1

Global Disaster Public Policy Network:

An Analysis on Existing Networks Based on its Functions

Andry Napitupulu │ andry.napitupulu@gmail.com

“…the right to receive humanitarian assistance, and to offer it, is a fundamental humanitarian principle

which should be enjoyed by all citizens of all countries…” (IFRC, 2002, p.158)

1. Introduction

This paper is developed under a consideration that disaster is always bring negative impacts to

the victims, people killed, affected, economic losses, infrastructure destruction, etc. But the

other hand, disaster also comes up with a common action from people around the world either

individual movements or organizational (formal) movements. Let’s take an example the last

tsunami on December 2004 in Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. Right after the tragedy,

humanitarian action for disaster response and management was mushrooming from community;

national; intergovernmental; international communities and organizations level came together for

rehabilitation and reconstruction or even influenced on decision making process on

governmental level on disaster management (before, during, and after disaster). Or even far away

from this millennium, when people killed each other on World War I and made the new

inventory of human disaster. It was the cooperation between Red Cross Societies around globe to

be involved to improve health of people in countries that had suffered greatly during the four

years of war. It is obvious that disaster followed by human initiatives to create assistance for the

victims of disaster whether through formal or informal organization.

This paper will focus on the role of global public policy network in disaster management to those

who focus on disaster. To make more focus on its role, I will analyse the role of the global

disaster public policy network based on their function. To concretize this paper, I will bring

some data and information related to world disaster to give an overview that our planet earth is

suffering from disaster, whether natural or human disaster. Next step is to find the theoretical

dimension of global networks, why they emerge –on this case to respond disaster, and the

function of networks. The last step is analysing current global disaster networks related to their

2

function. To analyse the networks, I will begin to provide the information about the network

(who are they, history), their operational action –on what they are doing, principle of

governance, the role of nations state, etc and I will provide the lessons learnt from the network.

It is obvious that the aim of this paper is to analyse the role of global disaster networks based on

their functions. As stated above to give guidance to build my argument, that global disaster

network is an important body of global societies for humanitarian assistance on disaster which

doesn’t care who is the victims, countries, political background and so on.

2. Global Public Policy Networks

Government and international organization as an individual are no longer able to address more

complex global issues. Global problems demand global responses which will not indicate a

single fighter player. From climate change, epidemic, environmental protection, maritime

pollution, and even disaster management and so on are some key features of global issues which

need global action. Based on Benner, et al (2002), this is the beginning of the establishment of

global public policy networks. Networks bring together civil society, increase public-private

partnership relationship, international organizations and governments.

Global public policy networks are a recent addition of the global governance. Since there is a

lack of central government role on specific issues then the global networks tend to be the

solution on those issues. They are multi-sectoral partnership linking different sectors and level of

governance and bringing together governments, international organizations, corporations, and

civil society (Streck, 2002). This networks offer a promising solution to handle governance

problems on complex political, economic, and social systems which cannot be solved by an

individual government. More about these networks, Streck explained that global networks are

able to bridge the gap between public, for profit, non-profit sectors and integrate human and

financial matters to find solution to multidimensional problems. To what I already mentioned

above, in the case of disaster, global networks suddenly appeared to response the impact the

World War I into International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

They were bridging the lack of humanitarian assistance on health for the victim of war.

3

The Changing Environment

Global public policy networks emerge related to many cases, from climate change, global health,

environment, pollution, basic needs, poverty, emergency response and management and so on. In

the use of terms, this is what we called the limit of traditional bureaucracies (Streck, 2002).

National decision makers are confronted with multilevel problem which they cannot solve alone.

There is a change on geographical dimension as a result of economic and social integration. For

example, the melting ice in Glacier AX010 in Nepal, recorded from 1978-2004, where 40%

people in the world got their freshwater from this glacier. Because of the melting glacier, the

freshwater supply will be threat (UNWTO, 2008). This is a simple pressing issue about climate

change which not consider a single nation state but the whole world.

National policy makers are also confronted with time dimension which means that they do not

have 24 hours-time operation, they have time budget limitation. In the sense of disaster

management, currently there is 24/7 operational framework what called as a SpaceAid to support

disaster management from space. This is a partnership program between UN-SPIDER and

satellite provider from around globe (example DLR, Jaxa, NASA, etc) to provide space-based

information for countries, international and regional organizations. This includes all types of

information provided by earth observation satellites, communication satellites and global

navigation satellite systems1.

