Management and Advocacy, Kobe, (b) Training and Capacity Building, Turin, and (c)Enhancing Recovery Operations, Geneva.
As described in the Terms of Reference, the IRP Kobe functions as the IRP secretariat and is
responsible for convening IRP steering committee meetings and disseminating information onIRP activities and outcomes.
* IRP members: Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), Hyogo Prefectural Government,International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC),
International Labour Organization (ILO), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy,
Cabinet Office of Japan, Swiss Agency for Development and Coordination (SDC),
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), United Nations Human Settlements Programme(UN-HABITAT), United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), United Nations Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs (UN/OCHA), and the World Bank.

6-3. IRP Activities in FY 2009
6-3-1. International Recovery Forum 2010
On occasion of the 15th year commemoration of the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake, IRP
organized the International Recovery Forum 2010, “From Resilient Recovery to SustainableDevelopment”, to revisit the progress of linking recovery
operations with long-term community development. Thepresentations and discussions focused on the issue ofrecovery and sustainable development.

[Opening]
In the opening session, the Chair of the IRP Steering

International Recovery Forum 2010

Committee, Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha of the World Bank and the Governor of Hyogo Prefecture Mr.
Toshizo Ido emphasized importance of putting in place mechanisms for recovery andreconstruction as well as translating lessons on recovery into policies, tools, guidance, andprograms. The recent earthquake that hit Haiti on 12th January was mentioned as a strong
reminder of the need to learn from past lessons and experiences. In that context, the “buildingback better” approach and fostering international cooperation and partnership have been
advocated as highly significant tasks for national governments and stakeholders.
[Recovery Status Reports]
The recovery status reports and video presentations shown at the Forum highlighted several
challenges and lessons that are likely encountered at three different phases of recovery process.

78

6. The International Recovery Platform (IRP): History and Current Activities
As shown in the Special Report on L’Aquila Earthquakeof 2009 in Italy and the Current Recovery Status Reportfrom Sichuan Earthquake of 2008 in China, challenges inthe early phase of recovery process often include
reconstruction of buildings such as houses, cultural
heritage structures, and public service institutions.

Mr. Guido Bertolaso, Head of Civil
Protection, Italy

The recovery status report from Yogyakarta Earthquake of 2006 in Indonesia showed casesof challenges and lessons in the mid-term phase of the recovery process. While there was achallenge of effectively managing recovery operations, the role played by universities infacilitating community-based approaches has greatly contributed to better recovery.
The report of Bam Earthquake of 2003 in Iran showed that livelihood and governance areamong the common underlying issues in the long-term phase of recovery process. Some ofthese issues were addressed through the reconstruction policies. Strong collaboration between
government and people created synergies that facilitated long-term recovery.
Together with recovery lessons from the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995, which
has entered into the sustainable recovery phase, the discussions point to the need to synthesize
the lessons and challenges from different phases of recovery to attain a holistic perspective ofrecovery. Lessons from each recovery phase are deemed invaluable to inform the developmentof “Guidelines for Recovery” that IRP has been initiating and will be used by national
governments to ensure a “build back better” approach.

[Panel Discussion]
During the panel discussion, the representatives from ADRC, the Government of Pakistan,and IFRC provided substantive insights into the recovery processes from different perspectives.
The following conclusions came from the discussion:
Firstly, access to basic needs has to be integrated and addressed in the recovery process.
Secondly, lessons from disaster recovery can be utilized in other contexts, such as the case ofInternally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Pakistan. Thirdly, there are issues and gaps in funding,knowledge, and organizational coordination in recovery operations. These issues constituteboth a challenge as well as opportunities for better recovery.

[Conclusion]
On the basis of these insights, the following key messages emerged IRP Secretariat shall synthesize lessons from different phases of recovery processes to gain
better understanding on how to attain holistic and sustainable recovery. IRP shall further
strengthen the dissemination of lessons and good practices as well as capacity building forbetter recovery.
National governments should document recovery operations, identify what processes worked
and did not work, and determine the conditions that facilitate the recovery process to work.
These documentations shall be shared with other governments as well as among stakeholders,through IRP and other platforms.

79

IRP Community of Practice shall continue bridging the link between recovery processes andsustainable development. This includes consideration of access to housing and livelihood tomeet basic needs.
These recommendations from participants of the Forum are expected to enhance thepartnership and ownership of the IRP, encouraging more active involvement of developing
countries and other partners in recovery. At the same time, IRP is expected to become more
responsive to the needs of the national governments, by offering more services throughknowledge sharing for build back better.

