Consultation Process Towards the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction www.unisdr.org Youcef Ait Chellouche UNISDR AFRICA

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.

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.

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. Increased in number of National Platforms and HFA Focal Points indicates action in DRR in accordance with main HFA principle: multi-stakeholder approach. On reporting: In 2007, 27 governments completed reports on HFA implementation. In 2009, 77 governments completed reports For the 2009-2011 cycle more than 100 reports have been initiated nationally. On national legislation: Countries with new or updated laws include India and Sri Lanka in 2005; El Salvador, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines in 2006; Anguilla (UK) and Gambia in 2007; Indonesia in 2008; Egypt and Philippines in 2009; Zambia and Papua New Guinea in 2010. NOTE OF CONCERN - Some of the new laws addressing disaster risk were not harmonized with pre-existing legislative frameworks in other sectors (such as water resources, agriculture, and energy) that have a direct bearing on how disaster risk is managed. On National Platforms: The number of officially recorded National Platforms steadily increased from 38 in 2007, to 45 in 2008, and 73 as of February 2011. NOTE OF CONCERN: The effectiveness and membership of National Platforms are topics that have emerged throughout the Mid-Term Review as needing further discussion. On HFA Focal Points: In August 2006, there were 63 HFA Focal Points Today there are 192 designated government focal points (PLEASE NOTE: There are 40 “countries” that have not yet designated an HFA Focal Point. The HFA Focal Points are listed according to the ISO 3166 list of “countries”, which actually includes geographically separate territories that are legally portions or dependencies of other countries. Thus the total number of “countries” against which the HFA Focal Points are listed is higher than the number of the United Nations member states. The 40 that have not designated an HFA Focal Point include Belarus, Belgium, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Estonia, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and Turkmenistan).

Positive developments at regional level Establishment of regional and sub-regional platforms and networking. Political commitment: definition and adoption of political statements, strategies and plans of action on DRR at Ministerial or Head of State Level. Exponential increase in collaborative efforts and joint initiatives at regional level

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, resilient cities. Please do not go through the details of the list of tools to support DRR. I suggest emphasizing only the GP, the GAR, the Global network of NGOs and the campaigns.

Areas requiring further attention National Level HFA implementation must take place in a holistic way, avoid compartmentalizing HFAs priorities, which requires strategic and executive direction. Implementation of cross-cutting issues and more consideration to reduce underlying risk factors. Cost-benefit analysis. To set up a broadly representative mechanism to increase coordination and coherence. Integration of CCAdaptation & DRR needs to continue and to be addressed at national and local levels. On HOLISTIC/STRATEGIC APPROACH Questions of institutional overlap, coordination, and ultimately accountability. National-level coordination for disaster risk reduction was mentioned by developing and donor countries alike, suggesting that it is not necessarily linked to the availability of resources but is more likely a function of the inherent multi-disciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction [i] The issue of internal coordination was raised in the North America and European workshops (amongst others), where the difficulty in enabling horizontal collaboration across multiple jurisdictions and sectors was noted. Under HFA Priority for Action 3, information, education and communication initiatives have been framed to enhance public awareness, but there is little or no emphasis on how enhanced awareness can make governments more accountable for disaster risk reduction issues. The link between HFA Priority for Action 4, addressing the underlying risk factors, and Priority for Action 1, setting up of institutional mechanisms, is critical to ensure a holistic and strategic approach to reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience. Governance arrangements do not facilitate integrated management of risk drivers, especially when responsibilities for critical issues such as environment policy, social protection mechanisms, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, land tenure and rural development policy, housing, and urban development policy are entrusted to different governmental entities. The HFA indicates specific sets of actions that ought to be taken in fields such as education, agriculture, and economic and urban development ON CROSS CUTTING ISSUES Multi-hazard approach, gender perspective and cultural diversity, community and volunteer participation, and capacity building and technology transfer. Inclusion of a gender perspective and effective community participation are the areas where the least progress seems to have been made. Initial data from the 2009-2011 HFA Monitor indicate that an impressively high number of countries (62 out of 70) do not collect gender disaggregated vulnerability and capacity information. ON COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN THIS ROOM WE PREACH TO THE CONVERTED. HOWEVER, WE STILL MUST MAKE A CASE FOR DRR AT BROADER POLITICAL LEVEL (Ref. Garonna’s point from 8 March meeting, linking public debt, private savings, and long-term investment opportunities for DRR) The Mid-Term Review highlighted a broad consensus that more research and analytical studies should be conducted as a regular component of policy planning at the government level and made available to decision makers, focusing on the extent to which disaster risk reduction initiatives actually reduce damage and losses. Cost-benefit analysis is another issue that bridges the HFA Priorities for Action; it is directly related to the question of risk assessments and research (Priority for Action 2), while creating awareness and making a strong case for action at the political level (Priority for Action 2 and 3). Interestingly, it is not listed amongst the important steps to take under any of these Priorities for Action in the HFA.