Policy makers will be always confronted with complex policy issues. From the nightmare of

disaster, national policy makers later will face complex problems from response; rehabilitation

and reconstruction; until how to prevent and mitigate the disaster. From the history of Hurricane

Iniki in Hawaiian island of Kauai on September 1992, in term of to develop more necessary

policies related to disaster management in Pacific Ocean, then United States Congress

1 SpaceAid is a framework under direction of UN-SPIDER which bridging the need of satellite imagery for

disaster management through partnership relation with satellite provider around the world. This is the

consideration of the lack of every vulnerable country to access imagery in term of budget limit, satellite

ownership, and technology limitation. For more detail about SpaceAid see on: http://www.un-

spider.org/spaceaid.

4

established Pacific Disaster Center (PDC)2 on the island of Maui in 1995. With the partnership

with international organizations and governments, then the complexity of policy more wider on

how to develop decision making, to enhance capacity development, to asses risk and

vulnerability, to give humanitarian assistance, and to create security and sustainability of social

and economic institutions to natural and human-induced disaster. This is one lesson that a

complex problems and issues are needed to be tackled across countries and organizations.

Decision makers in national and international politics find themselves on the issue of legitimacy

and accountability. As stated by Benner, et al (2002), as public policy is increasingly shifting to

international organization, decision making processes have become lack of transparency to

citizens, as the same argument that already developed by Witte, et al (2000) which called as

participatory gap, as individuals and organizations increasingly perceive themselves as excluded

from policy decision making processes. Nowadays, based on Moynihan (2007), citizens are more

knowledgeable, more involvement in the use of technology, high degree of mobility, and

educable individual. They are looking for more inclusiveness of decision making processes to

ensure that everything in those processes right in the tack in term of legitimate the decisions.

This is actually what has been developed by Sphere Project to ensure more accountable

humanitarian assistance not only to their partner but also to the victims. The Sphere project aim

is to improve the quality of assistance to people affected by disaster and improve the

accountability of states and humanitarian agencies to their constituents, donors and the affected

populations3. From the question of accountability of humanitarian action, then Sphere Project

was introduced on 1997.

Networks Functions

The classification of its function on this paper will be based on what already developed by Witte,

et al (2000) which also the foundation of analysis of current networks on disaster management.

Indeed, there will be no standards of networks function even sometimes networks fulfilled more

than one function during their existence. Just for a short comparison what already mentioned on

2 Please visit www.pdc.org

3 Sphere Project is global standard for humanitarian assistance under direction of cooperation between

humanitarian NGOs and Red Cross Societies. The development of Sphere Project also considered because at the

beginning of humanitarian assistance, humanitarian actors tend to give accountable and transparency only for

their donors but not to the affected population.

5

Benner, et al (2002) and Witte, et al (2000) regarding the function of networks. Based on Benner,

et al, there are: negotiation, coordination and implementation networks while Witte, et al

classified them into agenda setting, standards setting, gather and disseminates knowledge,

making and deepening new markets, and implementation networks.

First, global public policy networks are involved to raise issues on the global agenda. Global

public policy networks can bring new issues to the international agenda and initiate public

discourse on the issues at stake. One example on this function is The International Campaign to

Ban Landmiles that concreted on a single issue and waged a successful media campaign to raise

awareness of the problem and move to its resolution. As a member of the Cluster Munition

Coalition, the ICBL is engaged in the global effort to ban cluster munitions and to address their

humanitarian impact, as like as Transparency International who proposed free corruption

government worldwide. More advance on their paper, Witte, et al, explained that transnational

advocacy networks is one of the main key successful aspect on the agenda setting at the global

level. Advocacy networks generally form between civil society groups and individual states to

lobby intergovernmental organizations, other states and the business sector to adopt certain

measures. They use different way of strategies to raise issues to be heard, like media campaign.

Second, global public policy networks facilitate the negotiation and the settlement of global

standards. An important role for global public policy networks is the development of guidelines

and other non-binding legal instruments. Networks can help affected parties or their

representatives reach compromises that can then be poured into soft law agreements or standards.

As many noticed, The World Commission on Dams is a prototypical standard (Streck, 2002).