6-3-2. IRP special event in The Second Session of the Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
The Second Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Geneva,
Switzerland on 15-19 June 2009.
The IRP special event, whose theme was “Integrating Social, Economic, and Environmental
Concerns in Post-Disaster Recovery,” took place on 17 June. More than 70 delegates attended
the event, where they heard discussions of effective mechanisms for more coherent and holistic
approaches to recovery. H.E. Mr. Masayoshi Namiki, Vice Minister for Disaster Management,Cabinet Office of Japan, together with Mr. Alfred Lazarte-Hoyle, Chair of the IRP Steering
Committee, led the opening session. Two special reports on recent disasters were presented. Mr.
Bertolaso, Head of Civil Protection for the Italian government discussed “Recovery Status
Report on the Italian Earthquake of April 2009.” Prof. Kenji Okazaki of the National Graduate
Institute for Policy Studies of Japan discussed “Current Knowledge and Practices for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery.” After these special reports, a technical forum on Post-Disaster Needs
Assessment (PDNA) was held. The forum featured presentations on the concept and practicalaspects of PDNA. To highlight environmentally sound recovery, Dr. Nizar Mohamed, UNEP
Consultant, presented “Environmental Perspective in Recovery: Experience from Cyclone
Nargis.” Mr. Alfredo Lazarte-Hoyle presented “Recommendations from the InternationalRecovery Forum 2009” whose theme was “building back better and greener.” Mr. Praveen
Pardeshi of UN/ISDR, who facilitated this special event, presented two major points during hiswrap up.
First, he identified the need to make recovery tools more adaptive, thereby suggesting that
PDNA has to integrate other important elements to make it more holistic. Second, he identified
the need to utilize and improve existing mechanisms to address some of the known gaps. For
example, stakeholders can access standby funds (e.g. GFDRR of the World Bank) to support
recovery processes and initiatives whose goal is to link recovery tools to disaster risk reductionefforts. The event was formally closed by Mr. Naoto Tajiri, Director of the Cabinet Office ofJapan and Vice-Chairman of the IRP Steering Committee.

6-3-3. IRP Regional Workshop in Yogyakarta
IRP, ADRC, and the Department of Architecture and Planning of Gadjah Mada University80

6. The International Recovery Platform (IRP): History and Current Activities(DAP/UGM) organized the IRP Regional Workshop “Action by Stakeholders for Effective
Management of Post-Disaster Recovery” from 3-5 November 2009 at Gadjah Mada Universityin Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
The Workshop was aimed at disseminating recovery lessons drawn from the Yogyakarta 2006
earthquake to help enhance recovery operations across Southeast Asia. Around 200 participants
comprising policymakers, practitioners, and academics from ASEAN region and Japan attended
the workshop. The workshop facilitated the identification of constraints and gaps in recovery
operations and explored specific measures to address them in a more collaborative approach.

[Day 1]
The first day of the workshop was held on
4thNovember.

Technicalpresentations

concerning disaster reduction and recoverywere presented by Dr. German Velasquez(UNISDR) and Mr. Ahmad Zaki Fahmi (WB).
The session was followed by Ms. Adelina
Kamal, who presented the vision of theASEAN

Post-Disaster

Recovery.

Theafternoon

sessions

highlighted

thecollaborative

study

Secretariat,

ADRC,

conductedandbyGadjah

IRP

IRP Regional Workshop in Yogyakarta

Mada

University. In the succeeding session, country presentations from the Philippines, Thailand, andVietnam provided the opportunity to compare recovery lessons and experiences.

[Day 2]On the second day of the workshop, parallel thematic sessions on shelter, livelihood,environment, governance, and gender were held. In the presentation of thematic outputs, theactions for “Effective Management of Post-Disaster Recovery” were suggested. A panel
discussion dealing with the gaps in recovery operations in ASEAN countries took place in theafternoon. It was chaired by Dr. Iwan Gunawan (WB) with all thematic session chairs acting aspanelists.

[Conclusion]
The Workshop concluded with a clear and simple message. Recovery phase may offer an
opportunity to further reduce risk and make communities more resilient to future disasters if
necessary measures are incorporated into post-recovery operations. In Southeast Asia, solutionsexist. The challenge is to put these solutions into action through collaborative working.

6-3-4. Developing Guidance Notes on Recovery
IRP is developing Guidance Notes on a variety of areas of Recovery, to be used by national
governments to ensure building back better. There is a gap in knowledge on recovery. There isan abundance of documents, plans and policies addressing the preparedness phase of disasters.
However, no significant systematic post disasters study has been undertaken with a focus on81the long-term, sustainable community recovery and rebuilding needs of the thematic areas suchas shelter, environment, livelihoods and so forth. Deficiency in material available on recovery
is felt. Guidelines currently available focus on mitigation and DRR. Guidance notes focused on
recovery are not available. While it is conceded that preventive measures are vital, in the expost situation availability of knowledge products reflecting best practices and lessons learned is
critical for effective and sustainable recovery. Such knowledge products are currently
unavailable.
IRP is developing the sector specific recovery tools and guidance notes, drawing upon
substantial experience of IRP partners and the recovery community. The guidance notes have anemphasis on lessons learned and good practices from global recovery operations. The
development of guidance notes will be for the following sectors:
・ Shelter ・ Livelihood ・ Environment ・ Gender ・ Public infrastructure
・ Governance ・ Health ・ Psycho-social aspects ・ Climate Change Adaptation82