Appendix 3 HFA Progress Reports (2007-09) Note 31 HFA

By Stacy Graham,2014-05-13 11:15
7 views 0
Appendix 3 HFA Progress Reports (2007-09) Note 31 HFA

Appendix 3: HFA Progress Reports (2007-09)

    Note 3.1: HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 09)

     Table 3.1: List of national interim HFA progress reports (2008)

Note 3.2: Progress and challenges reported on HFA core indicators

NOTE 3.1: HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 09)

    Actions to reduce risk from disasters and climate change are being increasingly adopted by communities, national authorities, civil society groups, and other responsible partners assisted by international agencies, to build a culture of resilience. The concept of disaster risk reduction is far more understood, and practiced than ever before. However, a lot remains to be done, better and faster.

    While the HFA provides overall guidance on the possible range of measures that a country could implement to reduce disaster risk, the actual measures required depend on the country‟s risk profile and socio-economic

    development context. A country‟s progress in implementing the HFA can only be measured with respect to its disaster risk, without which, any judgment on the relevance or effectiveness of disaster risk reduction efforts would be inaccurate. A challenge is posed by the fact that while current knowledge permits a broad categorization of global risk by some hazard types, disaster risk information is still heterogeneous in quality and incomplete in coverage. The lack of gender disaggregated data in most countries poses a significant additional challenge.

    However, global commitment to monitoring and reporting on disaster risk reduction and recovery actions is in past years, steadily gaining momentum. The recognition that it is necessary to institutionalise functions for tracking emerging trends in disaster risk and monitoring progress on risk reduction and climate change efforts is resounding. The need for better tools and capacities for monitoring disaster risk and progress being made in risk reduction has often been expressed by national institutions.

    To enable countries in this respect, UNISDR in partnership with regional inter-governmental organisations, member states, UN organisations and agencies, and civil society organisations, has facilitated a first biennial, global review of progress in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), for the period June 2007- May 2009 (hereafter referred to as 2007-09).

    The 2007-09 HFA review process at the national level was facilitated through the development of an online tool the „HFA Monitor‟ (see technical annex note 3 for a detailed explanation). The tool is available online for

    country access at and is facilitated by the UNISDR. With the help of the HFA Monitor, national authorities and HFA focal points assess progress for 22 indicators associated with the 5 HFA Priorities for Action, using five levels of progress to indicate the extent of progress made in efforts for HFA implementation.

    The 2007-09 HFA review process at the regional level was facilitated through sub/ regional inter-governmental institutions of which some provided analysis of key trends, areas in which progress has been made, and challenges encountered in implementing risk reduction and recovery activities with specific attention to trans- boundary efforts. Appendix 5 contains a preliminary list of reports received from regional inter-governmental institutions, as of February 2009.

    Participation in the 2007-09 HFA review signals a first comprehensive step in taking stock of results achieved so far, to help collectively prioritise risk reduction actions at the local, national, regional and international levels. While the monitoring and review of national progress facilitated online provides vital information for this global assessment report, it is important to stress that the primary objective of this review process is to strengthen the capacities of countries to monitor and assess progress in efforts for disaster risk reduction on an ongoing basis. Improved capacities in monitoring and reporting will enhance both disaster risk reduction policy and practice at the national level while identifying priorities at the regional and international levels.

The Global Network of Civil Society Organization‟s is simultaneously also leading efforts with a range of civil

    society actors to strengthen public accountability for HFA implementation and enhance the ability of civil society groups to measure progress, formulate policy positions from the local level perspective, provide recommendations and establish baselines for discussions on progress in disaster risk reduction and recovery actions. The civil society review will complement the biennial HFA review facilitated by UNISDR and partners at the national level.

    While the HFA provides overall guidance on the possible range of measures that a country could implement to reduce disaster risk, the actual measures required depend on the country‟s risk profile and socio-economic

    development context. A country‟s progress in implementing the HFA can only be measured with respect to its

    disaster risk, without which, any judgment on the relevance or effectiveness of disaster risk reduction efforts would be inaccurate. A challenge is posed by the fact that while current knowledge permits a broad categorization of global risk by some hazard types, disaster risk information is still heterogeneous in quality and incomplete in coverage. The lack of gender disaggregated data in most countries poses a significant additional challenge.