The network was designed to the operational and participatory governance challenge of

generating the institutional arrangements and decision making processes to facilitate sustainable

dam construction. Witte, et al (2000) also explained on the global standard networks, it is

obvious that participatory and inclusiveness, using open sourcing to pool knowledge, is

imperative for producing effective and politically sustainable results. In addition, successful

standard setting does not end with agreement on a norm. It must proceed in to implementation

and compliance, which in turn require ownership of the process by those with a stake in the

outcome, possibly triggering new stages of conflict, with which the network must then come to

terms.

6

Third, global public policy networks generate and disseminate knowledge. The rapid changes in

the state of knowledge and the technological capabilities for its transmission have often left

governments at a disadvantage in comparison with the private sector and even NGOs. Global

public policy networks can serve as a tools gathering existing knowledge in a fast and efficient

way and even generation of new knowledge. For example, the Global Water Partnership has

made the generation and dissemination of knowledge of their primary activity. The information

technology revolution allows all kinds of knowledge, technical, and nontechnical to be shared

without regard for distance or borders and at ever lower cost.

Fourth, global public policy networks making new market and deepening market. Markets

sometimes fail to produce certain goods, such as public goods, that society demands. Global

public policy networks can bridge this gap. An example of The Medicine for Malaria Venture is

a global network that seeks to improve the economic incentives for pharmaceutical companies to

develop badly needed new anti-malaria vaccines.

Fifth, global public policy networks are focus on innovative implementation mechanism. Some

global public policy networks could be formed with the specific purpose of translating the results

of intergovernmental negotiations into concrete actions. The implementation also considered as a

flexible mechanism such as Kyoto Protocol. On this situation, developing countries involved into

this mechanism because they receive incentives from the others.

Based on the above short explanation about public policy networks, we can characterize the

public policy networks itself.

Diversity. Global public policy networks involve citizens, public sector and private sector to

achieve their goals. Global world now facing a complex issues and problems which need to

tackled together between civil society, public sector, and private.

Openness and flexibility. Global public policy networks offer policy mechanisms to a

constantly changing environment and open to new actors. Networks are providing a place to

such diverse perspective, including local knowledge and involving affected communities on

the problem solving processes.

7

Speed. Global public policy networks are such a rapid response organization. They are well

prepared with issues, vision, information and action plan to implement decisions. As a

transnational advocacy networks can give tension to traditional institutions to respond in a

quicker and more efficient manner.

Subsidiarity and legitimacy. Public policy networks are providing a mean of implementing

agreement and policies at various level of decision making. From the online participation of

citizens and to direct citizens/states participation on decision making processes lead to

greater legitimacy.

3. World Disaster

In 2009, the Philippines, China and the United States were most often hit by natural disasters.

China alone reported 68.8 million victims (57.5% of the world’s total), of which 39.4 million

victims were caused by flooding and associated landslides in early July 2009. The Philippines

also suffered immensely from natural disasters, as it was struck by two important disasters in

2009: tropical storm 'Ondoy' (Ketsana), which made 4.9 million victims including 501 deaths,

and typhoon 'Pepeng' (Parma), which caused 4.5 million victims including 539 deaths. The

United States suffered the most economic damages from natural disasters in 2009, with a total of

US$ 10.8 billion reported damages. These costs were mostly due to storms accounting for US$

8.9 billion.

According to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster (CRED) 335 natural were

reported worldwide in 2009 (Vos, et al, 2009), where Asia was the most frequent continent

among other which had 135 natural disasters. This amount of natural disaster cases were increase

compared to 2008 which has 326 natural disaster cases worldwide. The number of victim in 2009

was 119.52 million people and Asia was the biggest victim of those amounts, it was 106.44

million victims. Damages caused by disaster were a big amount. The total damages in 2009 were

US$ 41.28 billion and Asia was the highest damages among all in the amount of US$ 15.91

billion. In 2009 the proportion of economic damages from natural disasters was also highest in

Asia (38.5%), followed by the Americas (32.1%) and Europe (24.8%). This profile is different

from the profile of the 2000-2008 annual average, which showed that the Americas suffered the

8

most economic damages. Africa accounts for only 0.4% of global economic damages from

natural disasters in 2009, even below the 2000-2008 annual average of 1.2%4.

