Mid-Term Review of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Transcription

1 Mid-Term Review of the Hyogo Framework for Action Letizia Rossano Senior Coordinator for the Mid-Term Review of the Hyogo Framework for Action UNISDR 1

2 Disaster Risk Reduction Reviews 1989: IDNDR : 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) : 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 Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters 2007, 2009: 1 st and 2 nd sessions of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction Global reviews and surveys 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 climate 2 change adaptation COP-15: Reconfirmed in Copenhagen

3 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) 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

4 Timeline Focus of the Review Retrospective Prospective and beyond 4

5 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. 5

6 The HFA has been most useful in: Generating international and national momentum for disaster risk reduction; Providing a common language; Guiding national legislation and policy in disaster risk reduction. 6

7 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: multistakeholder approach. Number of HFA Focal Points increased significantly 7

8 Positive developments at Regional Level Establishment of regional and sub-regional 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 8

9 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

10 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 10

11 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 11

12 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 12

13 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

14 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

15 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

16 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 16

17 Please visit the Mid-Term Review dedicated space on PreventionWeb Many thanks for your attention 17

18 18

19 List of main workshops related the HFA Mid-Term Review Paris, March 2010 Bangkok, March 2010 Cairo, March 2010 Fiji, April 2010 Colombia, April 2010 Nairobi, April 2010 New Delhi, May 2010 Geneva, June 2010 Tokyo, August 2010 Washington, 3 Nov 2010 Support Group to the Chair of the European National Platform ISDR Asia Partnership (IAP) HFA Workshop for National Reports Progress Review Cycle of the Pacific DRM Framework for Action (RFA) and the HFA Meeting on Environment/Disaster Reduction in Santa Marta The Second ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Africa Workshop for HFA Mid-Term Review targeting South Asia Workshop for HFA Mid-Term Review Workshop on HFA Mid-Term Review within ASEAN Plus 3 Forum Workshop on HFA Mid-Term Review for the Northern America Region (US, Canada and Mexico) 19