Areas requiring further attention at Local Level Decentralization of DRR action must improve. Need to develop multi-stakeholder consultative mechanisms at the local level, involving communities. Increase the level of credibility and trust between local administrators and the public. ON DECENTRALIZATION Those countries with more years of work on disaster risk reduction were seen to be significantly more advanced in decentralizing local action on disaster risk reduction, possibly indicating a phased process whereby disaster risk reduction was first addressed at the central level and seems to have been applied in an institutionalized way at the local level only later. A possible “phased approach” from national to local level of HFA implementation was also mentioned during some of the Mid-Term Review workshops. Participants noted that there is a process in the making in applying HFA guidance whereby several governments had recently approved, or were in the process of doing so, disaster risk reduction national policies and/or frameworks, in which decentralization of disaster risk reduction to the local level was an important component that would logically follow in the implementation phase. This is consistent with the observation that the HFA has brought about positive changes within national institutions but that the process is still very much in the making, as would be reasonable to expect for a framework five years into its implementation. ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Need institutional incentives to include and mobilize women (Groots study) IFRC review noted that a culture of safety and resilience has to a limited degree been established, with greatest progress in communities targeted by local-level disaster risk reduction efforts.

I II Outline Summary of the Post-2015 Consultation Process Focus of the Post-2015 Consultation

Outline I Summary of the Post-2015 Consultation Process

Background (refer to paper Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction) Raising impact of disasters on both developed and developing countries Mounting economic consequences of disasters Increasing exposure to disaster risk Glowing global vulnerability to natural hazards, due to factors such as population pressure, fast urbanization, climate change

Context Government request for periodic reviews of progress on HFA Mid-Term Review of the HFA in 2010-2011 The Chair’s Summary of the Third Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2011 UN General Assembly Resolution 66/199 requested UNISDR to facilitate development of a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction

Objectives Engage a wide range of stakeholders in the preparatory process in developing a Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction Review success and lessons learnt, identify challenges and solutions to risk reduction, especially at national and local levels Deepen understanding and knowledge of issues imperative to making development resilient to the impact of natural hazards

Approach The consultation process will deploy participatory and inclusive approach through: - Building on existing meetings and conferences related to DRR and development Organizing separate consultative meetings as needed Facilitating on-line discussions and debates Consulting with advisory group Encouraging and participating in thematic consultations Linking on-going major consultations and debates such as Rio+20, post-2015 development agenda and COP 18 Identify working papers in the consultation process (for example economics of disaster risk reduction, land-use planning, science and technology, transparency) Refer to reports and monitoring of the existing HFA to identify progress and challenges

Outline II Focus of the Post-2015 Consultation

National consultations - Provide main component for developing the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, building on the national reporting process of the HFA Monitor Gain insights on the impacts and challenges faced in current HFA implementation at national and local levels Stimulate self-reflections by national authorities on what has been worked in DRR, emphasizing the impact, and what has not been worked, if not, what are the primary challenges Engage in multi-stakeholder national dialogue and discussion on development of the post-2015 framework on DRR

National consultation Possible questions: Who is accountable for the implementation of the HFA? What are the institutional arrangements, human capacities and financial resources at national level? What are the economic losses due to disasters and economic gains through disaster risk reduction during the period of 2005-2015? How are the policies and legislation developed and implemented to reduce risks and building resilience, with what impacts? How successful has the national effort been to integrate disaster risk reduction into development planning and programmes, including sectors (health, education, infrastructure, land use)? What more can be done? How effective are the national platforms or national committees in implementing the HFA for reducing risk and building resilience, in line with the 3 strategic goals? With what capacity and financial resources? What areas should a post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction focus on as key elements in order to overcome the challenges that government met in the current HFA implementation?

Regional consultations Assess the progress and challenges in facilitating development of regional strategies and plans for reducing trans-boundary disaster risks and building resilience Assess success and lessons-learnt in facilitating national integration of disaster risk reduction into development planning and programmes, such as poverty reduction, climate change adaptation Create opportunities and forums for regional stakeholders to discuss issues and themes related to DRR of common concerns in the region Increase understanding of national partners on how reducing risk and building resilience is imperative for achieving sustainable development through regional coherent and complementary action Engage region-based thematic networks or forums to discuss and analyze the themes for the post-HFA, and encourage them to provide inputs to the working papers

Regional consultation Possible questions: What role does the regional architecture (policy frameworks, platforms) play in supporting national level implementation of disaster risk reduction priorities? What improvements can be made to the regional architecture to support and facilitate implementation of disaster risk reduction? What are the measures taken to coordinate inter- governmental efforts in reducing trans-boundary risks and building resilience? How effective are they? What are the challenges, successes and lessons-learnt? What are the measures taken to include disaster risk reduction in the agendas of major regional meetings for social and economic development in the region?

Thank you