From the report of IFRC (2002), Official Development Assistance (ODA)5 from the members of

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development

Assistance Committee (DAC) was US$ 53.7 billion during 2000. Emergency relief from DAC

donors fell from the decade’s high of US$ 4.4 billion in 1999 to US$ 3.6 billion in 2000. A very

big amount of money from ODA in 2009 was reported for US$ 119.6 billion6. As I already stated

on my first paragraph of this paper, ODA is one of the manifest of cross countries and

boundaries cooperation on building humanitarian assistance. Disaster will always be followed by

humanitarian actions.

4. Global Disaster Public Policy Networks

On this part of this paper will analyze the establishment of global disaster networks based on its

function mentioned above. The main idea of this part is to show that, indeed, there are various

networks on disaster which are inseparable part from nation state. This part is an analytical part

to suit the selected networks based on network’s functions to overview the network itself, on

how they work, the principle of governance, and their relation to nation state.

4.1 Global Agenda Setting Network: ProVention Consortium

ProVention was established by the World Bank in 2000 to address the increasing frequency and

severity of natural disasters and their social, economic and environmental impacts on developing

countries. As poor countries continue to be disproportionately affected by disasters and incur the

majority of costs, there is a growing recognition of the inextricable links between disaster

vulnerability, poverty and development.

4 Data was resuming from Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2009 from Centre for Research on the Epidemiology

of Disaster (CRED), 2009. More information about CRED and a comprehensive overview of world disaster

report, please find on: http://www.cred.be/. 5 Official Development Assistance (ODA) is defined as those flows to countries and territories on the

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) List of ODA Recipients and to multilateral development institutions.

For more information about ODA, go through: www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dac/directives. 6 Learn also about this development of assistance on:

http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_21571361_44315115_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html

9

Addressing disaster reduction in this broad context requires a collaborative approach, involving

diverse sectors and organizations where managing risk is seen as everyone’s business. The

ProVention Consortium therefore included a broad range of partners, from development to

humanitarian organisations and from the public sector to the private sector, with the goal of

providing a forum for dialogue and a framework for collective action7.

What is ProVention Consortium?

ProVention Consortium is a global coalition of international organizations, governments, private

sectors, civil society organizations, and academic institutions. It was dedicated to increase the

safety of vulnerability communities and to reduce the impacts of disaster in developing countries.

ProVention Consortium provided multi-stakeholder forum and dialogue on disaster risk

reduction and a framework for collective action.

ProVention aimed to enhance disaster risk management in developing countries by forging

partnership and linkages; advocating among leaders and decision makers to increase policy

attention into state agenda; develop innovative practical application of disaster management and

sharing knowledge and resources. Witte, et al (2000) explained that form of global advocacy

network which creates public discourse around policy issues is a strategic way to promote global

agenda on state level. The overall goal of ProVention was to reduce the risk and social, economic

and environmental impacts of natural hazards on vulnerable populations in developing countries

in order to alleviate poverty and contribute to sustainable development through these objectives:

1) forging partnerships and promoting multi-stakeholder networking; 2) promoting policy as an

informal forum for dialogue and agenda-setting; 3) improving practice through more effective

problem-solving; and 4) managing knowledge through combining knowledge advancement,

gathering and sharing.

Operational of ProVention

PreVention has three main approaches to achieve its objectives which are through strategic

objectives (already mentioned above), thematic priorities, and characteristics/working culture8.

7 For more information about ProVention Consortium, please visit: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/

8 For more information about the characteristics as its working culture, please visit:

http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=25; and for more information about thematic priorities as the

main activities of ProVention on agenda setting, please visit: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=3

10

The Consortium functioned as a multi-stakeholder network across the different constituencies,

providing the space for informal dialogue and agenda setting on the one hand and aiming at

problem-solving and an output-oriented approach on the other hand. It is the combination of the

ProVention objectives with its working culture characteristics, and its thematic focus that

ultimately defined ProVention's approach to bringing the risk reduction agenda forward.

Innovation, flexibility, informality, inclusiveness, and independence are the key principles of

working culture in ProVention Consortium. The Consortium therefore promoted innovative

practices and stimulated groundbreaking research and learning to help inform and set the global

agenda on disaster reduction. The need of ProVention stakeholders often evolved quickly

overtime. The flexible nature and light decision making structure is able to adapt its work plan

and set of activities when needed. ProVention is perceived by its partners as an informal space

where different stakeholders could exchange information, assess their own institution’s

performance, and discuss innovative and often controversial ideas aiming at an open and though

provoking debate. It is multi-stakeholder to implement disaster risk reduction which requires the

involvement of a broad range of actors, including policy-makers, local governments, civil

society, the private sector, researchers and others. ProVention provided a space for addressing

key issues in an independent and autonomous manner, balancing the needs and interests of a

wide variety of stakeholders.

