Transcript Managing risk to achieve resilience

Managing Risk to Achieve
Resilience – Evolution for Post
2015 Framework for DRR
(HFA2)
Saber Chowdhury
2nd Meeting of the Asian Advisory Group of
Parliamentarians for DRR
5-6th Feburary 2014, Vientiane, Lao PDR
Outline
1. Learning from HFA for a new approach to risk
management in post-2015 framework for DRR
2. The evolution
3. Proposed elements of post-2015 framework for
DRR
4. WCDRR Outcomes
1. Learning from HFA

Both development and disaster risk reduction have not been
sustainable and effective
•
Downward trend in mortality risk due to enhanced capacities in early warning,
preparedness and response BUT
•
Increase in hazard exposure, related economic loss and damage due to private
and public investments related to economic growth –increased losses from
intensive risk
•
Poor management of urban development, environmental degradation, poverty
and inequality, weak governance leading to increasing losses from extensive
risk.

Critical need for addressing drivers of risk to halt increase of
climate‐related and other physical and economic losses

Sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without
managing disaster risk
Learning from HFA (cont’d)

Critical need to shift from shielding social and economic
development from disasters to one of transforming development to
manage risks, strengthen resilience
• Insensitive investments to disaster and climate risk (both pubic and
private) will critically influence future levels of risk
• With private investments comprising 70-85% of total investments,
HFA 2 to explicitly include public policies that facilitate risk sensitive
private investment (business, households and communities)
2. Required evolution

Policy and action must go beyond reduction of existing risk and
prioritize prevention of new risk accumulation.

Risk management to be part of sustainable development policies
and practices to tackle existing challenges and seize potential
opportunities.

Strong international and local commitment for necessary changes to
current development practices, processes and patterns.

Opportunities exist to synchronize with the post‐2015 sustainable
development agenda and goals and climate change framework

Success in sustainable development is impossible if risk
management addressed in an incoherent and incompatible manner
by each of the three instruments (SDG, CC, HFA2)
Required evolution (cont’d)

HFA1 learning /evidence can guide risk management practices in
development planning and investment

HFA2 to be a guiding tool for supporting the successful
implementation of the future sustainable development goals and
the climate change agreement

HFA2 cannot be considered as a stand‐alone, technical and sector
specific agreement.
• Provisions need to be made to secure an interlinked and mutually
supportive implementation and monitor that encourages holistic
review, assessing coherence and convergence in implementation
• HFA2 Monitor through the same process and UN governance
bodies : post‐2015 development agenda and goals; climate change
mitigation and adaptation monitoring arrangement
3. PROPOSED ELEMENTS OF POST-2015
FRAMEWORK FOR DRR
- Guidance from consultations
- Principles
- Goals and Strategic Priorities
- Enhanced Monitoring System
Guidance from consultations

Build on the HFA, be practical, action oriented, strengthen
accountability, capable of addressing future natural and
technological risk scenarios, far reaching.

