This is a post about “Disaster Risk Reduction: Government to Governance”, a debate that took place in the framework of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (Geneva, May 19-23). Speakers were:

– Walter Ammann, President of the Global Risk Forum, Davos (Download Presentation)

– Lai Hongzhou, Mistry of Civil Affairs, P.R. China (Download Presentation)

– Marco Ferrari, former chair of the drafting committee for the Hyogo Framework for Action, Board member Global Risk Forum (Download Presentation)

– Shi Peijun, Beijing Normal University and Integrated Risk Governance Prject, Beijing (Download Presentation)

– Saber Chowdhury, Bangladesh, chair of the standing committee on Peace and International Security of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. (Download Presentation)

Here, courtesy of Ye Qian, a brief summary:

1. Although there are great achievements in dealing with disasters at various scales worldwide, with major contributions from science and technology, there is still room for improvement in traditional fields, and there are major challenges for new emerging issues. For example, the impacts of many disasters now cross boundaries of countries. Therefore, a paradigm shift is needed for governments from an ex-post disaster centered approach, i.e., intervention and recovery coordinated by political authority, to disaster governance, which is a decision-making process including all kinds of stakeholders with explicit consideration of scales.
2. In the past two decades, many countries, for example, China, have made significant progress in institutional, legal, financial and social structures dealing with disasters. There is, however, a lack of scientific ways to measure the progresses of national capacities in disaster prevention, mitigation, rescue, recovery, etc. Innovations in raising overall awareness, developing legal frameworks, implementing financial systems to transfer risks, and guaranteeing political accountability are urgently needed.
3. To help governments make better decisions and policies for disaster risk governance, developing a comprehensive and systematic governance framework at multiple scales is the key issue. The role of stakeholders in each system must be clearly defined, especially when dealing with disaster chains.
4. So far, great efforts have been made on identifying the problems, issues and possible measures in disaster risk reduction. A core issue of governance is how to help governments to really implement such measures.
5. Although great efforts have been made by UNISDR and other UN agencies on bridging the worlds of scientists and policy makers, less work has been done on developing usable toolboxes as well as teams of “sales people” who have a multidisciplinary background, are really knowledgeable and capable to communicate with other stakeholders.

This debate is especially important in view of the process by which the UN international strategy for disaster risk reduction will further enhance the basis provided by the Hyogo Framework for Action on disasters.

Global Systems Science is just beginning. But already now the conversation is surprisingly rich. There are the exchanges on this blog, with a remarkable variety of disciplines, nations, and interests represented. There are exchanges between the blog and a whole range of workshops, conferences, gatherings. New papers, some just published, others in the making, give depth to the conversation, while the interactions between different blogs and websites give it breadth. So great thanks to all of you who are helping to bring this about!

Plurality is of essence here. After all, GSS itself shall be a global system, and it is quite likely that different themes, questions, insights will be emphasized by researchers interacting mainly with, say, Chinese policy makers than by researchers operating in a European or African context. There are disciplines, in science as elsewhere, where a high degree of homogeneity gets established (say Kabuki, the Japanese dance-drama, or perhaps physics), while in other ones widely differing approaches are cultivated (say software design, or perhaps linguistics). Most likely, GSS will be closer to the latter kind, and the present conversation is a good example.

For me at least it is a pleasure to read all the different ideas and suggestions to be found in the rapidly expanding GSS universe. But there is more than intellectual pleasure here. I am certainly not the only one deeply worried about the difficulty of Europe to get its act together in today’s global society, a society massively shaped by European traditions. There can be little doubt that in the coming decades humankind will need to explore futures well beyond business as usual. So I am grateful for the hope that GSS might help European as well as other policy makers to learn what it takes to walk untrodden paths.