Presentation on theme: "Strengthening Risk Governance & Accountability - Key Area 6 Prepared by ADRRN Secretariat."— Presentation transcript:
Strengthening Risk Governance & Accountability - Key Area 6 Prepared by ADRRN Secretariat
Contributions : KEY AREA 6 1 ICIMOD- Disaster Risk Reduction in the Himalayan - Hindukush mountain region 6Received 2 NARBO, Japan Water Agency –IWRM 6Case Study received 3 JANIC, Peace Boat and CWS – on nuclear power plants 6Received 4Duryog Nivaran- Islamabad6In process
KEY AREA 6 : National Consultations 1Afghanistan1,2,3,4Complete 2Japan5,6In process 3Indonesia1,2,3,4,5,6,7Complete 4Pakistan1, 2, 4, 6, 7Final Contribution may arrive after 10 Jan 5Nepal1,2,4,6 Consultations potentially by 7 th January 2014. However Draft report submitted 6Sri Lanka (MFCD)6Report awaited (ADRRN) 7Bangladesh (COAST Trust) 6Underway (ADRRN)
Process : Literature surveyCommunity resilience survey National consultations and inputs from other stakeholders Case study analysis Enabling factors and indicators
Context: From that perspective risk governance needs to be thought of as a development “practice” rather than just as a set of governmental policies, rules and regulations. ( The future of disaster risk management HFA-2) Good local governance, sustainable urban management and development, effective decentralization and good devolution of resources to the local level help to build the resilience of nations and communities (UN system Task Team on the Post – 2015) The setting of targets has both inherent challenges and advantages when it comes to generating stronger accountability and accelerating implementation plans (Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction)
Context (Cont.) : Accountability and governance are essential to project continuity and is especially important to capacity-building. It was recommended that a tool be devised to help connect governance with capacity-building, rendering the latter more transparent and thus easier to monitor, evaluate, and modify. (Post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2): Report from 2013 Global Platform Consultations: October 2013, UNISDR) Stakeholders pointed to the need for a clear authority at the national level to reinforce cooperation, coordination and communication between government ministries and between implementing partners. Indeed the strengthening of national governing bodies to undertake such duties remains a key challenge. (Consultations on a Post 2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2) April 2013, UNISDR)
Context (Cont.): The need for more transparent accountability has been recognized as being important for Governments by the Incheon Action Plan (UNISDR and the Republic of Korea, 2010) and in the Arab Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (Council of Arab Ministers Responsible for the Environment, 2010). Both of these declarations call for improved accountability in DRM at sub national and local levels through the greater involvement of local communities. When there is a lack of transparency about the use of public funds it easily undermines government credibility and leads to questioning priorities, policy decisions and the rationale for identifying beneficiaries or the distribution of material assistance. The Open Budget Survey (IBP, 2010) reconfirms that the overall state of budget transparency in the 94 countries surveyed remains poor (Asia Pacific Disaster Report 2012)
Community Resilience Survey 2013: The second Community Resilience Survey is designed in order to inquire into issues that expedite or impede the progress of global commitments. 1) a community mini survey 2) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and interviews with representatives of local governments and the private sector. Captured information on issues related to DRR, Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Humanitarian Assistance. Gaps revealed will appropriately provide inputs & potentially strengthen political commitments of governments. Conducted in 8 Countries: India,Pakistan,Myanmar, Bangladesh,Afghanistan,Nepal, Japan, Thailand
Are you able to approach local government representatives for the redressal of the problems? In your opinion what are the hurdles preventing integration of Disaster Risk Reduction into Development works? In your opinion what form of partnership will work best for the private sector for it to contribute to Disaster Risk Reduction? Out of 118 Respondents Out of 142 Respondents Out of 720 Respondents
Risk Governance & Accountability: Governance is the umbrella under which disaster risk reduction takes place. Hence, mainstreaming of DRM is a governance process enabling the systematic integration of DRM concerns into all relevant development spheres. Accountability can be understood in terms of ‘answerability’ and ‘enforceability’ of actors in power. It occurs when an individual’s actions come under review, and when that person receives a higher or lower degree of sanction if their performance does not come up to standard. Risk Governance is the way in which national and sub national actors are coordinating their actions to manage and reduce disaster related risks. Strengthening Risk Governance & accountability can help in enhancing the resilience of the vulnerable communities by translating policies and strategies into tangible impact at the local level.
