Transcript Slide 1

www.unisdr.org
Mid-Term Review of the
Hyogo Framework for Action
1
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)
www.unisdr.org
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”
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 Change- Bali Plan of action
(COP-13) – Recognizes HFA and disaster risk reduction as means for climate2
change adaptation. 2009- COP-15: Reconfirmed in Copenhagen
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 time-span 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)
www.unisdr.org
• UN ISDR used a participatory process (workshops, on-line debates,
interviews) combined with analytical tools (in-depth studies, literature review)
complemented by information provided by governments through the HFA
monitor reporting mechanism
• Strong focus on regional level and participatory approach
3
Timeline Focus of the Review
2005 – 2010
• Prospective
2010 – 2015 and beyond
www.unisdr.org
• Retrospective
4
General Findings about the first five years of
HFA implementation
• Significant progress that has been achieved in
disaster risk reduction since 2005
www.unisdr.org
• 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.
5
The HFA has been most useful in:
• Generating international and national
momentum for disaster risk reduction;
www.unisdr.org
•
Providing a common language;
• Guiding national legislation and policy in
disaster risk reduction.
6
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.
www.unisdr.org
• 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: multistakeholder approach.
• Number of HFA Focal Points increased significantly
7
Positive developments at Regional
Level
• Establishment of regional and sub-regional
platforms
www.unisdr.org
• 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
8
www.unisdr.org
Positive Developments at International
Level
•
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)
9
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
www.unisdr.org
• Cost-benefit analysis
10
Areas requiring further attention
Local Level
• Decentralization of DRR action must improve.
www.unisdr.org
• 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
11
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.
www.unisdr.org
• 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
12
www.unisdr.org
Suggestions for accelerating HFA
implementation
• Enabling and safeguarding development gains.
DRR is primarely 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
13
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.
14
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
15
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
www.unisdr.org
• 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
16
Please visit the Mid-Term Review dedicated
space on PreventionWeb
www.preventionweb.net/go/hfa-mtr
www.unisdr.org
Many thanks for your attention
17
18
www.unisdr.org
www.unisdr.org
List of main workshops related the HFA Mid-Term Review
Paris, March 2010
Support Group to the Chair of the European National Platform
Bangkok, March 2010
ISDR Asia Partnership (IAP)
Cairo, March 2010
HFA Workshop for National Reports
Fiji, April 2010
Progress Review Cycle of the Pacific DRM Framework for Action
(RFA) and the HFA
Colombia, April 2010
Meeting on Environment/Disaster Reduction in Santa Marta
Nairobi, April 2010
The Second ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in
Africa
New Delhi, May 2010
Workshop for HFA Mid-Term Review targeting South Asia
Geneva, June 2010
Workshop for HFA Mid-Term Review
Tokyo, August 2010
Workshop on HFA Mid-Term Review within ASEAN Plus 3 Forum
Washington, 3 Nov 2010
Workshop on HFA Mid-Term Review for the Northern America
Region (US, Canada and Mexico)
19