In order to govern this consortium, there are level of governance which later decides the

activities to be implemented. ProVention has host organization as the managerial and

administration function for projects funding based in Geneva. To support the Secretariat, it has

Advisory Committee to give strategic advice and direction to the Secretariat, oversaw the

implementation of the work programme and approved the annual budget. It has ProVention

Forum to give opportunity to partners (international financial institutions, donor governments,

international and regional institutions, universities and research centres, NGOs, private sector,

and networks) and invited participants to meet and dialogue on disaster risk reduction as a forum

for policy dialogue and debate.

Lesson Learnt from ProVention Consortium

11

ProVention is a global agenda setting network which involves multi stakeholder as their partner

to implement disaster risk reduction in developing countries. Agendas are set through dialogues

and forums among stakeholders9 which later on transformed into project activities which are the

thematic priorities. Several important lessons can be gleaned from the establishment of

ProVention:

a) ProVention Consortium is a truly trisectoral structure and process within those

stakeholders which are bridging governments, non-government organization (private

sector as well), and societies into forums and dialogues to set the global disaster risk

reduction.

b) It is an imperative approach to be inclusive in order to set global policy on disaster risk

reduction for producing effective and politically sustainable results. It is an important

forum to tackle disaster risk reduction in developing countries not only through the flow

of funding, but also various thematic priorities.

c) Promote disaster risk reduction into national agenda is a necessary policy agenda to

reduce risks. It is an important forum to enhance decision maker’s awareness to establish

policy related to disaster risk reduction in one hand and to enhance donors (international

financial institutions) to support nation states to implement disaster risk reduction among

countries. It is really a bridge between states and donors.

4.2 Standard Setting Network: Sphere Project

Over the last two decades, the humanitarian activity has witnessed the mushrooming of

guidelines, codes and benchmarks at field, organizational and interagency levels. Some of these

generated general principles, including right based principles and governing humanitarian action

(such as the Code of Conduct). Others establish specific qualitative and quantitative benchmarks

at sectoral level such as Sphere Project. The emergence of these codes was also considered by

the absence of monitoring and the lack of indicators by which to measure performance.

What is Sphere Project?

9 To learn about one of decision making on ProVention’s forum, please visit:

http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=86

12

The Sphere Project was launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross

and Red Crescent movement in an effort to improve the quality of assistance provided to people

affected by disaster, and to enhance the accountability of the humanitarian system in disaster

response. Sphere is based on two core beliefs: first, that all possible steps should be taken to

alleviate human suffering arising out of calamity and conflict, and second, that those affected by

disaster have a right to life with dignity and therefore a right to assistance.

The Sphere project aim is to improve the quality of assistance to people affected by disaster and

improve the accountability of states and humanitarian agencies to their constituents, donors and

the affected populations. It has actors from governments and non-governmental organizations,

these are includes international and national non-governmental (NGO) organizations, the

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, United Nations agencies, donor agencies,

host governments, and representatives from affected populations. This is the way to make Sphere

is inclusive, transparent and globally representative. Sphere is three things in Sphere which are

the Handbook, a broad process of collaboration and an expression of commitment to quality and

accountability. The project has developed several tools, the key one is the Handbook.

Operational of Sphere Project

Sphere project has worked with thousands of individuals from diverse organizations that

representing over 80 countries in various aspects of the Sphere Project from developing and

revising the Handbook through to piloting and training, which later known as the Sphere

Handbook (The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response)10

. This

handbook is the minimum standards in disaster response for those who need humanitarian

assistance in global arena. This handbook is the way to improve the quality of humanitarian

assistance and to enhance accountability regarding to its aim as the output of the project.

