National platforms for DRR

From HFA-PEDIA

1 What's New
2 National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction
3 National Platforms in the Americas
4 Supporting Mechanisms
5 Related documents
6 Links
7 Contacts

What's New

Outcomes of the Global meeting of National Platforms at the II Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction -GP09-, June of 2009

Recommendations of national platforms to the chair and participants of the second session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction

Geneva, 16-19 June 2009

UNISDR, 2009

The following recommendations from National Platform representatives to participants and the Chair of the second session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction include what nations, the UNISDR secretariat, and other ISDR system partners should do towards their continuing efforts in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action and disaster risk reduction.

Global meeting of National Platforms: Session Preceedings

Multi-sectoral National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (NPs) have been recommended as a multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism to reduce risks and build resilience of communities in several UN General Assembly resolutions and the HFA. 50 countries have informed the UNISDR Secretariat of the setting up of their National Platform. The Global meeting of National Platforms aimed to:

1) Provide a forum for NPs and HFA focal points to share information and knowledge in coordinating national initiatives for DRR,

2) Discuss challenges and priority actions for NPs, including suggestions for ISDR partner support,

3) Adopt a common position on NPs with recommendations by National Platforms to be communicated to the Global Platform’s Informal Plenary, and

4) Share existing tools and services made available by ISDR partners for National Platforms.

National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction

As mentioned in the Hyogo Framework for Action, national participation, as the basis for sub-regional and international cooperation for disaster reduction, is a critical issue for the success of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR). In this context, one of the main goals of the ISDR is to develop national mechanisms with a clear multi-sector structure aimed at reducing disasters. These mechanisms are concrete expressions of the political will and institutional recognition of disaster risk reduction as a relevant issue at the national level. In order to be effective, these mechanisms, generally named 'national platforms' but also known as 'national systems', must be established through a participatory process that includes multi-stakeholder viewpoints and actions.

Member States of the UN Economic and Social Council, through its Resolution 1999/63 addressing the complexity of DRR, also called on all Governments to maintain and strengthen established national multi-sectoral platforms for disaster reduction in order to achieve sustainable development goals and objectives, with the full utilization of scientific and technical means.

A national platform for disaster reduction is a national mechanism in the form of a system, forum, committee, network, etc. that addresses the goals of disaster risk reduction through a coordinated and participatory process of ideas and actions. The process carried out by national platforms include analyses of the current situation, the formulation of various policies and action plans, and the ongoing implementation, monitoring and review of all activities related to disaster reduction. The process lays emphasis on the progress made to achieve the objectives set for disaster reduction; and not necessarily on the preparation of a ìplanî as the final product.

What is a national platform?

It is a multi-stakeholder national mechanism that serves as an advocate of DRR at different levels. It provides coordination, analysis and advice on areas of priority requiring concerted action. But for a National Platform for DRR to succeed, it should be based on a number of major principles, the cardinal one being national ownership and leadership of the DRR process.

Goal

National platforms work towards more resourced, effective and integrated efforts of risk reduction amongst national stakeholders and amongst national, regional and international parties.

The need to systematically reduce the increased impact of disasters is gaining recognition and commitment among Governments worldwide. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a cross-cutting and complex development issue that requires political and legal commitment, public understanding, scientific knowledge, careful development planning, responsible enforcement of policies and legislation, people-centred early warning systems, and effective disaster preparedness and response mechanisms. A multi-stakeholder National Platform for DRR can help provide and mobilize knowledge, skills and resources required for mainstreaming DRR into development policies, planning and programmes.

Functions

National platforms may serve as tools for informed decision-making, as they bring a framework for the systematic analysis of the commitment to those priority actions carried out among sectors territories. In order to achieve this, consultation, mediation and negotiation processes are institutionalized, and consensus is reached on those priority social issues in which interests may differ.