Interrelated Components for Creating an Enabling Environment for Safety & Resilience of the Communities: Economic EnvironmentalSocial Legitimate Standards as measurements against actions Strategies for Participation / Citizen Actions Building Capacities claiming their Rights & holding Government accountable Sustainable Development
Two-Way Mutual Accountability Process : Complaint/ Feedback Community Monitoring & Partnership Legal Accountability Resources Allocation CommunityGovernment
Components of Accountability & Effective Risk Governance: 1.Devolved structures that enable participation; 2.Access to information; 3.Capacities of communities to influence plans and actions; 4.Inclusion of vulnerable groups in decision-making; 5.Participatory M&E systems; 6.High level of volunteerism for DRM. At the community level 1.Strengthening Institutional Frameworks for DRM 2.Strengthening Legislations 3.Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks 4.Resource Allocation 5.Capacity and Skill sets At the Government level
At the Community Level : 1. Devolved Structures those enable participation: Setting of democratic space like local forums for citizen-led initiatives allows collective action that increases the chances that participation can be citizen-led. 2. Access to information: Clearer and more consistent dissemination of Disaster risk information, including national policy decisions that impact local level decision making is crucial. 3. Capacities of communities to influence plans and actions : Awareness could also be generated on how the local communities can question and hold the service providers accountable for their actions 4. Inclusion of vulnerable groups in decision-making: Platforms can ensure representation of the vulnerable groups and mainstream inclusive disaster risk reduction into local development plans.
5.Participatory M&E systems: Mechanisms of social accountability can be initiated and supported by the state, citizens or both. 6.High level of volunteerism for DRM : Volunteerism is a way of contributing to community resilience, community engagement and good governance for all stakeholders. 1. Strengthening Institutional Frameworks for DRM: A strong DRM institutional framework will require connecting, coordinating and setting out boundaries for many institutions. 2. Strengthening Legislations: Legislative oversight function should empower the legislative branch to hold its own members, the government and government bodies to account. 3. Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks: These will set minimum requirements for the public and the authorities to meet, specifying penalties for lack of enforcement. 4. Resource Allocation: Timely flow of financial resources for the interventions aimed at DRM at respective tiers of the governance. 5. Capacity and Skill sets: Need of developing local level regulatory frameworks &“capacity development of local governments to implement [effective] disaster risk reduction initiatives. At the Government Level:
Case Studies: 1.Japan CSO Coalition for 2015 WCDRM (JCC 2015) 2.Decentralization of Risk Governance & Accountability in Indonesia & Pakistan 3.Integrating volunteerism into community disaster risk preparedness 4.Community Monitoring in Uganda 5.Strengthening Local Governance –a case study from Eravur Urban Council, Batticaloa district in Sri Lanka 6.Implementation of Right to Information Act (RTI) in education sector in Karnataka 7.Environmental Citizenship Strategy
Japan CSO Coalition for 2015 WCDRM (JCC 2015 ) Company that owns the high risk facility and the government need to be open and transparent on risk communication, as well as mitigation and contingency plan. Residents also need to proactively understand minimum accountability level to anticipate from government and corporations and proactively seek for information indentified as a gap if any. Decentralization of Risk Governance & Accountability in Indonesia & Pakistan The process of DRM reforms initiated in Pakistan remained exclusive, limited and top down. The lowest tiers of the governance lack legislative mandate, fiscal resources and technical capacity to integrate DRM with overall governance and mainstream development planning. There is use of Restrictive and conflicting definitions & terminologies. Integrating volunteerism into community disaster risk preparedness CPP volunteers are well-integrated and work closely with local administrations, NGOs, sub-district disaster management committees, and educational and religious institutions. Community Monitoring in Uganda Community monitoring led to improved quality of health delivery. The report cards provided the basis for an informed dialogue with community members, and between community members and health workers. Findings from Case studies:
Strengthening Local Governance –a case study from Eravur Urban Council, Batticaloa district, SriLanka : revealed lack of awareness of this Act in general and among education personnel in particular, was the greatest difficulty facing the government. More than that of insufficient financial resources, culture of secrecy within the bureaucracy and the low levels of literacy of the people also impeded the implementation of changes in Education sector. Implementation of Right to Information Act (RTI) in education sector in Karnataka lack of awareness of this Act in general and among education personnel in particular, was the greatest difficulty facing the government. More than that of insufficient financial resources, culture of secrecy within the bureaucracy and the low levels of literacy of the people also impeded the implementation of changes in Education sector. Environmental Citizenship Strategy It involves actively encouraging, supporting and empowering the community, business and organizations to create lasting pro-environmental behaviour change driven by: accessibility, participation and responsibility,environmental equity and restorative action environmental leadership