The results presented for the levelling of progress must be interpreted with some caveats: while guidance was

    offered online to assist countries with interpreting the indicators and levels of progress, the levels accorded in

    the national reports are entirely based on a country‟s self assessment. The levelling of progress is relative and

    not necessarily comparable across countries (on some indicators, countries may mark themselves higher or

    lower - on a relative scale because of „rate‟ of progress rather than any „absolute‟ criteria of progress achieved).

    Finally, scores on the 1-5 levels of progress do not necessarily indicate that a minimum or maximum level of

    progress in implementation of disaster risk reduction has been attained. Instead, a level 2 might indicate far

    more progress (in relative terms) for some countries than a level 3 for others.



    HFA Priority for Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong

    institutional basis for implementation.

    Core Indicator 1: National policy and legal framework for disaster risk reduction exists with decentralised responsibilities and

    capacities at all levels.

    Core Indicator 2: Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at

    all administrative levels.

    Core Indicator 3: Community participation and decentralization are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local levels.

    Core Indicator 4: A national multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.

    HFA Priority for Action 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning. Core Indicator 1: National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and

    include risk assessments for key sectors.

    Core Indicator 2: Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities. Core Indicator 3: Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities. Core Indicator 4: National and local risk assessments take account of regional/transboundary risks, with a view to regional

    cooperation on risk reduction.

HFA Priority for Action 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all


    Core Indicator 1: Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through

    networks, development of information sharing systems, etc).

    Core Indicator 2: School curricula, education material and relevant trainings include disaster risk reduction and recovery

    concepts and practices.

    Core Indicator 3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and


    Core Indicator 4: Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to

    urban and rural communities.

HFA Priority for Action 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors.

    Core Indicator 1: Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, including for land

    use, natural resource management and adaptation to climate change.

    Core Indicator 2: Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations

    most at risk.

    Core Indicator 3: Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of

    economic activities.

    Core Indicator 4: Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including

    enforcement of building codes.

    Core Indicator 5: Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.

    Core Indicator 6: Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially


    HFA Priority for Action 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. Core Indicator 1: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a

    disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.

    Core Indicator 2: Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response programmes. Core Indicator 3: Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.

    Core Indicator 4: Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to

    undertake post-event reviews.

Levels of Progress:

    Level 1: Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy.

    Level 2: Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment. Level 3: Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial.

    Level 4: Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources. Level 5: Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels.

    Source: Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (UNISDR, 2008).

As of 28 February 2009, 62 countries have completed interim HFA progress reports online the HFA Monitor. A

    complete list is provided below in Table 3.1:

    Africa (18) Algeria Asia (13) Bahrain

     Angola Bangladesh

     Burkina Faso Indonesia

     Burundi Iran

     Cape Verde Nepal

    People's Dem Rep of

     Cote d'Ivoire Lao

     Egypt Philippines

     Ghana Rep of Korea

     Kenya Singapore

     Madagascar Sri Lanka

     Malawi Syria

     Mauritius Tajikistan

     Mozambique Yemen


     Sierra Leone Europe (12) Armenia

     Swaziland Croatia

     Tanzania Czech Rep

     Togo France

     Germany Americas (15) Anguilla Italy

     Argentina Macedonia

     Bolivia Montenegro

     Cayman Islands Sweden

     Colombia Switzerland

     Costa Rica Turkey

     Dominican Republic United Kingdom


     El Salvador Pacific (4) Australia

     Gautemala Marshall Islands

     Jamaica New Zealand

     Panama Vanuatu



     Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. Of

NOTE 3.2: Progress and Challenges reported on HFA Core Indicators

Hyogo Framework Priority for Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local

    priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

Core Indicator 1: National policy and legal framework exists with decentralised responsibilities and capacities at

    all levels

A country's constitution, existing laws and governance structures provide the basis to develop plans and build

    on institutional arrangements for all areas relating to disaster risk reduction. The existence of effective national

    policies and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction, therefore, is an indicator of national commitment to

    disaster risk reduction. Progress against this indicator is clearly related to the second and fourth core indicator

    in this Priority for Action, referring to the availability of adequate resources for implementation of risk reduction

    measures, and the presence of multi-sector institutional systems and platforms.

    In high-income countries, policies and legal frameworks addressing disaster risk generally exist in each sector,

    for example, building codes that incorporate hazard resistant construction. High-income countries report a mean

    score of 4.1 in this area but state the lack of an overarching national policy and legal framework on disaster risk

    reduction, which could enable the issue to be addressed more holistically. Canada for example reports that the

    large number of federal institutions with varied mandates makes the implementation of the Emergency

    Management Act a challenging task. Some countries are now engaged in formulating such holistic national

    policies. For example the Cayman Islands are formulating a new Strategic Framework for Disaster Risk

    Management, backed by a new structure, the Hazard Management Cayman Islands (HMCI). Bahrain has

    instituted a National Committee on Disaster Management (see Box 6.2), but also

    recognises the need for a national policy.

