HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 – 09)
From HFA-PEDIA
Introduction
The ‘HFA Monitor’ is the ISDR system’s online tool to monitor, review and report on progress and challenges in the implementation of disaster risk reduction and recovery actions undertaken at the national level, in accordance with the Hyogo Framework’s priorities.
The HFA Monitor tool has been designed and coordinated by the UN/ ISDR secretariat in order to facilitate the preparation of the national progress reviews. Inputs to the online tool will lead to the generation of comprehensive National Progress Reviews for the period 2007-09, and will enable the country with easy future access to its disaster risk information and monitoring trends in progress across the years. It is available online through PreventionWeb in English, French and Spanish.
The HFA Monitor aims to assist countries to periodically review national progress in disaster risk reduction, build on existing disaster risk information and facilitate monitoring trends in progress across the years.
In particular, the review mechanism strives to enable strengthened coordination for partners at the national level, and facilitate prioritization of strategic areas to be addressed through national, sub/regional and global disaster risk reduction initiatives.
Inputs from countries are to be managed online in the HFA Monitor by the designated national authority or HFA focal point, as the national authority ultimately responsible for approving the national report for submittal to the ISDR. Those inputs received online by August 28, 2008 (extended from July 28) will lend to the Regional Assessment Report and, in turn, be analysed for inclusion in the ISDR’s first Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – due for release in May 2009, in advance of the second session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction.
A sample template of the online ‘HFA Monitor’ is also available online to national focal points at PreventionWeb which can help facilitate national consultations to compile the progress reviews. This template contains the necessary user guidance with some indicative examples. UN/ISDR is in the process of continually updating this sample template and user guidance – and look forward to feedback in this regard. The sample template and accompanying guidance documents are available in English, Spanish, French, Arabic and Russian.
National Progress Reports from the Americas for Reporting period 2007-2009
As of May 2009:
HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 – 09)
Progress and Challenges reported on HFA Core Indicators in the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR 2009
Note: Content included here has been edited to focus primarily on the region of the Americas.
For full content, consult the GAR 09 - available on PreventionWeb, Appendix 3: HFA Progress Reports (2007-09)
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 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).
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.
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 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.
Auditing 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 organizations 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. 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.
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 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 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 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
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.
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 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.
Large, relatively wealthy urban municipalities such as Bogota and Medellin of Colombia and La Paz, Bolivia 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 practice 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.
Local 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. In some low-income countries, even the development of effective single-institution civil defence and protection organisations remains challenging.
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
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.
In middle-income countries across both the Americas and Asia, there is a large and increasing involvement of universities, research institutes and the private sector in hazard monitoring and risk assessment. In Asia, in particular, risk assessment has been catalysed by the recovery and reconstruction efforts after major disasters, supported by the widespread dissemination of the build back better approach. Critical sectors have been identified for risk assessments in some countries, with institutional commitment attained. In Bangladesh for instance, progress had been made in the agriculture sector, while hospitals, schools, water and sanitation have been identified as urgent priorities.
The principal challenge reported across Asia and the Americas, is that while progress is being made in single hazard, sector and territory specific assessments, there is far less progress in achieving comprehensive national multi-risk assessments. Experiences of institutionalization and application of such assessments in development and territorial planning or for the design of building codes is rarer still, with some notable exceptions such as the state Government of Gujarat in India and in the Cayman Islands.
A clearly identified problem is that responsibilities for both hazard monitoring and risk assessment are split between multiple institutions in most countries. At the same time, there is rarely a functioning national policy and institutional framework that links development sectors and disaster risk reduction. In other words, there is no institutional home to house multi-risk assessment. The lack of standardization of data sources and methodologies is likewise a challenge, reported for example by Indonesia, which makes it difficult for results to be applied systematically across sectors. New initiatives, however, are beginning to address this challenge. One example is the development of indicators for disaster risk management for 12 countries in the Americas by the Inter-American Development Bank. Another ongoing initiative is a comprehensive disaster risk assessment for Central America.
Central American Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA) CAPRA is a modular system of models to evaluate hazard, vulnerability and risk at local, regional and national levels consistently and with an appropriate resolution according for well defined purposes: risk reduction, public and private investments, emergency management, and financial risk transfer strategies through the development of cost-benefit analysis, land use planning tools, incorporating indicators of risk, risk retention and transfer evaluations, early warning and on- time loss assessment mechanisms. The platform allows selecting the type of hazard –earthquakes, hurricanes: wind/surge, floods, landslides, volcano, tsunami– scale and resolution according to the quality of information available, and purpose of evaluation. A major objective of this GIS platform is to develop a risk communication tool to assist in socializing risk assessment and to aware policy makers about a country's exposure and provide them with open source tools to help them design risk management strategies. The multi risk modeling platform is based on open and dynamic architecture allowing for wide distribution and future update and improvement by the users. This initiative is led in Central America by CEPREDENAC in collaboration with Central American governments with the technical and financial support of the World Bank, IADB and USISDR. The technical work is refined to make use of the System of Indicators of Risk and Risk Management for the Americas, and to articulate explicit deliverables for Country Risk Profiles requested by the countries of the Central and South America.