Strengthening Governance & Accountability: Enabling factors Policies & laws should connect with the reality of development on the ground: National Consultations have demanded stronger linkages between national and local government – including the alignment of national policies with local needs. Clear delineation of responsibilities –clear cut roles, norms, institutions and interactions: Several consultations called for clarity on roles and responsibilities with establishment of clearer accountability lines. Setting Indicators & Benchmarks for measuring outcomes: clear indicators and specific targets, would facilitate measuring outcomes and thereby strengthen the review and evaluation process overall. Common Terminology for DRM at all levels: could be part of a common knowledge base that that UNISDR is managing through the Prevention Web Inclusive Accountability: Through an inclusive accountability process, governance could be shared among stakeholders.
Political Will: Parliamentarians with increased understanding and knowledge can play a strategic role in bridging long ‐ existing gaps in disaster risk reduction between national governments and local authorities. Language of HFA2: Language of HFA2 should be specially formulated with local leaders in mind and aimed at helping to understand the importance of disaster risk reduction. Social Accountability: Social accountability mechanisms can contribute to improved governance, increased development effectiveness through better service delivery, and citizen empowerment. Building of Community Networks: importance of ensuring community involvement in decision making processes and building partnerships with community – based or grassroots association of youth, women, informal settlers, farmers, pastoralists, fisher folk, indigenous peoples, local religious groups, among others. Transparency in Communications: Communities must have rapid and unimpeded access to information derived from early warning systems, while small-scale, recurring disasters need to be reported and given attention. (Refer figure)
Risk Financing Risk Assessment Risk Response Risk Monitoring Communication at all levels: Communication
HFA2 organized in four indicator families : Sustainable Development Goals : Move from reducing to ending extreme poverty, in all its forms. Put Sustainable Development at the Core. Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth. Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Institutions for All. Forge a New Global Partnership. Disaster Loss and Damage metrics Country’s management of underlying risk drivers and linkages to MDGs and UNFCC Effective public policies by countries in favour of prospective and anticipatory risk management, corrective, risk management and resilience strengthening Resilience of country’s economy to probable losses Indicators for Local Level Action are integrated in the Sustainable Development goals
Merging of HFA2 with SDGs and CCA agenda: HFA2UNFCC/CCASDGs The post ‐ 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction cannot be considered as a stand ‐ alone, technical and sector specific agreement.
Indicators : Disaster loss and damage indicators – Availability of mechanism for effective data gathering for extensive risk – Accessibility of risk related information to local communities – Alignment of risk information with national database Risk and resilience indicators – Inclusion of climate risk in disaster management plans at local level – Presence of local multi stakeholders platforms to discuss about various disaster related issues – Involvement of at risk communities in key decision related to disaster risk reduction – Frequency of capacity building programs for local officials
Cont: Under lying risk driver indicators – Transparency in communication with communities – Understanding of various policies and terminologies of disaster management – Effective coordination with various departments to mainstream disaster risk reduction in development works – Two way communication mechanism available for risk information – Strong system of grievance redressal available and communities are aware of such system – Social audit system or other system available to include at risk communities risk
Cont: Disaster risk management policy indicators – Accessibility of information about disaster management law and policies – Clarity of roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders – Effective coordination with national governments – Effective monitoring and evaluation strategy for various disaster risk reduction works – Availability of resources to carry out various disaster risk reduction works – Effective last mile early warning system available with clear roles and responsibility of various departments – Awareness building campaign for disaster risk reduction policies
Next Steps: 1.Completion of Paper 2.Editorial Review 3.Following up on remaining contributions