Priority for Action 1

IATF/DR-12/inf.11

Progress Report on the matrix of commitment and initiatives to support the implementation of the Hyogo Framework.

Background:

The Hyogo Framework calls upon the ISDR Inter-Agency Task Force and secretariat to identify roles, initiatives and partnerships that could assist in implementing the Framework. This has been pursued by the systematic process of compiling a “matrix” of commitments and initiatives to support the planning, guidance and reporting on accomplishments of the goals of the Hyogo Framework, as well as identifying any eventual gaps or overlapping commitments with respect to the Priority Actions and their respective key activities.[1]

Methodology:

The 11th session of the IATF/DR agreed on a format to submit summary information to the ISDR secretariat[2]. This format was developed with the intention of guiding and consolidating the type of information provided by ISDR partners. Once completed the matrix can be used as a common reference for internal consultation within and among agencies; to review existing or planned programmes, initiatives and resources; as well as to reflect specific partnerships or initiatives launched to contribute the implementation of the Hyogo Framework.[3] It was also agreed that once the information is collated, the matrix will be available on the ISDR website in an easily searchable format for stakeholders and to allow for the continuous updating of their own information.

As it is intended that the matrix will be instrumental in defining key managerial responsibilities as well as to serve as a primary coordination tool in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework, it provides a useful illustration of emerging reporting responsibilities. In this respect the information contained in the matrix is linked both to the development of progress indicators and to the oversight responsibilities of reporting activities with particular relevance to thematic or Priority Actions that may transcend individual levels of activity.

Reporting status:

At the present time the working in progress matrix[4] (see annex 1) contains summarized information from material provided by 21 United Nations agencies, organizations or programmes, three regional entities and two civil society organizations and IFRC. As there are 37 members and main observers of the IATF/DR, additional input is expected. It also bears noting that in the early stages of reporting, initial information has been received in a variety of formats or presented in unique organizational-specific contexts resulting in an indicative and still incomplete rendering in some cases. There are also some aspects of requested information that remain poorly addressed, notably those pertaining to “reporting requirements”, and to some extent for “resource commitments”.

Parallel to the information provided by the IATF/DR members, additional information about Hyogo Framework initiatives has been provided by international, regional and national meetings in which the matrix format was used to convey evolving workplans. The “Beijing Action for Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia” adopted at the Asian Conference on Disaster Reduction (Beijing, P.R. China, 27-29 September 2005) and “An Investment for Sustainable Development in Pacific Island Countries: Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management” adopted at the 12th Pacific Regional Disaster Management Meeting (Madang, Papua New Guinea, 6-8 June 2005) are examples. As agreed at the eleventh IATF/DR session, regional and sub-regional initiatives in support of the national implementation of the Hyogo Framework have been compiled in Annex 2.

Indicative trends emerging[5]:

Indicative trends[6] emerging from the matrix can provide a preliminary indication of the relative opportunities existing for reporting capabilities. They also suggest where gaps exist or where a more comprehensive “oversight perspective” is necessary to ensure adequate reporting with regard to specific thematic interests, or within individual Priorities for Action.[7]

Ensure disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority, etc.:

Many of the large developmental organizations reporting and key regional bodies identify their interests with multisectoral policies and planning or through designated mainstreaming projects. There is indication of several efforts to designate high-risk countries, importantly linked to developmental criteria in addition to their hazard exposure. By contrast there is little direct reference to decentralization activities, although this area of interest may be otherwise assumed within more generic references to national initiatives.

Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning:

As anticipated, many technical and expert organizations have cited their activities as pertaining to this area. Individual initiatives cited offer the possibility of substantial progress by building on the earlier work of the IATF/DR Working Group on Risk Assessment in Impact through expanded multi-organizational efforts. Substantial plans and programmes in early warning have been announced by several agencies, with particular attention noted for strengthening linkages between scientific research on hazards, related risks and government policy makers. By contrast there has been little indication of commitments so far related to matters of emerging risks and climate change within the ISDR system.

Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety, etc.:

While there is an explicit recognition of overall, and in one case very specific, commitments to build a culture of disaster resilience through education, some of the main actors in this area have not reported yet on their specific initiatives. Based on the information reported so far, the level of resources cited as being available are likely to be a significant constraint relative to the widely affirmed needs identified. Considerable interest and commitment has been indicated for the main activity of information management and exchange, with regional initiatives being quite prominent.

Reduce underlying risk factors:

As this priority area consists of many separate sectoral areas related to different mainstreaming approaches in development planning, there is both a general level of commitment but a less explicit or coherent expression of initiatives. Sector-specific leading agencies are evident at the global level, but considerable potential remains for the emergence of a more coordinated, planned set of initiatives within individual sectors to set benchmarks and to oversee accomplishment and reporting. Capabilities have yet to coalesce around agreed approaches within the various sectors involved. This is borne out especially in the area of land-use planning and advanced technical measures where commitments have been very few, despite the widespread knowledge and extensive activity in these fields.

Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response:

A number of commentators have identified their activities with this priority, grounded as it is within the humanitarian sector. As in other resource dimensions, the main activity of relating emergency funds to seed-funding for risk reduction and preparedness has received only limited attention in a largely rhetorical expression of need rather than any firm commitments.

Cross-cutting issues:

Community and volunteer participation is identified with the commitments and sustained interest of several agencies. While commitment is expressed to the subject of capacity building, and community and volunteers participation, considering its widespread recognition as a fundamental requirements for increased disaster risk reduction, it is surprising that it has not been more widely accommodated, or at least expressed specifically, in the context of other interests. Few initiatives have been mentioned with regard to gender and cultural diversity, and multi-hazard approaches have been hardly specifically mentioned.

Multiple interests:

Other areas appear to have overlapping domains with a number of diverse, discrete and often unconnected initiatives by different actors. These conditions appear for example in multi-sectoral policies and plans (Priority 1.) and in reducing the underlying risks through social and economic planning (Priority 4.). There are also a few initiatives involving a number of actors already collaborating on a key activity, such as the GRIP initiative on risk assessments and mapping, the International Recovery Platform and the Tsunami Response Framework.

This suggests a wider process of review or consultation may be necessary to separate the respective roles and interests of different programmes or prospective plans reported by different agencies, or alternately designating a primary or convening partner for the purpose of consolidated reporting.

The relative “invisibility” of cross cutting issues or the multiple responsibilities of overlapping domains suggest that they may be too easily assumed and therefore not yet sufficiently addressed.

Annex 1

Summary of inputs provided for the matrix.

Table of Content1[8]

Priority for action 1:

Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national priority with a strong

institutional basis for implementation...... 1

Main Element: Multi-sectoral policies and plans...... 2

FAO...... 2

GFMC...... 2

ProVention Consortium...... 2

UN/DESA...... 2

UNDP...... 3

WHO...... 3

World Bank...... 3

ADRC...... 4

SOPAC...... 4

Main Element: Legislation...... 5

IFRC...... 5

ITU...... 5

UNEP...... 5

UNU...... 6

UNDP...... 6

WMO...... 6

Main Element: Community and volunteers participation (cross cutting)...... 7

FAO...... 7

GFMC...... 7

IFRC...... 7

UN/DESA...... 8

UNV...... 9

Main Element: Capacity building (cross cutting)...... 9

GFMC...... 9

OCHA...... 10

UNCRD...... 10

UNDMTP...... 10

UNOSAT...... 10

UNV...... 11

Main Element: Gender (cross cutting)...... 11

UN/DESA...... 11

UNV...... 11

Priority for action 2:

Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning...... 13

Main Element: Early Warning...... 14

IMO...... 14

UN/DESA...... 14

UNEP...... 14

UNESCO...... 15

UNOSAT...... 15

UNU...... 16

UNV...... 16

WFP...... 16

WMO...... 17

Main Element: Emerging Risks...... 18

UNU...... 18

Main Element: National & local risk assessments & monitoring...... 18

FAO...... 18

GFMC...... 18

ProVention Consortium...... 19

UNEP...... 19

UNOSAT...... 20

UNU...... 20

WMO...... 21

WHO...... 22

World Bank...... 22

Main Element: Regional Risks...... 22 GFMC 22

UNECE...... 23

Priority for action 3:

Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels...... 25

Main Element: Education and Training...... 26

ActionAid International...... 26

UNCRD...... 26

UNEP...... 26

UNESCO...... 27

UNU-ESH...... 27

WMO...... 27

WHO...... 28

Main Element: Information management and exchange...... 28

FAO...... 28

GFMC...... 28

ProVention Consortium...... 29

UNECE...... 29

UNEP...... 29

UNOSAT...... 30

UNV...... 30

UNU-EHS...... 30

ADRC...... 31

Main Element: Research...... 32

UNCDR...... 32

UNU-ESH...... 32

Priority for action 4:

Reduce the underlying risk factors...... 33

Main Element: Environmental & natural resource Mngt...... 34

GFMC...... 34

UNECE...... 34

UNEP...... 34

Main Element: Land-use planning & technical measures...... 35

GFMC...... 35

UNOSAT...... 35

UNU-EHS...... 36

Main Element: Recovery...... 36

FAO...... 36

GFMC...... 36

ILO...... 37

UNDP/BCPR, ILO, ADRC...... 37

UN-HABITAT...... 38

UNOSAT...... 38

Main Element: Social & economic development practices...... 38

FAO...... 38

PAHO/WHO...... 39

ProVention Consortium...... 39

UNESCO...... 39

WHO...... 39

Priority area 5:

Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response...... 41

Main Element: Coordinated regional approaches developed and strengthened...... 41

OCHA...... 41

UNU-EHS...... 41

UNV...... 41

WMO...... 42

Main Element: Disaster preparedness and contingency plans prepared and reviewed periodically

(local, national, regional, international)...... 43

GFMC...... 43

OCHA...... 43

ProVention Consortium...... 44

UNEP...... 44

WHO ...... 44

Priority for action 1:
Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.

Main Element: Multi-sectoral policies and plans

FAO – GFMC – ProVention Consortium – UN/DESA – UNDP –

WHO – World Bank – ADRC – SOPAC

Main Element: Legislation

IFRC – ITU – UNEP – UNU – UNDP – WMO

Main Element: Community and volunteers participation (cross cutting)

FAO – GFMC – IFRC – UN/DESA – UNV

Main Element: Capacity building (cross cutting)

GFMC – OCHA – UNCRD – UNDMTP – UNOSAT – UNV

Main Element: Gender (cross cutting)