Core Indicator 2: Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities
Data collection and dissemination processes allow decision-makers and the public to understand the country’s exposure to various hazards and its social, economic, environmental and physical vulnerabilities. Such information, disseminated in an appropriate and timely manner, allows communities to take effective action to reduce risk.
Against this core indicator, Europe reports the most progress, followed by Asia which reports marginally better progress than the remaining regions. High, middle and low-income countries score a mean achievement of 3.7, 3 and 2.8 respectively. The challenges reported by all income classifications relate to difficulties in coordination and integration. In some middle and most low-income countries, the lack of resources to acquire and maintain equipment and the general lack of human technical capacities is reported as a constraint. Hazard monitoring is recognised to be a key activity that underpins both risk assessment and early warning. In most countries, governmental responsibilities for hazard monitoring rests with a wide range of scientific and technical bodies responsible for meteorology, geology, seismology, oceanography etc.
Many countries, however, report major difficulties to coordinate, share information and adopt common data standards and methodologies, when hazard monitoring is spread across many specialised institutions. Some countries, such as El Salvador, have addressed this problem by creating a single institutional platform that brings together all the specialised scientific organisations under one framework and integrates hazard information to feed into risk assessments. Other countries such as Colombia are considering similar initiatives.
The National Service of Territorial Studies (SNET), El Salvador Following the impact of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and the earthquakes of 2001, the Government of El Salvador merged the National Meteorological Service and the Centre for Geotechnical Research to create a single platform for hazard monitoring and risk and vulnerability analysis and for producing information to support disaster risk reduction in the country. SNET is structured around five areas closely related to disaster risk reduction: geology, meteorology, hydrology, oceanography and territorial studies. The creation of SNET enabled the elimination of duplication and gaps that existed between the different stand-alone scientific and technical organisations, helped bridge the gap between hazard monitoring and the generation of multi-hazard risk scenarios; created a single information window for national and local government organisations involved in disaster risk reduction and led to savings in administrative costs. Nevertheless, SNET has weaknesses related to insufficient budget allocations and a perceived loss of institutional autonomy when it was absorbed within the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in May, 2007.
Core indicator 3: Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities
Early warning systems should be an integral component of any nation’s disaster risk reduction strategy, enabling the authorities and communities to take appropriate measures for protecting lives and livelihoods in anticipation of a disaster. Over the last 50 years, while the recorded number of disasters, caused by natural hazards, and their associated economic losses have increased by nearly 10-fold and 50-fold, respectively, loss of life associated with hydro-meteorological hazards has decreased 10-fold. This has been primarily associated with the development of early warning systems and emergency preparedness and planning at national to local levels. Assessing capacity against the four elements of early warning (risk knowledge, monitoring and warning services, dissemination and communication, and response capabilities) is essential to empowering individuals and communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in an appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life, damage to property and the environment, and loss of livelihoods.
Average progress reported across the regions shows that Europe assesses itself at an average of 3.8 while Asia reports an average of 3.2, followed by the Americas and the Pacific at 3, and Africa at 2.8. Average progress reported by income classification is similar among low and middle income countries with respect to hazard monitoring (2.8) with high income countries reporting progress at an average of level 4.
As in hazard monitoring and risk assessment, the main constraints reported relate to a lack of technical capacities, equipment, human and financial resources. Countries also report difficulties in communicating early warning information to poor and vulnerable communities and a lack of coordination between the institutions responsible for disaster preparedness and those responsible for hazard monitoring.
In the Americas, in addition to installed capacities to monitor cyclones, floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, capacities to monitor drought and tsunamis are also being developed. Most of these initiatives, however, are specific projects and programmes, supported through bilateral and multilateral cooperation rather than mainstreamed national programmes as in Asia. As in other regions, there is only an incipient development of early warning systems for localized small scale hazards, meaning that many extensive risks are not addressed.
Most high-income countries, in Europe and elsewhere, report well-developed early warning systems although recognising a need for improvement in data quality and coordination.
Core indicator 4: National and local risk assessments take account of regional / trans-boundary risks, with a view to enhance regional cooperation on risk reduction
This indicator refers to the need to cooperate regionally and internationally to assess and monitor regional and transboundary risks, exchange information and provide early warnings through appropriate arrangements. This would imply having standardized and accessible information and data on regional disaster risks, impacts and losses. High, middle and low-income countries report a mean achievement of 3.9, 2.8 and 2.8 respectively against this indicator.
Progress in the Americas has been possible due to the density of sub-regional and regional initiatives aimed at improved coordination, information sharing and collaboration, for example through the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA), Association of Caribbean States (ACS), the Andean Committee for Disaster Prevention and Assistance (CAPRADE), the project to support Disaster Prevention in the Andean Community (PREDECAN), and the regional programme of the European Union – PREVDA etc. Bilateral efforts also exist - Peru and Ecuador, for example are collaborating in a bilateral programme of sustainable cities that factors disaster risk reduction considerations into land-use planning. As in Africa, it is reported that cultural and linguistic differences can be a deterrent to bilateral or trans-national initiatives, for example between Dominican Republic and Haiti.