Furthermore, these mechanisms enable countries to address interrelated social, economic and environmental problems, as they contribute to building capacities, establishing procedures and legislative frameworks, allocating limited resources in a rational manner, and establishing a specific schedule for those actions to be taken. Countries may benefit significantly from developing an effective national platform, both directly as a result of disaster risk reduction- and indirectly from the process itself.

Each country must determine, on an individual basis, the best way to address the creation and implementation of their national platforms, depending upon the current economic, social and ecological situation. In most cases, national platforms will be established in the context of existing mechanisms and processes. The strengthening, rearrangement or redirection of these structures will allow for capacity-building in a more efficient and effective manner. Those national groups or committees already working on disaster reduction will also have the opportunity to increase their access to other relevant bodies at national, regional and global levels, strengthening their existing links.

Beyond the organizational type adopted by a national platform, the additional value of its operation is given by its multisectoral and interdisciplinary nature. These platforms must not only bring together national public officials, but also civil society, NGOS, the private sector, academia, and the media. In addition, national platforms must be flexible, as the dynamics of current national situations, particularly regarding political and economic issues, require that these mechanisms respond to change and be adaptable.

It is unlikely that, since the beginning, a national platform will be established with an ideal structure regarding its members. It is then applicable to speak of a process for ìdeveloping and strengtheningî these platforms, making explicit reference to their evolving characteristic. In general, a national platform starts with a core group composed of those institutions with a greater commitment to disaster reduction, under the leadership of one of them. During its evolving process, more stakeholders and interest groups participate, as they see this platform as an illustrative and concrete mechanism needed to voice their inputs and develop their initiatives.

The additional value of national platforms must be clear to all participants. To a large extent, disaster risk reduction still depends on the commitment of public authorities. In order to gain access to essential elements, such as the political will and commitment of national leaders to allocate resources, national platforms will have to prove their value from both economic and political standpoints. Although the opinions of experts, academicians and major development organizations are essential, they are not enough to stimulate the large amount of resources and energy required for the effective functioning and sustainability of these platforms. For this reason, a basic ingredient of a national platform is the active and committed participation of all main actors from the public sector whose responsibilities include disaster reduction.

Some of the main objectives of national platforms include:

• Increase collaboration among national groups involved in disaster reduction;

• Identify priorities and gaps when implementing their national agenda for risk reduction;

• Monitor the advance of all efforts related to risk reduction, through the establishment of indicators and short-, mid- and long-term goals;

• Increase existing knowledge and the exchange of national experiences at regional and national levels;

• Gain credibility among different institutions and interest groups;

• Complement short-term goals for economic development with mid- and long-term goals for the reduction of vulnerability to national disasters; and,

• Follow-up on the implementation of the ISDR at the national level.

The ISDR secretariat, in coordination with other UN agencies (in particular UNDP) and relevant regional organizations, actively promotes the development and strengthening of national platforms. As part of its efforts, the ISDR Secretariat has prepared a document entitled Guiding Principles: National Platforms for Disaster Reduction] in [English and in Spanish

Areas of focus

- Commitment to help the most vulnerable;

- Increased collaboration and coordination amongst national stakeholders;

- Increased knowledge and visibility of national situations at the regional and international levels;

- Increased levels of knowledge and skills in the global risk reduction community;

- National leadership and commitment to the sustainability of a national platform;

- Credibility across different institutions and interest groups;

- National counterparts in terms of implementing the ISDR –further strengthened links with the ISDR Secretariat.

National Platforms in the Americas

A Call for Guidelines adapted to the regional context

There are specific elements that must be included as part of the composition of the NPs, in order that the process is sustainable, and has the desired political impact.

The traditional channels of communication and dissemination of materials and information on the NPs pass almost exclusively through the National Implementation Focal Points of the HFA. These Focal Points, because of their institutional affiliation and position in the field, are often not the ones in contact with the actors and groups most tied to the development processes in the countries, which are essential to the development of the NPs.