Build on the principles enshrined in the preceding frameworks:
• Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World - International Framework of Action for
IDNDR
• The International Strategy on Disaster Reduction (ISDR) “A Safer World in the
21st Century: Disaster and Risk Reduction”
 Key question:
What is it that is currently missing or unclear, which, if agreed
upon by the specific means of an global non legally binding
framework, would enable more effective risk management?
Guiding principles
1. The sustainability of development and resilience of people, nations and the
environment depend on sound risk management, which needs to guide
private and public planning and investments. It goes beyond the reduction
of existing risk and includes the prevention of new risk accumulation.
2. Natural and technological hazards are within the scope of the post‐2015
framework for disaster risk reduction.
3. Prevention and reduction of disaster risk ‐ are an international legal
obligation and constitute a safeguard for the enjoyment of human rights.
4. The increasingly trans‐boundary and global characteristics of risk drivers
require further cooperative efforts in their assessment and management.
5. The availability of open source and open access science‐based risk
information and knowledge is instrumental to cost‐benefit analysis,
transparent transactions, accountability, and the development of
partnerships across public, private and other stakeholders.
Outcome and Strategic goals
• Outcome: Secure, healthy, wealthy and resilient nations and
communities
• Three complementary strategic goals:
1. Risk prevention and the pursuit of development pathways
that minimise disaster risk generation;
2. Risk reduction, i.e. actions to address existing
accumulations of disaster risk;
3. Strengthened resilience, i.e. actions that enable nations
and communities to absorb loss and damage, minimise
impacts and bounce forward.
Priority areas
• Critical public policies that address disaster risk:
1. Prospective and anticipatory risk management (risk
prevention),
2. Corrective risk management (risk reduction)
3. Actions to strengthen resilience.
• Refocusing of the HFA Priority Areas on public policy to
sharpen the instrument, define responsibilities, strengthen
accountability and facilitate monitoring.
Governance
• Expected outcome and strategic goals, public policies on
risk management to be underpinned by appropriate
governance frameworks that incorporate actions by
national and local governments, by civil society, the private
sector, the science and academic sector and others.
Possible name of the new framework:
“HFA[2][Plus] – Managing Risk to Achieve Resilience.”
Enhanced Monitoring System
 The success of the policies will determine the level of disaster loss
and damage a country faces and the longer term impacts on the
economy, the environment and social welfare.
 Measure how public policy in disaster risk management is
addressing:
 Underlying risk drivers to prevent risk creation (prospective risk
management),
 Reducing existing levels of risk (corrective risk management)
 Strengthening resilience (the capacity to absorb loss and bounce
forward) when disasters occur
 Five (05) families of indicators to measure
5 Families of indicators
1. Measure disaster loss and damage metrics, expressed in both
absolute and relative (to population, GDP etc) terms.
Include both human loss (mortality, people injured or affected); physical
damage (houses and local infrastructure damaged and destroyed) and
economic loss (replacement costs of damaged and destroyed assets).
2. Countries’ risk profile, including both intensive and extensive risk
•
•
Built on metrics such as Annual Average
Loss (AAL) and Probable Maximum Loss (PML)
3. Measure the resilience of a country’s economy to probable losses.
Indicators that compare risk to the size of a country’s economy, its capital stock,
investment and savings levels, trade flows, insurance penetration, the fiscal health of
government, the degree of social protection and other metrics.
5 Families of indicators (2)
4. Measure how a country is managing its underlying risk drivers, also
providing links from disaster risk management to the SDGs and to the
climate change convention.
Indicators in categories including: economic and fiscal structure; poverty and
social vulnerability; environmental and ecosystem services degradation and
climate change; urbanization; coping capacity.
5. Measure how a country is adopting effective public policies in favour
of prospective and anticipatory risk management, corrective risk
management and the strengthening of resilience by both the public
and private sectors.
Indicators to measure the effectiveness of the governance and arrangements
for information and knowledge generation and management that need to
underpin public policy in disaster risk management.
Data for monitoring
 First indicator family: derived from national disaster loss
databases
 Second family: from the results of global risk assessments
 Third and fourth families: from internationally available and
comparable statistics and databases
 Fifth family : generated by governments, using a modified
and enhanced HFA Monitor
New monitoring system should make explicit link with the SDG
and new CC arrangement with compatible indicators to
enable monitoring progress across all three frameworks
concurrently
Review process
• Through the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) of UNGASDG and CC review process
• HLFP as a critical instrument which could serve the review
of HFA2
• To ensure a synchronised and harmonised review process
and deliberations, cross‐fertilisation with learning from the
implementation of the 3 post-2015 frameworks
4. WCDRR OUTCOMES
- Post-2015 Framework for DRR
- Voluntary commitments
- Political Declaration
Voluntary stakeholder commitments
• HFA has been enriched by voluntary commitments, plans, actions,
and monitoring tools by key stakeholders such as theprivate sector’s
“Five Essentials for Business in DRR, and the local governments’
“ten essentials” and “self assessment tool” to make cities resilient
• Voluntary commitments will be formulated through the Regional
Platforms and integrated into WCDRR outcome and Political
Declaration as powerful drive for the implementation of the
post‐2015 framework for DRR
• To be practical and actionable, voluntary commitments should
provide targets, indicators and means of verification and commit to
periodic self‐assessment of progress.
• The voluntary commitments could be compiled by country, region
and sector to facilitate visualisation and monitoring.
Political Declaration
 Political Declaration to be built on the deliberations of the Regional
Platforms, in order to ensure harmony between global and regional
levels and specificities.
 Proposed substantive elements for consideration in the political
declaration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Changing nature of risk, need to focus on risk drivers, address exposure
together with vulnerability
Recognition of the redefinition of HFA elements as a necessary innovation to
effectively manage risk for resilience
Defining the post‐2015 framework for disaster risk reduction as: “HFA [2] or
HFA [Plus] as an evolution of HFA, that builds on the past frameworks
Welcome the updating of the HFA Monitor into an enhanced Monitor, with
new core system of targets, indicators and means of verification.
Welcome and appreciate the significance of the stakeholders “commitments”,
as an essential sign of leadership, cooperation and concrete action to
articulate and implement the post‐2015 framework for DRR.
Political Declaration (2)
6. Stress on enhancing accountability at local, national and international levels,
and welcome international law concerning the “Protection of persons in the
event of disasters” by the UN International Law Commission.
7. Call for an integrated implementation of the post‐2015 framework for DRR and
the post‐2015 development agenda/goals and climate change agreement.
8. Request periodic review by the HLPF through the periodic meetings under the
auspices of the UN General Assembly and the ECOSOC
9. Recognise the significance of regional strategies to manage risk and suggesting
their review in line with HFA2
10. Call on the United Nations system to support countries and stakeholders with
the implementation of HFA2 through the UN Plan of Action on DRR for
Resilience.
11. Call on countries and stakeholders to join forces under the safe schools
initiative launched at the World Conference.