    Regional Progress on HFA Priority 1: Progress by Income class HFA Priority 1:

    Indicator 1Indicator 1







    Levels of progressLevels of progress

    1National Committee for Disaster Management, Bahrain

    The Kingdom of Bahrain has demonstrated it‟s commitment to strengthening disaster risk reduction capacity through the

    creation of the National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM) in 2006. As in other high-income countries, disaster

    risk reduction is already mainstreamed within individual ministries and agencies: for example Bahrain‟s building codes and

    environmental regulations are based on international standards. However, there was no overall coordinating agency or a

    policy to define responsibilities at different levels of government. It is expected that the NCDM will lead the formulation of a

    national disaster risk reduction policy and improve coordination between the different sectors.

    A number of middle income countries have overarching national policies and legislation on disaster risk

    reduction and those that don‟t, are currently developing them. Political inertia in approving legislation and in

    developing the necessary technical and legal instrumentation and administrative arrangements for its

    implementation are reported, particularly in Asia. But some genuine progress is being made. Ecuador, for

    example, has included disaster risk management in its new constitution and, like Colombia, in its national

    development plan. Decentralised systems of governance for disaster risk reduction in countries across Asia

    (Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Iran among others) provide opportunities for participation at the local governance

    and community level.

    The problem reported is that there is often no explicit link between national policies on disaster risk

    management and sector policies (such as for land use, building, social and economic development and

    environment), which leads to confusion regarding mandates and responsibilities for implementation, gaps and

    overlaps. At the same time, in many countries the impact of sector policies and legal instruments on disaster

     1 Interim National Progress Report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework: Kingdom of Bahrain (2008)

risk may be only tangential. As countries such as Panama report, even when instruments exist there are

    problems of enforcement and accountability, or as Guatemala reports, lack of resources and political will. At the

    same time, in countries where much risk prone development occurs outside of government regulation, sector

    policies and legal instruments may be ineffective. Progress in addressing the issue of accountability, however, is

    being made. As illustrated in Box 6.3, Colombia has recently completed an audit of disaster risk reduction, an example that will be revisited in Chapter 7. 2Auditing disaster risk reduction, Colombia In 2007, the General Controller of the Republic of Colombia (CGR) in 2007 carried out an audit of the disaster risk reduction

    activities of all the organisations of the National System for Disaster Prevention and Attention (SNPAD) with respect to their

    obligations under the national legal and policy framework. The results were included in an annual report to the country‟s

    Congress and focused on identifying strengths and weaknesses in the SNPAD. This initiative not only served to highlight

    disaster risk reduction as an issue of high political importance in public policy and legislation but also that a national audit

    office, mandated to ensuring a responsible use of public resources and the improvement of public administration, can play a

    key role in supporting implementation and accountability. The exercise not only obliged a variety of national and local

    government organisations to report on their activities in disaster risk reduction but also provided important guidelines to the

    government on how to improve the effectiveness of the SNPAD.

    In many low-income countries, particularly in Africa, the lack of adequate financial, human and technical

    resources in the organisations mandated to address disaster risk reduction is reported as the major reason for

    underachievement in this area. As will be seen in the analysis presented for HFA Priority 4, while many

    countries report the existence of sector policies and legal instruments, national level policy and legislation on

    disaster risk reduction remains weak.

Core Indicator 2: Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans

    and activities at all administrative levels

    Dedicated resources refer to funds that are allocated for the implementation of disaster risk reduction related

    actions. The HFA recommends resource allocation that embeds disaster risk reduction into an institution‟s day-

    to-day business is necessary. When risk is considered in development investment decisions and in the design

    of projects, the cost of disaster risk reduction is lower.

    Regional Progress on HFA Priority 1: Progress by Income class HFA Priority 1:

    Indicator 2 Indicator 2




    High Americas

    Africa 012345

    Levels of progress012345

    Levels of progress

While high-income countries indicate substantial achievement against this core indicator with a mean score of

    3.8, many middle and low-income countries, with mean scores of 2.8 and 2.7 respectively, report that no

    systematic policy or institutional commitment has been made to providing dedicated or adequate resources. If

    policy and legislation is not backed up by resources, then commitment cannot be turned into action.

