1. HFA progress monitoring and Review 2009-11 Meeting of the ISDR Asia Partnership 29 – 31 March 2011 Jakarta

2. Purpose Assist countries in assessing HFA progress, gaps and challenges in DRR efforts Serves as a continuous feedback mechanism for the countries

3. Process HFA Review 2009-2011 A note verbal sent from SRSG to all the HFA National Focal Points in March 2010 Request sent to UNRC in 32 Countries for appointment of Focal Point from UNCT to assist the process On- line Monitor updated and communicated to the HFA Focal Points Time line set for Interim reports ( October 2010) and Final reports (March 2011) Multi- stakeholder consultations for review encouraged

4. Changes from the last reporting cycle More focus on quality of review Multi stakeholder involvement in consultations Greater involvement of the civil society organizations Initiated alignment of local and national level reviews (pilots in Nepal, Indonesia)

5. Changes in HFA monitor tool Based on the feedback from the last review cycle: –A set of ‘Key Questions’ and ‘Means of Verification’ added –Some changes to design –Section open to Regional inter- governmental organisations for regional reviews

6. National level arrangements Nominated HFA focal points facilitate inputs to online ‘HFA Monitor’ Multi stakeholder inclusive consultations with government and other stakeholders Draw on existing monitoring and review process (if available) Include analysis of DRR progress reported in other frameworks (CCA, NAPA, MDG etc.) Supportive of national processes and feeds into national level DRR planning

7. How countries were supported UNRC appointed focal points in 20 Countries Direct support / facilitation provided to 06 countries on request UNISDR (LAO-PDR, Maldives, Mynamar and Pakistan) UNESCAP DRR Advisor (Nepal, Bhutan) Two Local Level HFA review Pilot Workshops conducted (Indonesia and Nepal)

8. HFA Interim Report 2009-2011 Status

9. Priority Area 1:Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation (Average Score 3.1) MAIN FINDINGS 1Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policyNone 2Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment 1- Maldives 2- Marshal Islands 3- Solomon Islands 4- Vanuatu 3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial 1- Bhutan 2- Fiji 3- India 4- Indonesia 5- LAO-PDR 6- Myanmar 7- Nepal 8- Sri Lanka 9- Timor-Leste 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources 1- Australia 2- Bangladesh 3- Hong Kong 4- New Zealand 5- Pakistan 6- Philippines 7- Samoa 8- Vietnam 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels1- China

10. Priority Area 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning (Average Score 3.1) MAIN FINDINGS 1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy None 2 Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment 1- Lao - PDR 2- Myanmar 3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial 1- Bangladesh 2- Bhutan 3- Fiji 4- Hong Kong 5- Indonesia 6- Maldives 7- Marshal Islands 8- Nepal 9- Pakistan 10- Samoa 11- Solomon Islands 12- Timor-Leste 13- Vanuatu 14- Vietnam 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources 1- Australia 2- China 3- India 4- New Zealand 5- Philippines 6- Sri Lanka 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels None

11. Priority Area 3: Use of knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels (Average Score 2.9) MAIN FINDINGS 1Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policyNone 2Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment 1- Hong Kong 2- Marshal Islands 3- Myanmar 4- Timor-Leste 5- Vanuatu 3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial 1- Bangladesh 2- Bhutan 3- Fiji 4- Indonesia 5- Lao-PDR 6- Maldives 7- Marshal Islands 8- Nepal 9- Pakistan 10- Philippines 11- Samoa 12- Solomon Islands 13- Vietnam 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources 1- Australia 2- China 3- India 4- New Zealand 5- Sri Lanka 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levelsNone

12. Priority Area 4:Reduce the underlying risk factors (Average Score 2.7) MAIN FINDINGS 1Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy1- Timor-Leste 2Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment 1- Lao-PDR 2- Marshal Islands 3- Myanmar 4- Nepal 5- Samoa 6- Solomon Islands 7- Vanuatu 3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial 1- Bangladesh 2- Bhutan 3- Fiji 4- Hong Kong 5- India 6- Indonesia 7- Maldives 8- Pakistan 9- Philippines 10- Sri Lanka 11- Vietnam 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources 1- Australia 2- China 3- New Zealand 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levelsNone

13. Priority Area 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels (Average Score 3.1) MAIN FINDINGS 1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy None 2 Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment 1- Hong Kong 2- Indonesia 3- Marshal Islands 4- Myanmar 3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial 1- Bhutan 2- Lao-PDR 3- Maldives 4- Nepal 5- Samoa 6- Solomon Islands 7- Sri Lanka 8- Timor-Leste 9- Vanuatu 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources 1- Australia 2- Bangladesh 3- Fiji 4- India 5- Philippines 6- Vietnam 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels 1- China 2- New Zealand

14. Key Findings  38% of the countries reported dedicated and adequate resources for disaster risk reduction, while 33% countries have presented average resources for DRR in the countries  50% of the countries presented average progress (3) in integrating DRR into School Curricula, while 23% of the countries have made significant achievement in this area  Only 2 countries reported inclusion of women's organization in National Platform, some countries have reported contingency planning with gender sensitivity, while 03 countries reported measures to address gender issues in recovery.  Only 30% countries reported significant achievement, 30% of the countries presented average and 40% of the countries have presented weak progress in DRR Mainstreaming

15. Areas where progress made  National policy and legal framework for disaster risk reduction  Community participation  Early warning systems  National and local risk assessments and regional / trans- boundary risks  Public Awareness  Integration with environment related policies and plans  Disaster preparedness and contingency planning

16. Areas for more attention  Accessibility of relevant information on disasters at all levels  Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments  Social development policies and plans  Planning and management of human settlements  Assessment of disaster risk impacts from major development projects  Integration with post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes

17. Learning from 2009-11 process  Active response from stakeholders INGOs, NGOs, and local authorities.  The reporting process better where UNCT focal points are more engaged  Where National Platform / DRR Mechanisms are functioning, the process is better organised and need little help from outside  The need to strengthen the HFA Reporting process and formalize it to DRR Mechanisms / Platform raised in consultations  Key questions helped stakeholders to respond to the requirements, however the question also led to limitations of further thinking  Countries experienced difficulties in collecting Means of Verification

18. Key issues and challenges  Ownership of the reporting Process and Report it self is still weak in the countries  Although more stakeholders were involved in the process engagement of more categories required  Countries are reluctant to share budget information  New changes in HFA Monitoring format need more rigorous information collection for reporting and authentication purposes.  Utilization of HFA reports still remain a questions in the countries

19. HFA Regional Synthesis Report Capture the progress made against the HFA priority areas, Develop a comparative analysis of the progress made against the declarations and actions plans from previous four Asian Ministerial Conferences on DRR: Beijing declaration Delhi declaration Kuala Lumpur declaration and Action Plan Incheon declaration and DRR-CCA Road Map

20. HFA Regional Synthesis Report Review the status and progress on key recommendations of Chairs summary GPDRR 2009;UNISDR strategic objectives for the period 2010-11 in the region: Investments on DRR Urban Risk Reduction DRR-CCA integration

21. Analysis/content Achievements and key trends in the region against 5 priority areas, three outcomes and 22 HFA indicators Progress against the drivers of progress of HFA How progress has evolved since the WCDR in 2005 Constraints and challenges encountered in the implementation and reporting of HFA in the region Recommendations and future priorities, supported by best practices Lessons from the review process, compilation of the national/regional reports and the key steps taken by HFA Focal Points in review and reporting.