Trans-boundary initiatives, however, also face limitations. They are mainly dependent on member states contributions, which imply that the signing of cooperation agreements is not necessarily reflected in implementation, or incorporated into national disaster risk reduction planning. There may be an absence of common data bases and equipment to monitor and assess trans-boundary risks; and countries are sometimes not willing to share sensitive information with neighbours on particular hazards.
HFA Priority for Action 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
Core indicator 1: Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders
As adopted in the HFA, information on disaster risks and protection options, especially to citizens and local authorities in high risk areas, should be easily available and understandable to enable for them to take actions to reduce risk, and build resilience.
Europe reports most progress on making relevant information accessible and available to all stakeholders, followed by the Americas, Asia, the Pacific and Africa. High, middle and low income countries report an average level of 3.9, 3 and 2.5 respectively. These varied levels of achievement are a reflection of a number of different factors, including the generation of information, the penetration of the internet and the capacity to institutionalize information systems.
In high income countries, mainly in Europe, as well as across the Americas and Asia, a growing volume of information is becoming available through websites, information portals and publications. Internet based tools and data bases, including disaster databases and the results of hazard and risk assessments, are now increasingly accessible to both national and local stakeholders.
Challenges include the need to make information appropriate and specific to risk and cultural contexts; to ensure updating and maintenance of databases and to move from disaster preparedness and response to focus on new emerging themes such as adaptation to climate change, environmental degradation and urban risks. Ultimately there are few countries where households can easily access accurate information on the risks they face. Lack of progress in the development of comprehensive risk assessments and early warning systems, therefore undermines the value of information systems.
A recent World Bank report states that the ‘institutional dimension – the hidden wiring’ – ultimately determines the effectiveness of the systems in place for disaster information management and dissemination. The report notes that “while software programmes are steadily developing the real difficulty lies in anchoring the technology in an institutional context where it is supported by relevant and effective operating procedures, agreed terminology and data labelling and a shared awareness of the benefits of proper handling of disaster information”.
Core indicator 2: School curricula, education material and relevant trainings include disaster risk reduction and recovery concepts and practices
Incorporating disaster risk-related issues into existing education curricula contributes to continuous learning and reinforces knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Training activities also provide the opportunity to consider indigenous knowledge and traditional practices for risk reduction and mitigation. Progress against this core indicator is reported at an average score of 3.6, 2.8 and 2.3 for high, middle and low-income countries respectively, indicating minor progress in most countries. Challenges noted include the lack of capacity among educators and trainers, difficulties in addressing needs in poor urban and rural areas, the lack of validation of methodologies and tools and little exchange of experiences. The 2006-2007 international disaster risk reduction campaign “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School”, however, has furthered and raised awareness of the importance of the education agenda across some countries.
In the Americas, networks are being formed, for example the Central American and Dominican Republic Framework for Education and Disaster Risk Reduction; a Latin American regional thematic educational platform with the support of UNISDR, and a network of universities with the support of regional and international agencies. There is also an increasing commitment and involvement of Ministries of Education, with disaster risk reduction included in a growing number of primary, secondary and higher education curricula as well as at the university level. Non-formal education is also being promoted through media, knowledge fairs, community outreach and campaigns targeting civil society.
Core indicator 3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and strengthened
Authorities at national and regional level have a key role to play in strenghtening technical and scientific capacities to develop and apply methodologies, studies and models to assess vulnerabilities and impacts of hazards, including the improvement of regional monitoring capacities and assessments.
Progress on this indicator is rather uneven across the regions and income classifications, but is also in fact the weakest amongst all other indicators. Europe and the Pacific report consistent but not spectacular progress (at level 3 and above), while other regions report only some instances of progress. This area is clearly one of the weakest links in the successful implementation of the HFA and countries acknowledge the need for much more dedicated effort, capacities and sharing tools and methods between countries to improve progress on this important front.
In Europe, only 40% of countries (such as the Czech Republic) report the application of tools for cost-benefit analysis which mainly focus research on forecasting and warning systems, modern types of dissemination and flood protection. In Africa, only Malawi reports substantial achievement in this area. 9 other countries report minor progress while 7 countries have no capacity in place at all. The challenges reported are familiar, namely constraints in financial, technical and human capacities. The strong dependency on external funds and partners, with a lack of transfer of skills and competency, is also seen as an obstacle.
As in the case of core indicators 1 and 2 of Priority Area 2, progress in the Americas and Asia has mainly depended on a range of specific initiatives through universities and research institutions, insurance companies and development banks, rather than coherent national programmes. Tools are certainly available, but due to the lack of a functional institutional and policy framework that links disaster risk reduction and development sectors, most research has not led to mainstream applications in development planning and investment decisions.