    Problems cited include competing national priorities, the absence of legislation which makes financial

    allocations legally binding or the lack of political will if the short-term benefits of disaster risk reduction are not

    visible. In Africa, for example, the lack of financial resources has been highlighted by Angola, Burkina Faso,

    Burundi, Cote d‟Ivoire, Djibouti, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Seychelles, as the principal reason for lack

    of progress in addressing disaster risk, even for fulfilling responsibilities for disaster preparedness and response.

    In many middle and low-income countries national contingency funds exist, to enable governments to address

    disaster response and recovery. For example, 0.15% of the national budget of Bolivia is dedicated to a

     2 Hesse, et al., 2008

    contingency fund called FORADE. Disaster risk reduction, however, requires sustainable on-going investments not dependent on emergencies.

    Only a few countries such as Colombia and Iran have explicitly included disaster risk reduction in their national budgets. In Vanuatu for example the National Action Plan clearly tasks the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management with allocating ministerial budgets for disaster risk reduction to different ministries and departments. In other countries, disaster risk reduction stills depends heavily on resources from bilateral and multilateral cooperation. As a result, it is often implemented using short-term, stand-alone project or programme modalities, which generally do not facilitate its institutionalisation or sustainability.

    Core Indicator 3: Community participation and decentralisation are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local levels.

    As highlighted in the previous chapter, disaster risk is largely configured and shaped at the local level. Therefore, the strengthening of the capacities of local governments and communities to address risk is instrumental to the achievement of the strategic goals of the Hyogo Framework. Such action calls for the promotion of community participation in disaster risk reduction through the adoption of policies relevant to the local level, promotion of knowledge networks, strategic management of volunteer resources, attribution of roles and responsibilities, and the delegation and provision of the authority and resources at local levels.

    Regional Progress on HFA Priority 1: Progress by Income class HFA Priority

    Indicator 3 1: Indicator 3




    Africa 012345

    012345Levels of progress

    Levels of progress

    The regional reporting of progress is interestingly, a consistent average of 3.1 across all regions. Variations in trends clustered by income classifications make it easier to interpret the regional trends. In Europe and many high-income countries, municipalities and local governments often have mandated responsibilities for disaster risk reduction, as well as the necessary capacities and resources. As with other core indicators, high-income countries report substantial achievement with a mean score of 4.1.

    Middle and low-income countries score 2.8 and 3 respectively against this indicator. While this is far from substantial achievement, across all regions the reporting indicates a growing dedication of efforts and resources towards strengthening capacities at both the local government and community levels, as

    Box 6.4 illustrates in the case of Nicaragua.

    Countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America report community based risk reduction initiatives. However coverage and quality is often uneven and projects are yet to be linked into a wider risk reduction system linking the local, provincial and national levels. The active coordination of NGOs wishing to work at the community level remains a challenge for national and local governments, particularly in those countries with limited resources to strengthen community capacities. In Asia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, PDR Lao, Nepal and the Philippines specifically point out insufficient budgets for risk reduction that may also be centralized and / or prioritized for response and preparedness related expenditures.

    Large, relatively wealthy urban municipalities such as Bogota, Medellin and La Paz, have well-functioning city disaster risk reduction systems are now as effective and in some cases better resourced than those at the national level. The existence of national decentralisation processes has been identified as a key success factor in strengthening and sustaining disaster risk reduction capacities at the local and community levels. There are also smaller local governments in Asia, Africa and Latin America that have also been successful in addressing disaster risk. However, many local governments, particularly in rural and isolated areas lack the human, technical, financial and institutional capacities to address disaster risk. In Africa, Comoros, Madagascar, Senegal, Tanzania, Ghana and Zimbabwe report that the absence of resources at the local level is a major obstacle to be able to strengthen capacities. In practice, as was noted in the last chapter, most initiatives to strengthen local and community capacities have focused on disaster preparedness and response. Efforts to

    address the underlying risk factors through local and community action have proved to be much more challenging.

    3Local level disaster risk reduction, Nicaragua

    Through its Natural Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (NDVRP), the World Bank has supported the Government of Nicaragua to strengthen the National System for Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Response (SINAPRED) at both national and local levels. SINAPRED is a multi-sector, decentralized disaster risk reduction system, created in 1999 with the support of UNDP, after Hurricane Mitch revealed once again the high vulnerability of Nicaragua to extreme hazard events. In the most high risk municipalities, the project supported risk assessments and vulnerability analyses, the development of risk-sensitive land use plans as well as specific structural and non-structural mitigation measures.