The Sphere Project has some governance principles (Sphere Project Governance Structure,

2005). The Sphere Project Board will ensure the financial sustainability and they should be

committed to diverse representation to reflect the global scope of the project. In order to reach

wider area and sector of humanitarian sector, the Board will represent either networks or families

10

See for more detail about Sphere Handbook on:

http://www.sphereproject.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=84

13

of NGOs and the Red Crescent Movement. The Sphere Project welcomes national bodies to be

involved in projects that those are the member of UN. On the other hand, Sphere office in

Geneva, under direction of Board, has the purpose to lead the implementation of the Sphere

vision for improving the quality and accountability in the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

This office is the core body to make links with regional and national networks to implement

Sphere, to support their work and contribute to a more comprehensive overview on the use of

Sphere at the global level. They are also responsible for promoting of the effective use of Sphere

and its contribution to improved quality and accountability.

Lesson Learnt from Sphere Project

From the establishment and the governance principles of Sphere Projects and other source of

Sphere Project11

, I will try briefly to summarize lesson learnt from Sphere Project.

a) The Sphere Project has developed a humanitarian charter and a set of universal minimum

standards in core areas of humanitarian assistance whether national agencies, UN

agencies or other NGOs are not the member of the board, but because they have

worldwide governance structure, it is easier to disseminate this standards globally.

b) Sphere Project is an inclusive a worldwide governance networks. Instead of the Board

and Geneva office structure, Sphere Project also has many key representatives whether

they are government or nongovernmental organizational. Sphere Chapter Focal Points are

the people who are involved in developing the different Sphere Handbook chapter and

they are all come from international nongovernmental organization. Training facilitators

to transfer the Sphere Project to be implemented which consist of UN agencies and

international NGOs. Sphere Project also developed based on voluntary based which has

Focal Points who practically share the implementation of Sphere.

c) There is evidence of a growing awareness of the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standards - Sphere in shorthand - amongst humanitarian actors at all levels: pilot

agencies, the NGO community, UN agencies and national government disaster

management departments. Sphere is being incorporated into agencies' policies and

procedures for disaster response. In some countries, national governments have chosen to

11

For other resource for lesson learnt is based on Sphere in practice where they implement Sphere Project in

different countries from time to time. To learn more about the implementation of Sphere Project, please go to:

http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/371/254/lang,english/.

14

incorporate some of the Humanitarian Charter principles and minimum standards into

national policies and even legislation (Sphere Project, 2004) for instance Guatemala, El

Salvador, India, etc.

d) In order to achieve the quality and accountability, Sphere provides points of reference for

a systematic response. Sphere also share the uniformity standards between agencies

(national authority, UN, NGOs, etc) for more effective coordination during disaster

response. The most key point of accountability of Sphere is they allow citizens

participation on disaster response which previously citizens were always only as a

victims.

4.3 Implementation Network of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Case Study: Hyogo Framework for Action

From 18-22 January 2005, United Nation General Assembly requested International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction (ISDR) as the secretariat of a World Conference on Disaster Reduction

(WCDR) to be held in Kobe, Hyogo12

. WCDR was composed of three main processes:

intergovernmental segment which are more than 160 member states; thematic segment was

formatted to complement the discussions on the program outcome at the intergovernmental level;

and public forum which is opened to general public. They represent a strong commitment of the

international community to address disaster reduction and to engage in a determined, results-

oriented plan of action for the next decade which now called on this paper as a Hyogo

Framework of Action 2005-2015.

What is Hyogo Framework for Action?

Under the resolution of WCDR, governments around the world have committed to take action to

reduce disaster risk and have adopted a guideline to reduce vulnerabilities to natural hazards,

called Hyogo Framework for Action (ISDR, 2007). HFA assists the efforts of nations,

organizations, communities become more resilient to, and cope better with hazards. This

framework also developed under consideration that disaster reduction should be part of everyday

12

WCDR is under coordinated by United Nation for International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) as a

world conference to implement disaster reduction around globe. To achieve this goal, then there are four

outcomes which one of them is the Hyogo Framework for Action the priorities for action from 2005-2015. For

more information about WCDR please visit: http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/?pid:22&pif:3.

15

decision making, from how people educate their children to how they plan their cities/region,

because disaster can affect everyone.