It may be worthwhile to note that many national universities or institutions of technical education, learning or research may well have other or more routine capacities existing within their departments, faculties or programmes of Geography, Agriculture, Forestry, Meteorology, Geology, Hydrology etc that are pertinent and relevant in both knowledge and data – but which are often disregarded or ignored when one thinks in terms of “national” or “official” capabilities.
Core indicator 4: Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to urban and rural communities
A countrywide public awareness strategy – represented by a national, long-term plan of action with specific goals that organizes how the general population is informed about disaster risk and the ways they can act to reduce their exposure to hazards is critical. Public awareness actions are important tools to help integrate disaster risk reduction into every-day life.
Progress on this indicator has been reported with averages of 3.7, 2.6 and 2.8 respectively for high, medium and low-income countries. In high-income countries, for example, tools and guidelines include "RiskPlan" in Switzerland to learn about and implement disaster risk reduction and "EconoMe" to justify investments in risk reduction. In New Zealand, a long term public education programme and social marketing campaign “Get Ready, get Thru” was launched in 2006, aimed at greater individual and community preparedness for disasters.
The major challenge reported by countries is that increased awareness does not necessarily lead to reducing disaster risks. Poor rural and urban households are faced with severe livelihood and environmental constraints to reducing risk, which cannot be addressed by awareness alone.
Examples of effective impacts from international campaigns include the Safe Hospitals Campaign, launched by WHO, ISDR and the World Bank, that is raising awareness that disaster damage to health systems can have an enormous impact on economic and human development. At the same time, even small investments for making health facilities safer can reduce considerably the impact of disasters. The campaign provides a platform for strengthening of hospitals, health facilities and systems in the context of risk reduction and emergency preparedness and response.
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
The scope of environment risk management policies can have major impacts on disaster risk reduction, and should explicitly incorporate risk reduction goals and strategies. When environmental and natural resource policies specifically incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, they can help reduce underlying risk factors.
Environmental protection and adaptation to climate change have been established as priorities in all regions, and most countries have legislation, policies and institutional frameworks to address a range of environmental and natural resource management concerns. Similarly most countries are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to the Kyoto Protocol and are developing strategies and plans to address climate change. Given the importance of environment and climate change on most national agendas, it is unsurprising that in the context of HFA Priority 4, this is the only core indicator against which many countries report an achievement of institutional commitment. Progress reported by income classifications are 3.5, 2.9 and 3.4 across high, middle and low-income countries.
Some countries report that they are making substantial progress. Other countries have adopted a regional, trans-boundary approach. For example East African countries are working together to tackle concerns emanating from climate change processes.
Two kinds of issues, however, are highlighted in the country reporting. Across most low- and middle-income countries, there is a general lack of application and enforcement of environmental standards, norms and regulations. Many countries in the Americas and Asia, for example, have established environment and climate change as national priorities and have developed legislation, policy and institutional frameworks. It has been far more difficult to ensure implementation and enforce compliance through sanctions, incentives and disincentives.
The second issue is that there is often little synergy between land-use planning, strategies to adapt to climate change, environmental protection laws and other similar instruments with policy and legislation addressing disaster risk. As mentioned under challenges reported in implementing HFA Priority 1, often organizations responsible for disaster reduction have neither the political authority nor the technical capacity to intervene in environmental planning and regulation. While both kinds of policy and legislative frameworks may acknowledge the other, there may be far less real integration in practical terms.
Only in some high-income countries has this issue been resolved. In Switzerland, for example, disaster risk reduction and environmental protection are closely related in Federal laws and are overseen by one common institution at the Federal level. This means that the use of water, forests and soil and protection from associated hazards is considered in a holistic way.
Core indicator 2: Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk
The HFA recommends that this indicator can be achieved by addressing issues of food security, public health, risk sharing mechanisms, protection of critical public infrastrucute, among others. When public awareness, education, early warning and environmental policies specifically incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, they can help reduce underlying risk factors and reduce the vulnerability of more marginalised groups.
Progress against this core indicator is reported to be quite gradual with high, middle and low income countries reporting achievements of 3.8, 2.6 and 2.8 respectively. A considerable number of countries report that social development plans that will reduce the vulnerability of disaster risk prone communities are in place.
In the Americas, most countries report that commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), poverty reduction and social inclusion is included in development plans and strategies as well as in institutional mechanisms.
The key challenge is that while PRSPs and similar instruments may mention disaster risk reduction, it is unlikely that this reflects a real integration of poverty and disaster risk reduction policy frameworks and programme initiatives in practice. As in the case of environment, it seems unlikely that the organizations responsible for disaster reduction have the political authority or the technical capacity to intervene in the design of social development and poverty reduction plans and programmes. It should be noted that very few countries report a substantial reliance on social equity considerations as a driver of progress.