    By 30 August 2008 municipalities had developed and approved Municipal Territorial Plans and Municipal Disaster Risk Management (DRM) plans, and most are using these instruments to grant new building licenses. Additionally, the maps for the municipalities produced under the project have been used by the Ministries of Health, Education, and Development planning. Mitigation measures in 15 municipalities have been funded through a social fund (FISE). Whether the results achieved can be sustained without additional international resources, however, is open to question. Despite its sophisticated legal and administrative structure SINAPRED has access to very limited budget allocations. A recent study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) indicate that it‟s functioning is seriously impaired by financial and institutional limitations. At the municipal level resources budget

    allocations are also very limited.

Core Indicator 4: A national multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning

    A national multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduciton has been understood as a nationally owned and led mechanism adopting the structure of a forum or committee that facilitates the interaction of key development

    players around the national disaster risk reduction agenda and serves as an advocate for adopting disaster risk reduction measures at all levels. As highlighted in the discussion of core indicator 1, the progress achieved and challenges faced in the development of institutional platforms and systems for disaster risk reduction are closely associated with those faced in the development of policy and legislation.

    Progress by Income class HFA Priority Regional Progress on HFA Priority 1:

    1: Indicator 4Indicator 4



    High Africa


    Levels of progressLevels of progress

    High income countries report challenges in the creation of an integrated multi-sector institutional system for disaster risk reduction that could bring greater cohesion and synergy to on-going sector based approaches. Many countries have developed national platforms as a mechanism for representation in regional and global forums and to advocate for greater assistance to middle and low-income countries. While national platforms in the high-income countries have advocacy, networking and information sharing functions, they rarely have administrative or executive responsibilities. As such they have little in common with the multi-sector institutional systems that have emerged in many middle and some low-income countries. Box 6.5 is

    an interesting example of a network of European national platforms.

    4Network of European National Platforms, France, Germany, Switzerland

    In Europe, a Network of European National Platforms has been created with the objectives to facilitate and improve the exchange of information amongst members; to support the integration of disaster risk reduction into all aspects of society at national, regional and international level of European countries; to further encourage the development of National Platforms in Europe and neighbouring countries; to partner with the European Union,

     3 World Bank, 2008f 4 Regional Progress Report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework: Europe (2009)

    Council of Europe, in close collaboration with UNISDR; to provide consolidated and substantive input to the UNISDR Global Platform; and to ensure support disaster risk reduction in developing countries.

    Middle and low-income countries, in contrast, report similar levels of achievement against core indicator 4 and core indicator 1. Inspired by a model developed in Colombia in the early 1990s, most countries in Latin America have now adopted multi-sector decentralised systems for disaster risk reduction to replace traditional civil defence or protection institutions. Bolivia, for example, has created the National System for Risk Reduction and Emergency Response (SISRADE). Both Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic are discussing similar

    arrangements. Under this approach, responsibilities for disaster risk reduction are vested nationally in sectors and territorially in local government, supported by a coordinating body and linked through committees and other mechanisms.

    This approach to institutional systems has been promoted as a best practice by multi-lateral organisations like UNDP and under different circumstances and with important differences has also been adopted in Asian

    countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Other countries such as Egypt have created national committees, see

    Box 6.6, while in others such as Panama, Colombia, Costa Rica, the USA and others,

    national platform mechanisms have been adopted. 5The National Committee for Crisis Management and Disaster Risk Reduction, Egypt

    Since the Committee‟s establishment in 2006, it has achieved a multi stakeholder participation and allocation of resources, with representation from all Ministries, public authorities, civil society, private sector and specialised experts in order to provide coordination and to develop a culture of prevention, and to facilitate the integration of disaster management and disaster risk reduction into national policies, planning and programmes which corresponds to the various goals and Priorities for Actions outlined in the Hyogo Framework.

    The Committee also aims to put in place modalities to institutionalise procedures to integrate disaster management and risk reduction measures into national sustainable development strategies, plans and programmes in key areas such as poverty reduction, housing, water, sanitation, energy, health, agriculture, infrastructure and environment to ensure that development does not create disasters.

    As a recent review by UNDP indicated, however, the systems approach faces many challenges to be effective.