In this sense, greater emphasis on advocacy work with non-traditional national counterparts tied to disaster risk management is needed before the establishment of more NPs in the region.

Need for a joint strategy and action plan with regional counterparts

The promotion of the NPs has been a task centered fundamentally in the UNISDR and its regional offices, with very limited monitoring of the processes. Some advocates in the countries and in the sub-regional institutions are required in order to generate sustainable, appropriate processes for the countries. The contacts whose efforts have led to the identification and/or launching of the NPs have been primarily between the UNISDR and the HFA National Focal Points. In many cases this has reinforced the vague but very present image of the NPs, and of the promotion of parallel structures, a notion that is reinforced when regional counterparts are not largely involved from the beginning, when the formation of the NP in any given country is promoted.

The joint planning and work of the ISDR System with sub-regional counterparts is key in being able to push forward the agenda of the NPs in an organic and sustainable manner and in harmonizing efforts to implement the HFA through existing strategies and action plans developed in the region from much more participatory and inclusive processes than the global consultation process that preceded the adoption of the HFA.

Central American

If we focus on the Central American region, the process surrounding the Central American Policy for Integrated Risk Management (PCGIR) is a necessary consideration and should be a key frame of reference in reorienting and guiding the strategic development of the NPs that fall under the CEPREDENAC. The objective of the PCGIR is the generation of a framework for integrated disaster risk management, linking the decision-making process at the political level to their application through different mechanisms and tools. The relationship between the risk management and the economic, social and environmental cohesive management pursued by the PCGIR, and the work pursued by the NPs in the national sphere, in fact share common objectives. The outlined axes of the PCGIR should also serve as orienting axes for the work of the NPs.

Stemming from the framework provided by the PCGIR process, a more explicit grounding for the work of the NPs within CEPREDENAC´s Multi-year Plan, particularly in the area of institutional strengthening, can be promoted. An important precedent in Central America, is that the foundation of CEPREDENAC National Commissions with the institutional support of three of the five NPs that have been identified in the region (Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala). Nevertheless, the developments between the three National Commissions / National Platforms are very different in terms of structure and work dynamic.

In the case of Costa Rica and Nicaragua (the other NPs in the region), although their base resides in their National Prevention and Attention to Disaster Systems, there are many differences in the NP structure, and it is difficult to find the common denominators one might hope for; given that both, at least, share the general objectives and goals of the NPs.

In particular, the broadening and coordination entailed by the construction of the PCGIR with other programs and strategies from sector authorities of the Central American Integrated System (for example agriculture; environment, water resources; food security) offers a greater opportunity to recreate and activate these dynamics at national level within the work dynamic of the NPs.

Caribbean

Regarding the insular Caribbean, in particular those countries grouped under CARICOM, the sub-regional report presented before the DRR Regional Platform in 2009, stated that “in many of the Caribbean states, the traditional National Emergency Coordination mechanisms had complications in the transition towards the creation of NPs, and it was deemed necessary to finalize the design of a Sub-regional Platform and Implementation Plan to build and facilitate this process”. On the other hand, the recent transformation of CDERA to a new entity under the name Caribbean Disaster and Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) must be noted. The transition from CDERA to CDEMA has the potential to add significant momentum to HFA implementation efforts, and aids advancing the establishment of functioning NPs. This transition would be reflected in a new structure and mandate broadened to include the adoption of the reduction of disaster loss and practices and policies of national and regional level mitigation, with cooperation arrangements and mechanisms to facilitate the development of a culture of reduction of losses associated with disasters.

Andean Region

Regarding the Andean countries, PREDECAN has left an important legacy in terms of DRR tools, studies and processes. Of special relevance, are the national roundtables that were promoted within the frame of PREDECAN initiatives, and the detailed analysis of the legal and institutional framework of the Andean countries, both of which are very relevant inputs that could feed into the development of NP processes in the sub-region.