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) is the key instrument for implementing disaster risk

reduction, adopted by the Member States of the United Nations. Its goal is to build resilience of

nations and communities to disasters, by achieving substantive reduction of disaster losses by

2015 – in lives, and in the social, economic, and environmental assets of communities and

countries. The HFA offers five areas of priorities for action, guiding principles and practical

means for achieving disaster resilience for vulnerable communities in the context of sustainable

development:

a) Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong

institutional basis for implementation.

b) Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.

c) Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all

levels.

d) Reduce the underlying risk factors.

e) Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

Operational of Hyogo Framework for Action

In order to implement those priorities, since the processes was involving intergovernmental,

nongovernmental organizational and under direction by UNISDR, there were collaboration

between those actors. States and regional and international organizations, including UN and

international financial institutions, were called upon to integrate disaster risk reduction into

development policy, planning and programming at all levels and for civil society as well. All

actors were encouraged to build multi-stakeholder partnerships, at all levels, as appropriate, and

on a voluntary basis, to contribute to the implementation of this Framework for Action13

.

States

Nation states are responsible for developing coordination mechanisms either within their

governmental system or external actors. When disaster strikes states, it is their duty to conduct

13

For more detail information about the story and related publication on HFA please visit:

http://preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/framework/?pid:223&pil:1

16

baseline assessments on the status of disaster risk reduction according to the capabilities, needs

and policies of each State. It is also important for nation states to publish and periodically update

the summary of their current national programs for disaster risk reduction, including

international cooperation. It means that, there will be a mechanism of cross check or reviewing

those programs with the HFA. Nation states will provide data and information on programs

related to disaster risk reduction, its progress of achievement, how it would be connect with

climate change and so on. Nation state becomes the inseparable institutions to other states,

regional/international organization, and UN.

Regional organization and institutions

Regional organizations with related to disaster risk reduction are aimed to promote regional

programs include programs for technical cooperation, capacity development, development of

methodologies and standards for hazard and vulnerability monitoring and assessment, the sharing

of information and effective mobilization of resources. It means that regional organizations also

deal with publishing of disaster risk reduction status as also making coordination among inline

organizations including government.

International organizations

International organizations include UN agencies and other international financial organizations

are encouraged to support and implement the ISDR to build disaster resilient nations and

communities. They also assist disaster prone countries/nation states to identify relevant actions

should be considered related to risk reduction. International organizations work in collaboration

with networks and platforms, cooperate to support data collection and forecasting on natural

hazards, vulnerabilities and risks and disaster impacts at all scales. Supporting disaster risk

reduction is the main task of international organizations for strengthening the international

mechanism which already exist.

The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

The role of ISDR in implementing the HFA will not be stand alone by themselves because it will

be multi cooperation between states, regional and international organizations and with other UN

bodies. They facilitate the coordination on the progress of implementation; ensure that HFA is

promoted for disaster risk reduction at national and community level.

17

Lessons Learnt from Hyogo Framework for Action

HFA is an implementation mechanism supporting by UNISDR to reduce disaster risk. There are

several lessons learnt from the Hyogo Framework for Action:

a) It is a framework that can be implemented from international level to local level. It is not

a standard base of operation but a guideline for risk reduction which involves many

stakeholders. It is also an effort to promote disaster risk reduction into government

agenda setting become a national policy. HFA helps national level on developing their

national plan/strategy for disaster risk reduction. For instance, Indonesia already

developed their national action plan for disaster reduction on the period of 2006-201014

.

b) The HFA 2005-2015 provided the basis for intense advocacy for disaster risk reduction

funding and the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in development planning.

Through this situation, it will open the opportunity to worldwide organizations include

UN bodies to work collaboratively with government (agencies) or even with

communities.

c) The HFA is not a body/organization body but a framework under a network (ISDR)

which shows that intergovernmental and other organizations can cooperate and

coordinate each other even without under a frame of organization. It shows us the

importance of getting together to collect interest among each other to fight against

disaster risks. Each actor has their each role and they are not standing alone party to the

others. There are matching interests of each actor to reduce disaster risk. In other words,

HFA is a political commitment of nation states together with regional/international

organizations to reduce disaster risks.

d) It shows that nation state as an individual will not able to cope with disaster risk

reduction even they have the primary responsibility for taking disaster risk, because it is

the issue about cooperation, coordination, funding, assistance, and policy development.

Nation state needs resources which others have.

5. Governing without Government

14

The establishment of National Action Plan for Disaster Reduction was issued by Office of Minister of State for

National Development Planning and National Coordination Agency for Disaster Management.

18

Global disaster networks those mentioned above are governing system on disaster management

without government entity. They have the function of governance. As Rosenau distinguish

between government and governance, that government refers to activities that are backed by

formal authority, while governance refers to activities backed by shared goals (Rhodes, 1996).