UN/DESA – UNV

Priority for action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

Main Element: Multi-sectoral policies and plans

Reporting entity: / FAO
Name of Programme: / The role of Local Level Institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters
Scope: / The programme activity on the role of local level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disaster is part of FAO regular programme activities. Geographical scope: global
Responsible Organization: / FAO
Key partners:
Reporting entity: / GFMC
Name of Programme: / Routine outreach work of the GlobalFireMonitoringCenter (GFMC
Scope: / Wildland fire disaster risk reduction requires a coordinated inter-sectoral approach because fires originate in land-use systems and have a range of effects that are addressed by different organizations (agriculture, forestry, public health and security, climate, biodiversity etc.). GFMC has developed the tool of National Fire Management Round Tables that have been conducted in several countries.
Responsible Organization: / GFMC
Key partners: / UNU, FAO
Reporting entity: / ProVention Consortium
Name of Programme: / Measuring Mitigation: Strengthening the case for the effectiveness of DRR measures among policy-makers
Scope: / The Measuring Mitigation project is developing mainstreaming tools for development planning and evaluation processes, an initiative closely linked to the UNDP/ISDR Global Mainstreaming Project. ProVention and UNDP are supporting similar applications to urban master planning through the African Urban Risk Analysis Network (AURAN) project and EMI’s Disaster Risk Management in Megacities project. Geographical scope: Global
Responsible Organization: / ProVention Consortium
Key partners: / UNDP/ISDR secretariat, IFIs
Reporting entity: / UN/DESA
Name of Programme: / Operationalization of the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation
Scope: / To articulate a plan with recommendations for action and proposed activities, for the coordinated and coherent implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for the further implementation of the Programme of Action for the sustainable development of Small Island Developing States by the relevant UN bodies, the specialized agencies, regional commissions and other organizations of the UN system within their respective mandates. The plan will be discussed in detail during three upcoming regional meetings (Caribbean, Pacific and AIMS) as well as at an inter-regional meeting for all SIDS. The overall thrust of the operationalization plan will be to strengthen the impact of UN support to the sustainable development of SIDS, through resilience building and other measures. Activities under climate change and natural disasters are likely to have major complementarities with the ISDR work. Geographical scope: Regional - SIDS States
Responsible Organization: / SIDS Unit, Water, Natural Resources and SIDS Branch, Division for Sustainable Development, UN/DESA.
Key partners: / An inter-agency consultative group has been established and is open to all UN agencies. Close cooperation also exists with the regional organizations of the SIDS (CROP, CARICOM, IOC), as well as with the Alliance of Small Island States.
Reporting entity: / UNDP/BCPR
Name of Programme: / Global Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming Project.
Scope: / The project addresses the need for more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable development policies, planning and programming. It includes policy guidance on integrating DRR at the level of the UN system and UNDP through CCA/UNDAFs and PRSPs, and the development of tools and methodologies for this purpose. Geographical Scope: Global
Responsible Organization: / DRRU, BCPR, UNDP
Key partners: / CIDA, ProVention Consortium, ISDR secretariat, World Bank, UNDP Country offices, UNDGO
Reporting entity: / WHO
Name of Programme: / Assist national Health Ministries to ensure that health sector vulnerability reduction priorities are formulated and instituted
Scope: / Ensure that health sector vulnerability reduction priorities are formulated and instituted and that relevant capacities are built up. Geographical scope: Global
Responsible Organization: / WMO
Key partners:
Reporting entity: / World Bank
Name of Programme: / Mainstreaming disaster risk management as an integral part of fighting poverty.
Scope: / The World Bank is supporting partner countries to mainstream hazard risk management in development strategies. PRSPs describe a country’s macro-economic, structural and social policies and programme to promote growth and reduce poverty. Mainstreaming hazard risk management in PRSPs/CASs requires greater degree of advocacy and awareness among the national planners and policy makers followed by appropriate public expenditure programme to achieve desired results. The Bank is making a systematic effort in this direction in countries prone to hazards in a phased manner and 32 PRSPs/CASs pipeline countries at relatively high mortality and economic risks are being undertaken in the immediate phase (FY06/07). A Handbook for Mainstreaming Hazard Risk Management in Poverty Reduction Strategies is also being developed to guide the mainstreaming work. A number of analytical studies are also proposed to be undertaken in these countries to make an economic case for hazard risk prevention and mitigation in the development agenda of the countries. The Bank through the governments in the partner countries and in collaboration with UN system, IFIs, bilaterals, corporate sectors and civil society organizations will facilitate setting up a National Core Group for Mainstreaming Hazard Risk Management in Development (NCGHRMD), where such mechanism doesn’t exist. This Core Group will interface with National PRSP Groups and lead mainstreaming efforts. Geographical scope: Global
Responsible Organization: / World Bank
Key partners:
Reporting entity: /

ADPC

Name of Programme: / Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management into Development policy, planning and implementation in Asia
Scope: / The program aims at developing advocacy for awareness and political support to Risk Management and Development Practises (MDRG), CapacityBuilding for MDRM in Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) Member Countries, partnerships for sustainable implementation of MDRM. Geographical scope: regional (Asia)
Responsible Organization: / ADPC
Key partners: / RCC countries. Seeking partnership with UN agencies
Reporting entity: / ADRC
Name of Programme: / Cooperative Project with ADRC member countries
Scope: / Based on requests for implementing DRR projects ADRC will support interested states in the smooth implementation of the join programming. The theme of the project may vary from mainstreaming DRR into national or local policy and planning to capacity building, risk assessment or other elements of DRR. Geographical scope: regional (Asia)- ADRC member states.
Responsible Organization: / ADRC counterpart organization/s
Key partners: / International organizations working in ADRC member countries, media, academia, NGOs, etc.