Guidance on HFA Core Indicators Thematic Research
General progress towards reaching the objectives of the HFA
Global, regional, national and local efforts for disaster risk reduction and reinforcing resilience are increasing. International momentum for disaster risk reduction is currently at play and can be observed in discussions and planning around sustainable development, climate change adaptation, the Millennium Development Goals or more broadly public and private investment strategies.
Resilience is recognized as the ability of a system to reduce, prevent, anticipate, absorb and adapt, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner. This includes ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions. Resilience is viewed as a common outcome that integrates poverty reduction, disaster risk reduction, sustainable livelihoods and climate change adaptation, as integral to sustainable development, although the indicators of resilience need to be further articulated.
The HFA has provided a frame for efforts to increase understanding, knowledge and develop approaches and priorities for reducing disaster risk and building resilience; galvanizing a process of change that is now irreversible. The HFA has assisted a collective approach to the management of hazard risk, by multiple stakeholders from governments to businesses, civil society to academia, and has resulted in inter alia, the introduction of national disaster risk reduction legislation, the establishment of national loss databases and early earning warning systems, as well as strengthened disaster preparedness and response.
Wide consultations facilitated by UNISDR in 2012 and 2013 in preparation for the Global Platform for DRR indicated a clear concern with urgent social, economic and environmental issues and absolute re-affirmation that disaster risk reduction provides critical solutions. They likewise have expressed frustration with the rate and scale of implementation of the HFA, and have urged that governments and other stakeholders step up action to deliver on earlier commitments.
Challenges
The ‘compartmentalization of HFA implementation’, wherein efforts are more focused on specific Priorities for Action than on the Expected Outcome and Strategic Goals, has been observed and remains a real risk. Examples of disaster risk reduction activities having been undertaken in an integrated, whole-of-government manner are to be found in National HFA Progress, but references as to how such efforts contribute to the strategic goals, and ultimately to reducing disaster losses, fatalities and injury are rare.
Activities can be labeled as contributing to a particular HFA Priority for Action without reflecting an adequate understanding of the significance of that Priority; most notably when it comes to addressing underlying risk factors. Links between different HFA Priorities for Action can be missed, meaning that they fail to be fully articulated in the design and implementation of disaster risk reduction initiatives.
This puts an even greater responsibility on central level authorities to ensure that there is a broad strategic understanding, and ownership, of the national disaster risk reduction agenda of which the separate sectoral programmes need to be coherent components.
Little progress has been made in implementation of cross-cutting issues in the HFA: multi-hazard approaches, the 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.
Such challenges should be considered when undertaking the thematic research, as well as inter-linkages between different indicators. Appraisal of individual or package of indicators in isolation, risks underplaying the interconnected nature of both the risks and actions taken to manage them; potentially weakening the assessment of the impact of the HFA.
Future Considerations
GP 2013 participants raised the need to take concrete measures to tackle risk drivers including poverty, hunger, disease, conflict, violence and inadequate health services, education, infrastructure, poor water and sanitation, housing, unemployment, land degradation, displacement, forced migration and discrimination, poorly regulated and unregulated private investment?
Several proposed actions for the future derived from the Chair’s Summary of the Global Platform for DRR 2013 included:
· Full reporting of the health burden of disasters and the consequences for community development and the systematic application of International Health Regulations
· Promoting education services and systems, and committing to safe, uninterrupted education[1]
· Utilizing established mechanisms for environmental protection such as Environmental Impact and Strategic Environmental Assessments, systems for protected areas management and integrated water resource and coastal zone management to address environmental degradation, strengthen livelihoods and address disaster risk
· Leveraging existing social protection mechanisms to target vulnerable households
· Integrated, multi-sectoral approaches to disaster risk reduction, and strengthening disaster risk reduction in key sectors, such as education, agriculture and health
______
The overall objective of the exercise is to determine to what degree the HFA has been fit for purpose, and identify improvements both in the content and the indicators of the successor framework to the HFA (HFA2) that will be adopted in 2015.
More specifically, research should examine:
▫ what changes have been observed since the adoption of the HFA in 2005, and what has been the impact in terms of risk to society;
▫ to what degree has this been facilitated by the HFA or other emerging issues in effective disaster risk management;
▫ determine if the change was adequately captured by the indicator in its current form and if not propose an alternative impact indicator;
▫ what elements will need to be developed for inclusion in the successor framework to the HFA.
Research modalities
While the GAR is not an academic publication it is produced according to academic standards. Findings, conclusions and recommendations need to be supported by referenced literature preferably from recognized peer-reviewed publications or else from grey literature, HFA and institutional reports. Research findings may also be generated through interviews, surveys and questionnaires. The national HFA progress reports are not to be considered the sole source for desk review.
Research should include new and innovative ideas of more than one institution, and so coordinating organisations (CO) and coordinating lead authors (CLA) are encouraged to reach out to both traditional partners and non-traditional actors operating in the respective fields of disaster risk management under each core indicator. Collaboration with actors with experience in broader risk management is encouraged.
a. Primary sources of data to be used in research
Priority should be given to peer-reviewed scientific, technical and socio-economic literature if available. As other sources might provide crucial information for the research these may include reports from governments, private sector, and research institutions, international and other organizations, or conference proceedings. It is the responsibility of the author teams to ensure the quality and validity of cited sources and information.
