Asian Conference on Disaster Reduction 2018
Chair Summary

Introduction
1. The Asian Conference on Disaster Reduction 2018 commemorates two decades of Asian DisasterReduction Center’s contributions to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). It gathered over 110 delegates(including 25 member countries, 1 advisory country, observers, and partners) in Awaji Island in Hyogo,
Japan, from 30 October to 1 November 2018, to take stock of ADRC’s achievements and strategize
subsequent programs and activities.
2. In line with its mandates, ADRC contributes to DRR through information-sharing, human resource
development, community capability, and regional cooperation. Among its activities, the Cabinet Office ofJapan proposed that ADRC should strengthen: (i) GLIDE, unique ID code for disasters, to support inmonitoring the Sendai Framework and the SDGs; (ii) Visiting Researcher program to improve DRR
capacity; and (iii) Public-Private Partnerships to improve cooperation in utilizing effective technologies
and affordable solutions in addressing DRR issues.
3. Since its establishment in 1998, ADRC membership expanded from 22 to 31 countries with Turkey as thelatest member. In the past 20 years, ADRC convened 14 Asian Conferences on Disaster Reduction (ACDRs),
hosted 108 Visiting Researchers (VRs), and co-implemented the Sentinel Asia project. While highlighting
these achievements, the Chairman of ADRC pointed that disasters triggered by earthquakes, tsunamis,storms, and floods continued to increase (in frequency and intensity) from 1946 to 2015. Most of thesewere in Asia.
4. As emphasized in the keynote speech, the ‘uncertainty’ associated with global warming requires newparadigm for DRR. In the case of Japan, a new methodology or paradigm has been adopted for flood
control due to the emerging types of rainfall (i.e., line-shaped rainfall and guerilla rainfall). In this context,
the traditional ‘deterministic model’ of predicting inundation from flooding may no longer be appropriate
as observed in three cases of Hokkaido floods in 2015. In these cases, the new ‘probabilistic’ model ofpredicting inundation from flood was more useful. This example implies that strategies and programs
should take into account how to prepare against the changing nature of hazards.
5. To help facilitate preparedness, the Special Session for DRR provided member-countries the opportunity
to share their respective challenges and current initiatives. Four common preparedness issues wererevealed, and these are in the areas of: (i) capacity building; (ii) data collection, including the role of private
sector, (iii) mainstreaming DRR in the plans, policies, and programs; and (iv) community-based resilience
efforts, including the role of local governments.

Outcomes
6. Key messages from the sessions, posters, exhibits, and side events were incorporated to highlight theoutcomes of the four thematic issues of the conference.
Session 1: Regional Cooperation Against Cross-Border Disasters
7. The Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 demonstrated the importance of regional coordination against crossborder disasters. Impacted countries in South Asia shared common challenges (e.g., lack of early warning,
policy, and institutional mechanism). The region realized that it would be more effective to cooperate tocope with the impacts and collectively sustain regional growth. In Southeast Asia, in 2018 alone, multiple
disasters were experienced in Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The series ofdisasters is viewed as ‘new normal’ that requires ASEAN region to engage in a more effective cooperation.
In view of these, the conference recognized that sub-regional organizations (e.g., SDMC, AHA Centre, andCESDRR) play an important role for DRR, and can learn from each other’s experiences, such as: Streamlining coordination mechanism. As reported by AHA Centre, ASEAN adopts: one policy
framework (AADMER); one Standard Operating Procedure (SASOP); one response plan (AJDRP); one
policy body (ACDM); one point of contact (NDMOs); one regional coordination agency (AHA Centre);and one field coordination centre (JOCCA).
1

Conducting regional exercises. Azerbaijan reported the conduct of Regional Disaster Emergency
Response Exercise CASPIAN 2017, participated by 5 countries, to simulate disaster response, test theperformance of equipment, and improve capacity for regional cooperation.
Preparing the mechanism for receiving support. Lao PDR, based on 2018 flood experience, reported
that the country received assistance from ASEAN as well as from outside the region that createdcomplexities in coordination.
Enhancing capacity. The Center for Emergency and Disaster Risk Reduction (CESDRR) reported that asa new sub-regional organization, it engages many activities for enhancing capacity. This includes
conducting 40 seminars and trainings from countries of Central Asia and South Caucasus to develop
the international community in DRR and emergency.