Core indicator 3: Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities
Countries previously affected by frequent and/or large scale disasters will tend to agree with this indicator’s assertion that focusing on the protection of a state’s most vulnerable economic activities and productive sectors is an efficient strategy to help reduce the overall impacts of disasters. This core indicator is crucial given the increasing asset exposure. However, across all countries and HFA Priorities, this indicator has the second lowest average level of achievement reported - 3.7, 2.3 and 2.7 in the case of high, middle and low-income countries respectively. From reports it is evident that it’s still not the norm to factor the costs of disaster risk into public investment decisions. As a result disaster risk reduction considerations become factored into economic and productive development on an ad hoc rather than a systematic basis.
As in other areas of the HFA Priority 4, underlying problems include the difficulties surrounding economic development planning itself. African countries, for example, highlight political instability, poverty and weak governance as factors which endanger the implementation of economic development plans. At the same time, there is very little systematic integration of economic development and disaster risk reduction policies and legislation. As in other sectors, it is unlikely that in most countries disaster risk reduction organizations have the political authority or technical capacity to intervene in economic development planning.
In the Americas, reports indicate that it is becoming more common to incorporate disaster risk considerations into economic development planning in sectors such as petroleum, agriculture, energy, fishing and mining and tourism. The last is of particular importance in the case of the Caribbean. In Peru, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has fully incorporated disaster risk reduction into the National System for Public Investment, which requires a risk evaluation to improve all public investment across sectors and in both central and local government. The Planning and Economic Policy Ministry in Costa Rica has likewise recently added disaster risk evaluation to its requirements to approve public investment projects.
The National System for Public Investment (SNIP), Peru The SNIP was created in 2000 in order to improve the quality of public investment in Peru by introducing cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness methodologies into the process of project evaluation in order to ensure their social benefits, their sustainability and compatibility with national policies. Between 2004 and 2006, with support from GTZ the Ministry of Economy and Finance developed specific methodologies and guidelines to include disaster risk reduction considerations into all public investment projects as well as to train public officials in all regions of the country. In particular, public investment projects were evaluated objectively to determine if the increase in investment, operating and maintenance costs due to an introduction of disaster risk reduction measures were equal or less than the likely savings in reconstruction costs and in lost profits for different probabilities of hazard occurrence. This experience indicates that it is possible to successfully introduce disaster risk reduction considerations into public investment in a low-middle-income country, when political priority is given to improving the quality of public spending. (Source: Hesse, et al., 2008)
Core indicator 4: Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including enforcement of building codes
Including disaster risk reduction elements in land-use plans is widely recognised as an important strategy for reducing the vulnerability of communities to hazards. Land use planning that is carefully designed and rigorously implemented is a useful approach to managing expanding human settlements and minimizing associated risks.
Progress reported against this indicator, at average levels of 3.7, 2.6 and 2.3 for high, middle and low-income countries respectively shows a critical gap given the existing accumulation of urban disaster risk and the rate of urbanization in most developing countries.
In most European and high-income countries, disaster risk considerations are already incorporated in building and planning regulations and codes. The flooding in the United Kingdom in 2007 or the impact of Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America in 2005, both of which caused massive asset loss, however showed that there is no room for complacency. Disaster risk is dynamic and may increase due to developments in one sector (encroachment of flood-plains in the United Kingdom or destruction of wetlands in New Orleans) which increase risks in another. Nevertheless, high-income countries have functioning systems of land-use planning and building regulation in place, which can be adopted for disaster risk reduction and the necessary resources to upgrade and adapt urban infrastructure, housing and hazard protection measures.
Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development planning, Colombia Since the creation of its National System for Disaster Prevention and Attention following the traumatic experience of the Armero volcanic eruption in 1985, Colombia has been an innovator in strengthening capacities for disaster risk reduction. In 2001, disaster prevention line item was included in the national government’s annual budget process for the first time allowing municipalities to spend budgetary allocations on disaster risk reduction. Soon after disaster risk reduction was included in the national development plan. In 2004, the government with support from the World Bank began a 10 year programme to reduce risk nationally and in key municipalities through the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Planning. Nationally, outmoded hydrologic, seismic, and volcanic detection and forecasting systems are to be upgraded and integrated into a national system for managing and sharing information on disaster risk management. Additionally, technical assistance is being provided to municipalities to include disaster risk reduction in land-use planning and to develop action plans. In Colombia, municipalities shoulder a large part of responsibility for disaster risk reduction. While large and wealthy municipalities such as Bogota are already investing heavily in retrofitting schools, hospitals and kindergartens, in part with World Bank finance, a key challenge in Colombia is to strengthen the capacity of weaker municipalities in high risk areas. (Source: World Bank, 2008)
Most middle-income and all low-income countries report inclusion of disaster risk reduction into their building codes. While this progress is positive it is likely to have only a tangential impact on building vulnerability in contexts where most urban development occurs through the growth of unregulated, informal settlements. Weak implementation and enforcement mechanisms are a constant in all countries where most urbanization is informal. Unfortunately, the absence of mention in the reporting suggests that there is less activity now in introducing hazard resistant building into risk prone urban informal and rural housing, through activities such as mason training and the introduction of appropriate technologies than there was in the 1970s and 1980s, with some notable exceptions such as Pakistan.