In general, newspapers and magazines are not valid sources of scientific information. Blogs, social networking sites, and broadcast media are not acceptable sources of information for GAR. Personal communications of scientific results are also not acceptable sources.
b. Guidance on the use of non-published/non-peer-reviewed (“grey”) literature
Information about the experience and practice of the private sector in disaster risk reduction activities for example, might be found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc).
c. Use of Data
Data needs to be assessed and the source disclosed by contributing authors to make all references used in GAR easily accessible and to ensure that the process remains open and transparent.
For instance case study materials from private sector sources should include a review of the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an input paper. The use of such sources should be supported by the following information to be made available to the Coordinating Lead Author:
o One copy of each unpublished source to be used in the input paper
o Title
o Author(s)
o Name of journal or other publication in which it appears, if applicable
o Information on the availability of underlying data to the public
o English-language executive summary or abstract, if the source is written in a non-English language
Role of the Coordinating Lead Author
The essence of the Lead Authors’ task is the synthesis of material drawn from input papers as provided by contributing authors, and to ensure that sources of data used in input papers fulfill a minimum level of academic rigour. Lead Authors are also required to take account of expert and government review comments when revising text. Lead Authors may not necessarily write original text themselves, but they must have the proven ability to develop text that is scientifically, technically and socio-economically sound and that faithfully represents, to the extent that this is possible, contributions by a wide variety of experts. They are required to record in the Report views which cannot be reconciled.
Background papers and input papers must represent an academic and comprehensive perspective and not an institutional view of the specific indicator.
Thematic research should ensure inter-linkages between different indicators - appraisal of individual or package of indicators in isolation, risks underplaying the interconnected nature of both the risks and actions taken to manage them.
The Call for Abstracts
The calls for abstracts will be issued by the UNISDR, and published through existing networks of PreventionWeb.
COs, CLAs and contributing organisations are invited to disseminate the calls widely to potential authors, institutions and through respective networks.
Thematic Research Areas
The following summary information has been developed to contribute to preliminary thinking by COs and CLAs in the development of the scope of work, as well as to assist authors developing abstracts for input papers. It is extracted principally from the Summary of HFA Reports 2007-2013, GAR13, the Chair’s Summary of the 2013 Global Platform for DRR; the High-Level Communiqué of the 2013 Global Platform for DRR, the HFA2 Synthesis Report; the HFA Mid-Term Review.
Thematic Research Area 1.
PFA1/CI1 – National institutional and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction exist with decentralized responsibilities and capacities at all levels
Guiding Principle: To ensure that DRR is a national and local priority, with a strong institutional basis, DRR needs to be translated into institutional and legal frameworks, at national level, which ensure resources as well as outline clear roles and responsibilities at all levels.
Progress
▫ In 2013, almost 90% of countries report the integration of DRR in some form with public investment and planning decisions, while all countries affirm that governance and accountability are key drivers of success.
▫ Over the 2011-2013 period, the majority of reporting countries, 57%, believe that there has been substantial achievement despite recognized limitations on capacities and resources.
▫ Countries demonstrate consensus as to the necessity for legal and policy frameworks for disaster risk reduction and that substantial work has been done to establish such frameworks.
Challenges
▫ Adoption of new laws and strategies may not help address the situation as these are usually super-imposed on pre-existing sets of statutes and policies within each of the sectoral departments.
▫ 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.
▫ No clarity about who “owns” disaster risk reduction, and therefore it is hard to grasp who is in charge of what at the national level.
▫ Institutional overlap, coordination, and ultimately accountability challenges due to multi-disciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction.
Future Considerations
- National platforms are in need of support and the role, importance and institutional positioning of national coordinating mechanisms have to be further clarified. Identified gaps and challenges relate to the definition of clear responsibilities across public and private actors and the setting of appropriate accountability mechanisms. This also includes the system of norms, institutions and interactions that determine how public decisions are enforced and private investments made.
- An element that is emerging with clarity is the need to have the reduction of disaster risk and prevention as an obligation under the law, inclusive of the question of early warning, risk assessments, and public access to risk information. (See also the emerging area of research ‘standards and normative mechanisms for disaster risk management’)
- There have been strong calls to develop effective, results-driven accountability measures such as goals, targets and indicators at appropriate global, national and local levels and to establish the mechanism to achieve this. (Linkage with emerging area of research ‘standards and normative mechanisms for disaster risk management’)
- The importance of coordination and leadership for disaster risk reduction in sector ministries (e.g. health, education, infrastructure, agriculture, and environment), beyond civil defense institutions, was underlined. Stakeholders called for integration of disaster risk reduction into development decision-making at all levels and in all sectors, including decisions taken by the private sector.
PFA1/CI2 – Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans at all administrative levels
Guiding principle: Dedicated resources refer to funds that are allocated specifically for disaster risk reduction actions. Resource allocation is necessary for embedding disaster risk reduction in an institution’s day-to-day operations
Progress
▫ Self-assessed levels of progress show that approximately 50% of reporting countries believe they have made comprehensive or substantial achievement between 2011 – 2013 within recognized limitations in capacities and resources, an increase over the 40% reported for 2007 – 2009.
▫ The key accomplishment countries report is the availability of resources dedicated to DRR as opposed to emergency management or relief and response.
Challenges
ú Countries pass laws assigning local governments legal responsibility for disaster risk reduction management without passing budget allocations accordingly.
ú Structural factors within resource allocation mechanisms suggest why national budgets and financial allocations at the local level remain stubbornly difficult to influence when it comes to disaster risk reduction.