8. The conference acknowledged that disasters recognize no boundaries, and there are many benefits ofworking together through regional cooperation. These include: sharing of best practices in case of majordisaster; responding together for search and rescue; and understanding and improving DRR through early
warning, mutual exchange of information, joint education, joint training exercises, and joint assistance incase of disaster.
Session 2: Enhancement of Global Disaster Data
9. The conference acknowledged that disaster data is key to governance. It is useful in understanding risk,planning, and decision-making. Without past data, it is difficult to reduce the amount of future disaster.
In monitoring the Sendai Framework and the SDGs, mortality, affected people, and economic losses areamong the disaster data for reporting. However, most National Disaster Managements Offices (NDMOs)
can hardly obtain these data for lack of power and budget. In addition, NDMOs are faced with technicaland political challenges. In the case of Korea, the Ministry of Interior and Safety found it technicallychallenging to gather disaggregated data (e.g., age, gender, disability, and income). In Mongolia, disasterdata collection and sharing is not yet fully integrated into NEMA for limited of capacity to handle horizontal
and vertical political coordination. In Bangladesh, strategies and policies for use ‘big data’ are in place forapplication in DRR. They have developed model for 25-100 years return period of flood, cyclone andearthquake and climate parameter as well as risk and vulnerability assessment database of 8 (eight) major
hazards for DRR planning. Recognizing these challenges, the conference acknowledged that there areexisting initiatives in the region that can assist NDMOs, including: Global Identifier Number (GLIDE). This is systematic referencing of disaster information, useful for
member countries in collecting and linking disaster data necessary for Sendai Framework monitoring
report.
 Global Center for Disaster Statistics. This center supports the development of disaster statistics tomonitor the progress of the Sendai Framework and SDGs.
10. The conference recommended the following in addressing the challenges of disaster data collection. Firstly,to address the political challenge, the NDMOs can take advantage of the power of the SDG teammonitoring of respective governments since this SDG team comprises the highest level of coordination.
Secondly, to address technical challenge, the UNISDR, UNDG, and UNFCCC should come up with a common
policy for monitoring the Sendai Framework, SDGs, and Paris Agreement. Finally, to address capacity gaps,
all available tools and guidance such as GLIDE, GCDS, and e-learning modules related to disaster data in
the region shall be made accessible to member countries. It is recommended that a soft network ofvoluntary contributions to assist countries to monitor the global targets of the Sendai Framework shall beformed by UNISDR towards the Global Platform on DRR to be held in May 2019.
Session 3: Promotion of Regional Collaboration for Capacity Development for DRR including ADRC
Visiting Research Program
11. Capacity development for DRR, promoted through regional collaboration, strengthens international
cooperation and networking. It also contributes to developing and improving DRR capacities. Theconference highlighted two types of programs that achieved these benefits. One type is the ADRC Visiting
Researcher (VR) program, as this provides opportunity to learn DRR knowledge, technology, andexperiences from Japan and other member countries. The VR from India reported that the country isheading for single National Emergency Number (112) which was also one of his recommendations in the2VR Report. That his State Himachal Pradesh has established 112 network in the Police Department. His
State has been strengthening EOC Network, and working to create a "culture of safety" through various
initiatives such as School Safety, Community awareness and capacity building programs. The VR fromThailand introduced the "Culture of safety" which is the goal of National Disaster Prevention andMitigation Plan 2015; the achievement has been go on throughout the 76 provinces by DRR adaptation
into education sectors. By linkage SDGs goal plus SFDRR into Comprehensive school safety, she has been