Some progress however, is being made. There is a growing movement by city governments to address disaster risk and which demonstrate how improvements in urban governance can provide a framework for reducing disaster risk.
Progress in urban disaster risk reduction A large number of cities, including Istanbul, Tehran, Mumbai, Manila, Quito, Kathmandu, Amman, Aqaba, Kerman, Bogota, La Paz, Lima, and Caracas have developed a comprehensive understanding of their exposure to hazards and are in the process of taking steps to improve their capabilities to respond and reduce disaster risks. Some have done so under their own initiative - others with support from national governments, international organisations, such as the World Bank and UNDP, or NGOs such as the Earthquake and Megacities Initiative (EMI) and Geo-hazards International. At the international level, a significant development is presented by the Global Forum for Urban Disaster Reduction which was launched at the First Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction as a broad forum of UN organizations, city governments, the ProVention Consortium and other partners. UNISDR with a range of partners has established the Alliance for Local Government and two regional task forces for Urban Risk Reduction (in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Asia and the Pacific) which are facilitating coordination between the multitude of city-specific regional initiatives. While a large number of urban disaster risk reduction initiatives now exist, in practice most initiatives still consist of studying and mapping urban risk and in improving preparedness and response capacities. In a number of countries, such as Colombia, Turkey and Iran, planning has been followed up with major investments in retrofitting risk prone structures and in the development of innovative partnerships between local government and civil society to manage local disaster risks.
Progress is also being made in some countries to ensure that public facilities such as schools or hospitals are either retrofitted or built to hazard resistant standards: significant investments by Iran to retrofit schools to seismic resistant standards is an excellent example of this kind of initiative. In 2007, Iran also initiated retrofitting residential buildings in rural areas, aiming to retrofit around 300,000 houses annually.
Disaster resilient schools and health facilities are being built in cooperation with the World Bank in Madagascar, while in the Americas increasing concern for the safety of schools and hospitals and critical infrastructure is also reported.
The priority given to emergency preparedness and risk reduction by national governments and communities in Latin America and the Caribbean, with strong and sustained support by WHO/Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and multilateral and non/governmental organizations, has reduced the vulnerabilities and risks and turned the previously frequent hazardous impacts with disaster potential into more manageable events. The supporting regional structures, including decentralized regional teams, the production of a large body of technical publications and guidelines over more than 20 years and support of information collection and sharing practices, the development of state-of-the-art Wind Hazard Maps for Caribbean islands and nearby coastal areas of Central and South America, the HELID disaster library, and tools such as the Hospital Safety Index, a tool for countries to assess risk and vulnerability in health facilities, have all been important to emergency preparedness in the region. Consequently, these effective preparedness mechanisms have resulted in more and more self-reliance in risk reduction, preparedness, response and recovery.
Core indicator 5: Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes
It is essential to consider disaster risk reduction principles when designing post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes in order to ‘build back better’ and not recreate risk. There is an identified need for the national and local implementation of international post disaster recovery and reconstruction norms and standards.
Average progress against this indicator is quite substantive across Europe and the Pacific with institutional commitment to the principles having been attained. Other regions report lower levels of progress with some commitment attained in principle, but lagging implementation. By income classification, countries report progress at 3.4, 2.8, and 2.7 for high, medium and low-income countries respectively. Overall, most country reports signal the fact that there has been plenty of discussion around this area in past years, as a reaction to how to better integrate risk reduction principles in the aftermath of recent large scale disasters. However, thorough implementation of these recovery principles is yet to be seen as a consistent undertaking.
At the same time, post-disaster recovery has acted as the major stimulus for the design of new policies, legislation and institutional systems for disaster risk reduction, as well as of innovative mechanisms for risk financing.
Unfortunately, recent assessments of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction carried out by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) in affected countries in the Indian Ocean and for the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Mitch in Central America, show that while the concepts of building back better or of reconstruction with transformation have been adopted by both governments of affected countries and donors alike, it has not always been easy to move from rhetoric to implementation. One problem highlighted, is that even when disaster risk is effectively incorporated into recovery or reconstruction projects and programmes, because these are stand-alone initiatives with clearly bounded limits they do not necessarily lead to a more mainstream adoption of disaster risk considerations into on-going planning and regulation systems in the country concerned.
The reporting across the Americas, Asia and Africa indicate that the lack of political will and initiative to recognise disaster risk, the pressure to rebuild quickly and the absence of pre-existing mechanisms and capacities to support hazard resistant owner-driven housing, are all obstacles that inhibit the use of reconstruction as a window of opportunity for disaster risk reduction. Even if hazard resistant construction is promoted and achieved, this does not always address the needs of poor urban and rural households, nor of specific social groups such as women headed households.
Overall achievement against this core indicator is low, even though a number of initiatives are now beginning to address the issue in different regions, through mechanisms such as the International Recovery Platform (IRP) and the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER). For example, the IRP is promoting an Earthquake Risk Reduction Preparedness and Recovery Programme (ERRP), through UNDP is aimed at promoting regional partnerships but also at creating a safe and assured community and region that enable appropriate and fast implementation of recovery activities with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for the South Asian region, including India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Bhutan.
