Transcript Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction

www.unisdr.org
Mid-Term Review of the
Hyogo Framework for Action
1
www.unisdr.org
Disaster Risk Reduction Reviews
• 1989: IDNDR 1990-1999 – 1994: Yokohama Strategy and
Plan of Action – Mid-review IDNDR, first blueprint for
disaster reduction policy guidance (social & community
orientation)
• 2000: UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR)
• 2001-2002: First global review of DRR initiatives- Living
with Risk (Input for WSSD and Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation, Outline for DRR Framework and
indicators)
• 2004: Revised Global review- Living with Risk, with
Framework for DRR- basis for 2005: WCDR - Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015 “Building the
Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters”2
www.unisdr.org
Disaster Risk Reduction Reviews
• 2007, 2009: 1st and 2nd sessions of the Global Platform
for Disaster Risk Reduction – Global reviews and
surveys. 2009 HFA Monitor and GAR. Monitor the
progress of the HFA implementation, risk updates
• UNGA 2008: Request Mid-Term Review of HFA.
GP2009 discussed MTR
• 2007: UN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeBali Plan of action (COP-13) – Recognizes HFA and
disaster risk reduction as means for climate change
adaptation. 2009- COP-15: Reconfirmed in Copenhagen
3
www.unisdr.org
Hyogo Framework for Action Mid-Term Review
Methodological context
• 09 Global Platform recommended a broad strategic review
of HFA as an instrument using qualitative analysis
• Review not an Evaluation: ten years is too short a timespan for such a complex agenda. Five years opportunity to
look at broad trends, too early to quantify progress
(especially in the absence of a baseline)
• UN ISDR used a participatory process (workshops, on-line
debates, interviews) combined with analytical tools (indepth studies, literature review) complemented by
information provided by governments through the HFA
monitor reporting mechanism Strong focus on regional
level and participatory approach
4
Timeline Focus of the Review
2005 – 2010
2010 – 2015 and beyond
www.unisdr.org
• Retrospective
• Prospective
5
www.unisdr.org
General Findings about the first five years of
HFA implementation
• Significant progress that has been achieved
in disaster risk reduction since 2005
• The Hyogo Framework for Action played
decisive role in promoting this progress
across international, regional, and national
agendas.
• Progress is uneven across the world,
reflecting broad economic and institutional
differences among regions and countries.
6
The HFA has been most useful in:
www.unisdr.org
• Generating international and national
momentum for disaster risk reduction;
• Providing a common language;
• Guiding national legislation and policy in
disaster risk reduction.
7
www.unisdr.org
Some positive developments at the
national level
• Governments’ reporting on HFA implementation
has improved in quantity and quality showing
increased commitment to, and interest in,
achieving HFA objectives.
• Several countries enacted national disaster risk
management legislation, modeled on the HFA
structure and/or broad principles.
• Increase in number of National Platforms
indicates action in DRR in accordance with main
HFA principle: multi-stakeholder approach.
• Number of HFA Focal Points increased
significantly
8
www.unisdr.org
Positive developments at Regional
Level
• Establishment of regional and subregional platforms
• Political commitment: definition and
adoption of political statements at
Ministerial or Head of State Level on
disaster risk reduction
• Exponential increase in collaborative
efforts and joint initiatives at regional
level
9
Positive Developments at International
Level
www.unisdr.org
• Growing political momentum: UN GA Thematic Debate;
Outcome Statement from MDG Review Summit.
• Secretary-General established SRSG for DRR
• Improved tools to support HFA implementation:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Global Platform;
Global Assessment Report;
PreventionWeb;
GFDRR at the World Bank;
Global Network of NGOs;
Views from the Frontline Report
UNISDR Science and Technical Committee
International Awareness Campaigns (safe schools and
hospitals, city resilience)
10
www.unisdr.org
Areas requiring further attention
National Level
• HFA implementation must take place in
a holistic and strategic way – risk of
compartmentalizing HFA
implementation by Priorities for Action
• Implementation of cross-cutting issues
• Cost-benefit analysis
11
www.unisdr.org
Areas requiring further attention
Local Level
• Decentralization of DRR action must
improve.
• Need to develop multi-stakeholder
consultative mechanisms at the local
level, involving communities.
• There needs to be a level of credibility
and trust between local administrators
and the public
12
www.unisdr.org
Integrating Climate Change Adaptation
• Broad agreement on need to harmonize and
integrate frameworks and policies for effective
poverty reduction and sustainable development
• Need to translate agreement into functional links in
policy and practice at national and local level.
• Integrated risk assessments should be routinely
conducted by governments as solid basis for
national planning.
• Calls for a common resilience framework
• Important progress is taking place at international
and regional level
13
www.unisdr.org
Suggestions for accelerating HFA
implementation
• Enabling and safeguarding development gains. DRR
is primarily a development issue, need for
comprehensive institutional re-assessment.
• Governance for disaster risk reduction should improve
at international, national and local level
• Accountability for disaster risk reduction
• Targets – for whom? Time for an open and concrete
consultative debate
• Defining the “how”. Need for common standards,
guidance tools
14
www.unisdr.org
How can the international community
help
• A common action plan for a more integrated and
coherent approach on behalf of bilateral,
multilateral aid organizations, the UN and NGOs
• Support governments improve local level
implementation of the HFA
• Review funding mechanisms to ensure improved
efficiencies
• Support national level mechanisms for
substantive integration of development, CCA,
environmental, humanitarian and DRR action
• Support the development of common tools and
standards.
15
www.unisdr.org
Looking beyond 2015
• Any new instrument/framework must ensure
solid and structural links with climate change
and sustainable development agreements
• Legally binding or not? The discussion is just
beginning
• Wide call for ensuring broad consultative
process to define a post-HFA framework.
• Important to make explicit the consensus on
the underlying principles and values for DRR
16
www.unisdr.org
The process leading up to the
Global Platform
• Tell us what you think about the outcomes of
the Mid-Term Review and where we should
prioritize action
• Regional meetings to hear feedback and
views on priorities will then be compiled and
presented to the Global Platform
• Global Platform will define the most important
areas for follow-up action from the Mid-Term
Review
17
Please visit the Mid-Term Review dedicated
space on PreventionWeb
www.preventionweb.net/go/hfa-mtr
www.unisdr.org
Many thanks for your attention
18
www.unisdr.org
GAR11 Launch Schedule
• May 20, 21 – New Zealand, Australia
• May 23 – Bangkok (Asia regional
launch)
• May 25 - Japan
• July – Cambodia, Indonesia,
Philippines
• July – Sri Lanka, Nepal,
19