initiate first youth camp in Chiangrai province; and go on by using human bond network among active
volunteer networking targets, applying the knowledge she learned from Japan. Additionally, in Armenia,
having sent a total of 8 VRs in past, reported that all of them contributed to developing country’s capacity,
especially in the implementation of National Survey for Seismic Protection (NSSP). The other type refers
to programs delivered by regional partners to facilitate exchange of information on good practices, costeffective approaches, and easy to use technologies as well as lessons on policies, plans, and measures forDRR. Examples of these, include: JICA’s knowledge co-creation program (KCCP). This program, delivered by JICA Kansai, adopts a twoway learning process, where Japan share knowledge and technologies to participating countries andalso learn from them. It showcases effective coordination and utilization DRR resources from keypartners (e.g., ADRC, universities, and other institutions).
 ADRRN’s hub approach. With innovative programs respectively initiated by hubs in Malaysia, India,Japan, Pakistan, Philippines, and Nepal, the ADRRN serves as: (i) intentional mechanism for sharing ofinnovation, (ii) encouraging spontaneous initiatives, (iii) promoting dialogue from different angles ina safe space, (iv) collective partnerships, and (v) networking opportunities.
12. The conference recommended strengthening of Visiting Researcher program by ensuring that researchers
continue to contribute substantive value in their countries’ DRR efforts, monitor the impacts of their works,
and continue networking to update their knowledge and experiences. The conference suggested that
regional training providers to consider exploring various practical ways of delivering training programs(e.g., face-to-face and e-learning) depending on the needs and situation.
Session 4: Space-based Technology and Affordable Solutions Facilitating DRR
13. The conference reaffirmed the contributions of the Sentinel Asia to DRR, where near real-timeobservations from space, delivered online, can be used as early warning or as information to guideresponse and post-disaster recovery planning or operations.
 JAXA, secretariat for the Sentinel Asia, reported that eight space agencies are providing satellite data
to Asian countries for emergency response, mapping, evaluation, and recovery.
 AIT, acting as primary data analysis node (P-DAN) of the Sentinel Asia, reported the relevance of valueadded products (VAPs) for response planning, such that it provides pre and post disaster maps derived
from satellite data.
 Vietnam reported the challenges and benefits of activating Sentinel Asia following Storm Doksuri in
September 2017. It concluded that assessment may not be as quick as needed citing that the products
arrived 2-3 days after the data acquisition and the lack of coordination mechanism for real-timeassessment of disaster impacts. However, the products are useful for damage and loss assessment.
14. The conference also showcased affordable solutions to facilitate DRR.
 NIED, reported on drone technology for DRR. Good practice regarding Earthquake and Tsunami
Hazard & Risk Assessment in Iloilo, Philippines (in collaboration with PHIVOLCS) was shown in thispresentation.
 NIED, introduced outline about NIED and reported gabion which is used to reinforce road against floodas shown in Nepal. It was pointed out that multipurpose and effective utilization of gabion for adaptive
disaster resilience that is Low-tech, Low-cost and local utilization for various gabion structures.
 Kozo Keikaku Engineering Inc, reported “relay-by-smartphone” via Quasi-Zenith Satellite System(QZSS) that enables to send text message in case of disaster GeoThings, reported ICT tools to develop a hazard map for disaster resilience. It is mentioned that ICTtools enable to reflect real time information by residents.

Way Forward315. Prepare to respond to the increasing trend of disasters in Asia. Subsequent strategies and programs ofADRC should take into account ‘uncertainty’ and climate change projections.
16. Further enhance capacities of member countries to take leadership for mainstreaming DRR, preinvestment and holistic approach for residual risks
17. Strengthen key ADRC activities. This includes, Visiting Researcher program, Sentinel Asia project, andPublic-Private Partnership for improving DRR in Asia.

4