Core indicator 6: Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure
It is critical to institutionalize procedures to integrate disaster risk reduction measures into national development strategies, plans and programmes espeically with reference to critical areas such as poverty reduction, housing, water, sanitation, energy, health, agriculture, infrastructure and environment to ensure that development does not create further disaster (risks).
Reporting on this indicator shows slow progress across the regions and by income classifications. High, medium and low income countries report average progress at 3.7, 2.6 and 2.5 respectively.
It has been established that the factoring of disaster risk considerations into the development of critical infrastructure is critical to sustainable development. In the United States of America this has been recognised as a major challenge as with other high-income countries – where it is clear that more needs to be done to factor disaster risk reduction considerations into major infrastructure projects.
Countries across the Americas report that while environmental impact assessments of major development projects are carried out, these do not necessarily include disaster risk. As mentioned above, exceptions are countries such as Peru, where mandatory evaluations disaster risk reduction have been incorporated into the National System for Public Investment. Other countries report that procedures and regulations may be in place but insufficient technical and human resources exist to evaluate and approve project or for enforcement.
In general, awareness of the role that inappropriate development projects may have in increasing disaster risk is very low, except in the case of some infrastructure projects, such as dams, while the political and economic interests at stake may be very high. It is still rare for the opportunity costs and co-benefits of alternative ways of addressing infrastructure need to be identified in a way that reduces the disaster risk faced by poor urban and rural households.
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
An investment of time and resources in systematically evaluating and subsequently improving disaster preparedness capacities and mechanisms provides states with a substantial increase in readiness for managing disaster impacts, and improves response measures.
Relatively good progress has been reported on this indicator by countries across regions and income classifications at 4, 3.1 and 3.2 for high, medium and low income countries respectively. It is however worth emphasising that while relative progress on this indicator may be encouraging, in real terms, there still remains quite a lot to be achieved.
Most countries in Africa report the establishment of institutions for disaster management and deem capacities and mechanisms ‘sufficient’, but with scope for improvement. Some countries point out that disaster risk reduction is a ‘new process’ and therefore implementation of policies is rather slow in this regard. Countries also state a lack of appropriate policies and legislation for disaster risk management with a decentralised allocation of capacities and resources.
All countries in Asia and the Americas report progress in strengthening their capacities to manage disaster risks. However, while a disaster risk reduction perspective has been introduced into the language of many national disaster management institutions and into a range of activities, in practice, it is usually consistent with a shift in emphasis from response to preparedness and from an ad-hoc to a planned approach, complemented by specific investments in hazard mitigation, for example the construction of river defences.
Capacity building, St. Lucia The World Bank has worked with the Government of Saint Lucia to strengthen Disaster Risk Management (DRM) capacity since 1998. Over the past ten years, two of its projects in partnership with the Government have reduced the country’s vulnerability to adverse natural events, through a range of investments in risk mitigation activities, including the construction of sea defences, the reinforcing and retrofitting of key infrastructure and strengthening the capacity of the National Emergency Management Office (NEMO). St. Lucia has joined the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) to protect its sovereign risk and was the first country to receive support from the facility for US$ 418,976 due to an earthquake of magnitude 7.4 with epicentre close to the island of Martinique that triggered the CCRIF in December of 2007. In St. Lucia, nevertheless, heavy rainfall causes flooding and landslides, which often cause more damage than wind shear during a hurricane. With an estimated 60% of housing unregulated in the islands, some communities do not have access to drainage which increases flood risk. Efforts to reduce the impact of landslides and flooding can only be addressed effectively at the local level. A challenge will be to increase capacities for and investment in local disaster risk reduction. As in other countries sustainability to give continuity to disaster risk reduction and to keep plans up to date is an issue given the lack of both trained human and financial resources. (Source: World Bank, 2008)
Needs identified in this area include increased and permanent budgetary allocation and financial support, resources and capacity development, particularly at the local level. Some countries still report a lack of political commitment to move the focus from emergency response towards disaster risk reduction.
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
Disaster preparedness and response planning for recovery and rehabilitation efforts should be informed by the lessons learned from previous disasters as well as knowledge of risk reduction measures in order to avoid missing the underlying causes of risk. Disaster risk reduction actions should be required in the design and implementation of both types of planning.
Good progress is being made against this core indicator with mean scores of 4.2, 2.9 and 3.1 respectively for high, middle and low-income countries. Emergency plans exist in all countries but the extent to which they are implemented systematically at all levels varies widely. Drills and simulations occur but not methodically nor necessarily in all areas. There is a need to systematise experiences, coordinate efforts at the different levels to ensure consistency in carrying out simulations, as well as for developing and/or updating contingency plans.