There is a strong commitment from Peru, which holds the current Chairmanship of CAPRADE to foster the NPs within the sub-regional context. In order to advance the NP leadership role of CAPRADE, there is a need for building a strategic vision framed within the implementation of the Andean Strategy for Disaster Prevention and Relief – EAPAD (EAPAD makes reference to the “strengthening of the institutions and capacity development at the Andean sub‐regional, national and local levels” identifying the need to promote the creation, modernization and strengthening of permanent institutional mechanisms or schemes of disaster prevention and management, with an increasing delegation of responsibility to local and sub‐national authorities). The Andean Action Plan for the EAPAD for 2005-2010 already makes explicit reference, in its strategic guidelines, to “maintaining and strengthening those national platforms or systems for disaster risk reduction, with the aim of working towards the achievement of sustainable development goals.” It also mentions “decentralizing risk management and promoting active participation from civil society.” The forthcoming updating process for the EAPAD Action Plan provides a good opportunity for a more cohesive and planned approach from the sub-regional level to tackle the strengthening of NPs processes, profiting from the arsenal of tools and processes that have been catalyzed under the initiatives developed by PREDECAN.

Hemispheric Level

At the hemispheric level, important steps have been taken between UNISDR Americas and the General Secretariat of the OAS through its Department of Sustainable Development (OAS/DSD) towards improving coordination and building a stronger partnership to support the building process of the Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. While noting the success of achievements so far, there are still some areas for further advancement, such as delineating the role of the OAS Inter-American Disaster Mitigation Network (RIMD) in the whole context of the regional platform process, and the ISDR system in the region.

Buy- in of NPs within the United Nations System

It is also necessary to bring attention to the pending task of the buy in of National Platforms within the United Nations System itself, as well as the ISDR System in general. Just as permanent planning and consultation with sub-regional counterparts is vital, so is joint regional level planning with the United Nations agencies and with the ISDR System counterpart. Furthering the work with the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has been suggested as one of the most relevant approaches to achieve this objective, in terms of gaining more effective involvement of the Resident Coordinator system in the support of the HFA implementation in the countries (Note: the common objective of the UNDG is to provide more coherent, effective and efficient support to countries in achieving the goals agreed upon at the international level).

Although growing efforts on behalf of UNISDR have been carried out to create more venues for interaction with the Resident Coordinators in relevant regional meetings and special information kits have been designed for them, there is a strong sense that these are timid attempts and much more work needs to be done in this region in order to engage Resident Coordinators and their country teams to fully embrace the roles already identified for them in the NP Guidelines.

One of the inter-agency mechanisms active in the region of the Americas is REDLAC, which includes a thematic group on disaster risk reduction that is led by UNISDR Americas. The work done by OCHA’s regional office with the United Nations Emergency Teams (UNETE) has also been instrumental in inducing broader themes of DRR, which are included in the training agenda of the UNETEs.

(Source: National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Americas: A critical analysis of these processes five years after the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action; Working document - UNISDR Americas, 2010)

Consolidation of Thematic Areas: concrete agendas and sustainability of the process

Another suggestion is further promoting and/or strengthening the thematic groups or committees of the existing NPs. By having a thematic focus, these thematic groups could more easily translate their work into dynamic work plans with more measurable objectives. The other interesting element of this perspective is that the more technical and specific themes associated with the objectives and mandates of the institutions represented minimizes, to a certain degree, the risk of staff changeover in the group, which many times leads to the weakening of the NP process (as frequently happens in changes of government). In other words, the work at the level of structured thematic committees around specific objectives could give continuity to the NPs beyond the eventual and temporary inactivity of the focal point or the NP coordinating mechanism, while, at the same reinforcing the NP process.

Consolidation of Thematic Areas: concrete agendas and sustainability of the process

“Development agenda” as a pivotal focus for NP dynamics

There is also a recognized need to work with new actors and sectors that have defined roles in development agendas and processes in the countries. In this sense, the point of departure of the NPs should be built around a development agenda and, to that effect, project implementation addressing priority development areas and needs as identified by the States. Some of these areas are energy, transport, health, education, agriculture, industry, management of water resources, environmental management, among other issues that surround development agendas.