As I already stated above, global disaster networks established because there were shared goals.

Individual and organizations sit together to help developing countries to access data and

information for disaster management, they sit together to develop a global standard activity norm

for humanitarian action, they sit together to define framework how to reduce disaster risks, and

so on. To some extend the role of central government is no longer supreme. Governance is a

more encompassing phenomenon because it embraces not only governmental organizational but

also informal, non-governmental organization mechanisms. So it means that there is governance

without government mechanism because there is regulatory mechanisms in a sphere of activity

which function effectively even without formal authority. Indeed, there is a limit to govern by

central actor, claiming there is no longer a single sovereign authority. Even there are blurred

boundaries, but still, the role of nation state on disaster management on their relation with

networks is still important as like shown in Hyogo Framework for Action above.

Networks are interorganizational linkages which are involved on delivering services and the term

of networks are to describe the interdependent actors involved in delivering services (Rhodes,

1996). Networks are self-organizing governance without an authority of government. More on

his paper, Rhodes explained that the capacity of government is limited for a number of reasons

such as: lack of legitimacy, complexity of policy processes, complexity and multitude of

institutions concerned, etc. These are actually some reasons why the networks establish.

Government has no more power to solve multitude problems and processes by itself, but then

networks are the line partner of government in many issues area, especially on disaster

management. The networks are not controlled by any single actor or even governments. They are

an autonomous governance system which has a large area of flexibility which already mentioned

as the character of networks. Networks with their governance system are wider than government

and they are covering non-state actors as well. They are interdependence between organization

which cause the changing of boundaries between public, private, and voluntary sector.

19

From overall analysis I already provided above, in term of to support global disaster

management, the existence of global network is very important to be considered and developed

time by time. In what area of function they have will be, in what activity they involve will be,

humanitarian assistance is still a fundamental principle which should be enjoyed by all citizens

of all countries.

6. Conclusion

Global networks are a frame of institutional architecture for global governance. Global networks

are alternative action to finding solutions where traditional government have not or cannot

deliver effective results or even do anything to solve problems. They facilitate international

policy processes in a complex problems and situations. The emergence of global disaster

networks because disaster doesn’t recognize a single sovereignty where it should be occurred.

Disaster cannot choose where it should be happened. It happens many times across boundaries.

But the other hand, central government is lack of power/resource in term of emergency response,

rehabilitation-reconstruction, mitigation, preparedness, etc. Central government needs assistance

not only for funding, but perhaps capital like knowledge and other resources. The both

explanation seem the reason the establishment of global disaster networks.

They have their own governance as a tool to execute their functions, even though may be they

will have more than one function. But they are a space for people and organizations to come

together for problem solving by establishing a level playing field for actions. Networks are

governance system without government authority without reduce or ignore the role of nation

states. In networks, central governments still a main actor for instance for fund support,

knowledge, information and resource support, and so on.

The last but not least, rather than suffering from disaster without any help from others or do not

know what to do because of lack many things, to consider and support the development of global

disaster networks is a potential action to promote a better humanitarian assistance in all over the

world.

20

References

Benner, Thorsten, Wolfgang H. Reinicke, Jan Martin Witte. 2002. Shaping Globalization: The

Role of Global Public Policy Networks. Global Public Policy Institute.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2002. World Disaster Report:

Focus on Reducing Risk. Geneva: IFRC.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2007. Citizen Participation in Budgeting: Prospects for the Developing

Countries. Washington: World Bank.

Rhodes, R.A. 1996. The New Governance: Governing without Government. University of

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Streck, Charlotte. 2002. Global Public Policy Networks as Coalitions for Change. Yale School

of Forestry and Environment Studies. Available from

http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/o-u/streck.pdf.

UNWTO, UNEP, WMO. 2008. Climate Change and Tourism Responding to the Global

Challenge, Summary. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

UNISDR. 2007. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

and Communities to Disasters. Geneva: UNISDR.

21

Witte, Jan Martin, Wolfgang H. Reinicke, Thorsten Benner. 2000. Beyond Multilateralism:

Global Public Policy Networks. Available from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-

2000-2/artwitte-reinicke-benner.pdf.

Vos, Femke, Jose Rodriguez, Regina Below, D. Guha, Sapir. 2010. Annual Disaster Statistical

Review 2009. Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.