Florida by Economos(chapter 8); Caritas in Lebanon by Maegan and Mansour-Ille(chapter 10); the American Red Cross in the United Statesby Rabenstine (chapter 11); and Australian Red Cross inAustralia by Richardson et al. (chapter 12). Martínez andNúñez-Álvarez (chapter 7) instead describe the establishment of an institutionalized coordination structure amongmigrants, civil society organizations and mandated responseactors, based on the experience of the Farmworker CARECoalition in the San Diego area of the United States.Cultural competence of response personnelCommitment and direct actions by host country authoritiesin charge of disaster management are essential to effectivelyensure migrants’ access to information, resources and assistance in disasters. Many such institutions, at all levelsand in a variety of geographical contexts, are working to improve their personnel’s ability to adequately operate in culturally diverse contexts. Schönefeld (chapter 13) describesefforts currently being carried out to improve the culturalcompetence of emergency response personnel in Germany.Limsakul (chapter 15) focuses on a similar programme thatwas recently rolled out in Thailand in response to, amongother things, some of the challenges migrants faced duringthe 2011 floods, which are described by Bravi and Schaur(chapter 14). López Mejía (chapter 16) discusses insteadhow recent evolutions of the migration policy framework inMexico have reflected on the willingness and ability of thecountry’s institutions to focus on the issue of including migrants in DRR.Including migrants in recoveryMigrants, especially those with irregular status, are oftenexcluded from their host countries’ recovery frameworksand support mechanisms. As a consequence, they oftenface persistent challenges long after a disaster’s emergencyphase passes — which can greatly undermine their long-termPage 11

well-being prospects and their ability to contribute to therecovery of the whole community. Experiences from thepost-earthquake period in Christchurch, New Zealand, for instance, show that migrants can access (in particular throughtheir networks) significant resources and have skills that canbe essential to support recovery, and that setting up structures to consult migrants and to account for their needs andcapacities in recovery planning benefits the whole community(Campbell et al., chapter 17; Marlowe, chapter 18). Roblesand Ichinose (chapter 19) highlight how inclusive recoveryinterventions helped enhance migrants’ long-term well-beingprospects and integration into Japanese society after thegreat east Japan earthquake in 2011. Based on an observation of long-term post-disaster trends in Montserrat, Monteiland Simmons (chapter 20), on the other hand, stress that accounting for migrants and their specific conditions of vulnerability throughout the recovery process is essential to avoidthe creation of risk to future disasters.Including migrants in disaster risk reductionMost migrant-specific DRR efforts, including those described in this publication, are primarily designed to address cultural and linguistic barriers that reduce migrants’access to information and assistance and enhance theirability to prepare for and respond to disasters. However,they can also contribute to transforming deeply rootedpolitical, economic and social factors that define migrants’day-to-day well-being and security — which are the profound causes of their vulnerability to everyday hazards aswell as to more intense disasters.Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for InclusionEnsuring the inclusion, engagement and participation ofmigrants in DRR efforts can foster structural changes in thehost society by giving visibility to migrants, their contributions and challenges, and by contributing to shifting mainstream discourses and perceptions on their presence androle in host communities. DRR policies and efforts can be anentry point for improving migrants’ participation in decisionmaking, fostering trust and building relationships with hostcommunities, and ultimately enhancing their overall inclusion in the life of those communities.Page 12