The work being done in the region by the specialized subregional bodies (CEPREDENAC, CAPRADE, CDEMA, for instance) and through international technical cooperation (AECID; GTZ, BID, World Bank) with the National Public Investment Systems, Finance and Economic Ministries emerges as one of the more strategic fronts to foster the DRR agenda. For instance, methodologies for the inclusion of risk evaluation criteria have already been developed and being utilized in public investment processes. Initiatives for the development of powerful tools for probabilistic evaluation of losses associated with the impact of natural hazards are underway and will provide tools and data for working with the ministries of finances and national planning authorities, both for corrective and prospective risk management (i.e. the World Bank led CAPRA initiative). It is interesting to note that these kind of vital initiatives are usually unfolding completely outside from the current work scope of the NPs.

Another emergent element in the DRR arena is the influential work performed by national authorities with accountability responsibilities in the countries. For example, the National Comptroller Offices has been highlighted as one of the powerful drivers in furthering DRR agendas. Nevertheless, they are rarely (if at all) being included as part of the national platform composition. There are some examples in countries in the region where the work of these authorities has had a critical role of ensuring accountability for those institutions that have particular disaster risk management roles in the country. This is a key issue for changing the logic that prevention and mitigation does not lead to political dividends and would also give a spin on the dominating perception that nobody takes charge when emergencies and disasters occur and that they fall under the responsibility of “nature”. A culture of prevention should also be based on a culture of accountability, and in that sense the active involvement of the auditors in the NP dynamic is very important.

Regional Consultative Meeting of National Platforms on Disaster Risk Reduction & Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation

The first Regional Consultative Meeting of National Platforms on Disaster Risk Reduction & Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation was held in Panama City, Panama from October 20 to 22, 2008. The aim of the meeting was to contribute to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action through support to National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction and to articulate common initiatives for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Among the participants were representatives of existing national platforms as well as members of evolving platforms from Latin America and the Caribbean. During the event, experiences, best practices and reference materials were shared. Furthermore, participants discussed on obstacles and priorities of the different platforms and a dialogue among representatives from national offices for climate change and from national platforms was initiated to identify potential joint actions regarding climate change adaptation. This meeting served as a preparation for the first session of the Regional Platform in March 17-19, 2009 in Panama and the second session of the Global Platform in June 2009 in Geneva.

Status of National Platforms in the countries / territories of the Americas

Since the HFA adoption in 2005, ten countries in the Americas region have officially identified their national platforms (Argentina, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela). These national platforms can be added to the four platforms already identified prior to the Kobe Conference (Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and the United States), making a total of 14 NPs processes currently underway in the American region.

In most cases, the NPs were based on already existing institutional mechanisms similar to the ones integrated in either National Disaster Prevention and Emergency Preparedness Systems, as in the case for Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua), or National Systems of Civil Protection (Mexico and Venezuela). In other cases, NPs based systems were seen as national regulatory frameworks or as part of sub-regional commitments active before the launch of the NPs.

This is the case in some CEPREDENAC National Commissions (Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala). In a small group of countries, NP processes are generated from assemblies and institutional arrangements specifically developed for the creation of the NP (Argentina, Bolivia and Peru).

Existing National Platforms (NP): Argentina, Bolivia, Canada (26 October 2010), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay (October 2010), Peru, USA, Venezuela

Countries in which National Platforms are currently in process: Honduras, Uruguay

Anguilla – no NP reported

Antigua and Barbuda – no NP reported

Argentina - YES

Aruba – no NP reported

Bahamas – no NP reported

Barbados – no NP reported

Belize – no NP reported

Bermuda – no NP reported

Bolivia – YES (launched on 14 October 2009)

Brazil – no NP reported

British Virgin Islands – no NP reported