Thanks for your comments here….just to clarify a few points:
1. Overall the diagrams work pretty well because they’ve been quite participatory. Students from DRM and PPM workshops have made comments over the years, and we’ve duly taken note of these suggestions
2. The DRR diagrams both indicate that without DRR initiatives beforehand, then the impact/likelihood of any disaster will be correspondingly higher (than would have been the case if these DRR initiatives were in place). Also the recovery process for non-DRR situations will be more long and drawn out than those where corresponding disasters hit places where there were good DRR initiatives in place. The diagrams don’t necessarily mean that the recovery process for fast-impact disasters are more drawn out than for slow-onset disasters however….
3. In the Pacific region there is good cooperation between the various islands. The Emergency Management framework for all of these was introduced by Australia/NZ, so they should be working off the same framework. National governments are also supported by a strong Pacific Humanitarian Team (PHT) based out of Fiji.
4. There is also some good coordination across Asia. In the UNOCHA document ‘Disaster Response in Asia and the Pacific – A guide to international tools and services’ – see DRM/PPM bibliography, you will note there are some binding regulatory agreements between ASEAN and SAARC countries, namely AADMER and NDRRM respectively.
5. In practice of course, when there is a major disaster in either the Pacific or Asia, things sometimes work less than perfectly…!!