    Many of these challenges have been reiterated in the reporting. (Box 6.7)

    6UNDP review of support to Institutional and Legislative Systems for Disaster Risk Management

    This review based on 19 in-depth country reviews from all regions emphasises a number of obstacles and successes in governance for disaster risk reduction:

    ? The successful generation of political commitment depends on factors such as internal political stability, the role of key individuals as champions and on a tradition of decentralisation and participatory governance. ? The achievement of multi-sector commitment depends on disaster risk reduction being overseen and headed at the highest levels of government.

    ? Public awareness and a functioning legal system are essential to assign accountability for disaster losses and impact. ? There is a low capacity for implementation of disaster risk reduction policies, plans and strategies, in development sectors, particularly in countries where most development is informal and unregulated.

    ? National government resource allocation to disaster risk reduction remains low and is concentrated in preparedness and response. Allocations to address the underlying risk factors by development sectors are not adequately documented and accounted for.

    ? National government institutions, responsible for disaster risk reduction, may lack the skills necessary to engage civil society and the private sector effectively.

    Many national systems report practical difficulties in engaging and committing development sectors and local governments to disaster risk reduction, as well as other stakeholders such as the private sector or civil society. While most systems have been able to convene other sectors to engage in disaster preparedness and response, their success in influencing planning, regulation and investment at both the sector and territorial levels has been much more discrete. In many countries, governments have delegated the establishment and coordination of

    institutional systems for disaster reduction to the civil defence and protection organisations traditionally responsible for emergency response. These bodies usually do not the have competence in development

    planning and regulation necessary to engage with other sectors nor the necessary political authority within government to do so. As a result, even some of the best functioning systems remain predominantly focused on disaster preparedness and response, although their stated objective is the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction.

     5 Interim National Progress Report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework: Egypt (2008) 6 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2005

In some low-income countries, even the development of effective single-institution civil defence and protection

    organisations remains challenging. While a number of countries have created multi-sector national platforms or

    committees, many such as Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Kenya, Swaziland and Togo, highlight the lack

    of resources to convene meetings and implement work plans. In Africa sub-regional approaches are being used

    to develop national institutional capacities. Box 6.8 is a good example how Central

    African states address disaster risk management in a common strategy. 7Disaster risk management in Central Africa The Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) which is composed of Gabon, Cameroon, Democratic

    Republic of the Congo, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome & Principe, Burundi, Angola, Central African Republic and

    Chad adopted an environment and natural resources policy with a sub-regional plan of action in October 2007. One

    component is dedicated to “disaster risk management in Central Africa” covers four major areas of action:

    ? Capacity building of national and sub-regional authorities including the establishment or strengthening of dedicated units

    within the national institutions dealing with disaster risk reduction in each country, within ECCAS Secretariat and within

    the Monetary Community of Central African States; review and enforcement of legal frameworks and disaster risk

    reduction strategies in ECCAS and within member states.

    ? Hazard and risk identification in the Sub-region including risk assessments and risk mapping.

    ? Formulation and implementation of national strategies for disaster risk reduction including the establishment and

    reinforcement of national platforms, inter-ministerial committees and an inter-governmental committee for the ECCAS


    ? Establish national and sub-regional networks for national information management for disaster risk management, and

    contribute to the inter-regional information management network for disaster management for the ECCAS and ACP/EU


Hyogo Framework Priority for Action 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early


    Core indicator 1: National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are

    available and include risk assessments for key sectors

    National risk assessments allow decision-makers and communities to understand the country‟s exposure to various hazards and its social, economic, environmental and physical vulnerabilities. In more actionable words,

    national risk assessments allow communities to take effective action to reduce disaster and environmental risks.

    High, middle and low-income countries report progress of 4, 2.8 and 2.8 respectively against this core indicator.

    In high-income countries, Australia and New Zealand report a comprehensive integrated multi-hazard approach

    to risk assessment. In Europe, 80% of the reporting countries state that substantial or comprehensive

    achievement has been attained. For example, Switzerland aims to cover the whole country with hazard maps

    and assessments by 2011, for both geological and hydrological hazards, and have them applied in land use

    planning and building regulation by municipalities. The main challenges reported refer to the lack of

    standardised data and methodology and inter-sector coordination.

    Regional Progress on HFA Priority 2: Progress by Income class HFA Priority 2:

    Indicator 1Indicator 1




    High Africa


    Levels of progressLevels of progress

     7 ECCAS input for the Africa Status Report, DRAFT prepared November 2008, for UNISDR Nairobi Office

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email