Refugee Inclusion in Earthquake Casualty Estimation:A Case Study in South-East TurkeyBradley S. Wilson1 and Thomas R. Paradise2Main issuesEarthquake risk analyses are an essential part of the disasterrisk reduction process, helping to inform resource allocationpre-event and direct humanitarian aid response post-event.Earthquakes are environmental hazards with long returnperiods. For this reason, long-term earthquake risk assessments are often favoured over their short-term counterparts.In Turkey, these assumptions are being challenged by thecurrent scale of social and political upheaval. Since 2011,Turkey has accommodated nearly 2.8 million Syrian refugees amidst the ongoing Syrian civil war. In contrast to otherMiddle Eastern countries, only a small portion of Syrian refugees in Turkey (about 10%) reside in refugee camps. Theremaining Syrian refugee populations have settled in localvillages and cities – increasing occupancy in existing structures, many of which are highly vulnerable to earthquakeshaking. The seismic resistance of Turkey’s building stockremains a major area of concern in light of high collapse ratesduring recent earthquakes.The prevalence of Syrian refugees living outside of formalcamps is an important distinction for earthquake risk assessments. With population density increases exceeding10 per cent in several south-eastern provinces, it is becomingincreasingly important to integrate Syrian refugee populationsinto existing population models rather than to analyse theirsituations in isolation. Yet, the data sources commonly usedin earthquake risk assessments are not updated frequentlyenough to support this type of analysis. Census-baseddatasets, the de facto standard for many risk studies, havedecadal or bidecadal recollection periods – sufficient forlong-term population changes, but insensitive to short-termpopulation movements. These issues are present in Turkey,with the last Turkish census completed in 2011, before theonset of the Syrian civil war. Accordingly, risk analyses basedon Turkish census data will significantly underestimateearthquake consequences unless explicitly adjusted withsupplementary refugee data.Zonan and Mustapha live in a former stable for horses in Salinufra, Turkey, with two other families. Each family uses a single stall intended for one horse. Originally fromKobane, the family fled to escape the ongoing war in the Syrian Arab Republic where they have been living in the stable for the past six months. IOM/Muse Mohammed1National Science Foundation graduate research fellow at the Department of Geosciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States.Contact: bsw006@email.uark.edu2Professor at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, United States.Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for InclusionPage 13

InterventionsIn an effort to account for refugee populations in earthquakecasualty estimations, we adjusted population estimates fromthe Turkish Statistical Institute’s Address Based PopulationRegistration System (ABPRS) to include statistics on Syriansunder temporary protection, available from the DirectorateGeneral of Migration Management (DGMM) of Turkey. Whilethis process is straightforward, it is limited in scope to refugees who are formally registered by Turkish authorities.Displaced populations and unregistered refugees remainunaccounted for in our modified population model.Map of the s

Migrants in Disaster Risk Reduction: Practices for Inclusion Page 9 Introduction: A Case for Migrant-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Lorenzo Guadagno, Mechthilde Fuhrer and John Twigg Migrants and disaster risk reduction There are some 250 million international migrants in today's world, living abroad for work, education or family reasons.

Related Documents:


disaster risk reduction and management activities, monitoring, training, and operation of a multi-hazard early warning system. 17.1.2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management at the National Level (1) The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework . Pursuant to RA No. 10121, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework

Strategy for Disaster Reduction. An alignment of the terminology used in disaster risk reduction in Africa with the internationally acceptable concepts is logical. 2.1 Disaster Although the focus of disaster reduction is not on any actual disaster event itself, disaster remains the main focus. Thus our efforts must be geared towards the

Disaster Risk Reduction is an organization that changed its name from International Strategy for Disaster Reduction in May 2019. Fig.1 The opening ceremony at the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction)

Keywords: Disaster knowledge; Disaster risk; Disaster risk reduction; Nepal Background Disaster risk is expressed in terms of potential loss of lives, deterioration of health status and livelihoods, and potential damage to assets and services due to impact of existing natural hazard. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to .

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2028. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. (2001). Community Based Disaster Management Course Paricipants Workbook , Partnership for Disaster Reduction South East Asia Program Bautista, Rostum J, et.al. (2011). "National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Planning

NATIONAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT ACT Passed in 2015 reflect new thinking and relating to disaster risk reduction in context of sustainable national development Intended to provide the legal framework upon which disaster risk reduction and disaster response operations OFFICE OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Advanced Engineering Mathematics Dr. Elisabeth Brown c 2019 1. Mathematics 2of37 Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Other Disciplines Computer-Based Test (CBT) Exam Specifications. Mathematics 3of37 1. What is the value of x in the equation given by log 3 2x 4 log 3 x2 1? (a) 10 (b) 1(c)3(d)5 E. Brown . Mathematics 4of37 2. Consider the sets X and Y given by X {5, 7,9} and Y { ,} and the .