1. Saber Chowdhury 2 nd Meeting of the Asian Advisory Group of Parliamentarians for DRR 5-6th Feburary 2014, Vientiane, Lao PDR Managing Risk to Achieve Resilience – Evolution for Post 2015 Framework for DRR (HFA2)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 3. PROPOSED ELEMENTS OF POST-2015 FRAMEWORK FOR DRR - Guidance from consultations - Principles - Goals and Strategic Priorities - Enhanced Monitoring System

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. Review process Through the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) of UNGA- SDG 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

18. 4. WCDRR OUTCOMES - Post-2015 Framework for DRR - Voluntary commitments - Political Declaration

19. Voluntary stakeholder commitments HFAhas been enriched by voluntary commitments, plans, actions, and monitoring tools by key stakeholders such as theprivatesector’s “Five Essentials forBusiness 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.

20. 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.Changing nature of risk, need to focus on risk drivers, address exposure together with vulnerability 2.Recognition of the redefinition of HFA elements as a necessary innovation to effectively manage risk for resilience 3.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 4.Welcome the updating of the HFA Monitor into an enhanced Monitor, with new core system of targets, indicators and means of verification. 5.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.

21. 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.