In Europe, disaster preparedness and contingency planning is organised in an interdisciplinary manner and merges professional and voluntary rescue services with both government and private sector accountability. Usually, municipalities have clear legal responsibilities to respond to emergencies and to reduce risks while companies have similar obligations to protect their employees and property. Often the private sector may co-finance disaster preparedness in the municipalities, where they are located. Technical and institutional capacities exist, emergency management plans are in place at local, regional and national level and regular trainings is performed. 70% of the countries state that substantial or comprehensive achievement has been attained over the last few years.
In Asia and the Americas, countries are progressing at different rates.
In Africa, financial and capacity shortfalls are reported, as in other areas. However, the progress being made in countries such as Mozambique show that achievement has as much to do with political will and good organization as with the availability of financial resources.
The WHO Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) has developed a model for planning emergency preparedness and risk reduction programme, after a regional survey, with community capacity enhancement as the ultimate goal. Broad goals and specific skills for local disaster planning programmes have been identified. Training tools on emergency preparedness, response and recovery for use in community based intervention areas are being developed. An optimum package for risk reduction, emergency preparedness and response is now being worked on. A multi-hazard and risk atlas is being developed.
Core indicator 3: Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required
It is important for governments to commit resources for early recovery programmes, including quick assessment of damage, needs and capacities, restoration of critical infrastructure and livelihood, following major disaster events to support the resilience of affected communities, until long term reconstruction of assets takes place.
Average scores of 4, 2.9 and 2.3 respectively have been achieved for high, middle and low-income countries. In the regions, Africa and the Pacific report less progress compared to the other regions.
Some countries report the establishment or existence of contingency funds. In Africa, for example, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, and Tanzania, report the existence of a fund, as do a number of countries in the Americas (El Salvador, Costa Rica and Colombia) and in Asia (Iran, Philippines) and the Pacific (Australia, New Zealand). Experience with such funds, however is mixed. Governments may use the funds to cover other contingencies or budget deficits, while they are often insufficient to cover the response and recovery costs of a large scale disaster. Other countries report that emergency programs are often dependent on external funds since funds allocated at the national level are either ad hoc, or in some countries there is no core fund allocated for contingencies at the national level.
In high-income countries, property insurance has always been used as a mechanism for post disaster recovery and reconstruction financing, though it does not automatically promote the adoption of disaster risk reduction measures. Contingency funds also exist at the national and municipality level, in some countries. Private fund raising (e.g. Swiss Solidarity) is also a major source of funding in case of major disasters. In the Czech Republic for example financial reserves are coordinated at the state level by the Ministry of Interior and are backed by law.
Insurance and new mechanisms such as catastrophe pools and bonds are now being increasingly adopted in upper middle-income countries in order to replace traditional relief and reconstruction funding from government and international sources. The Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Fund (CCRIF) allows countries to protect their sovereign risk while at the same time reduces costs through pooling risk. The Turkey compulsory insurance pool provides a catastrophe pool for risk prone households and also promotes awareness and safe construction. Mexico has issued a catastrophe bond to provide a funding mechanism for response and recovery in the case of a major earthquake.
However, in most countries government responsibility for household level disaster loss is not explicitly defined, which is a major obstacle to the development of insurance based mechanisms. In particular, small scale recurrent losses associated with extensive risk may not be addressed at all. Across much of Africa, Asia and the Americas, therefore, countries still have to rely on the unpredictability of international humanitarian assistance to address response and recovery needs.
The Mexican Catastrophe Bond In 1996 the Government of Mexico established a self-insurance fund to finance emergency needs in the aftermath of a disaster. Initially, the fund was supposed to be covered by an annual allocation within the Government budget which shrank over time and the total expenses of the fund exceeded its resources. The implementation of a risk financing strategy with market-based financial instruments made the fund less dependent on Government allocations of post-disaster funds. In March 2006, Mexico purchased a US$ 450 million catastrophe coverage, of which US$ 160 million was issued a catastrophe bond, to cover against the risk of earthquakes which has been sold to institutional investors and acts now like an insurance policy for the Mexican Government. This is the first time a sovereign country has issued a catastrophe bond. Catastrophe (CAT) bonds are an example of alternative risk transfer (ART) instruments that transfer catastrophic risk to the capital markets via the issue of a bond, where repayment of principal is contingent upon occurrence of a predefined catastrophe. The specified value limit of the CAT bond is paid out when a predetermined indemnity level, index, or parametric trigger occurs. The parametric trigger, based on scientifically measurable characteristics of a hazard (for example, wind speed, earthquake intensity), is the most frequent. Although it is still an experimental market, the annual stream of CAT bond issues more than doubled between 2006 and 2007, with a peak at US$7.7 billion in 2006. It should also be pointed out that according to others, these financial vehicles could be very costly and only protect for the very extreme events. In many cases, countries do not get paid for more frequent events that can still cause major losses. In other words, insurance transfers, but does not reduce risk.
Core indicator 4: Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event reviews
Emergency preparedness and response as well as planning for recovery and rehabilitation efforts should be informed by the lessons learned from previous disasters. Disaster risk reduction actions should be included in the design and implementation of all types of planning.
Relatively consistent progress is being made against this core indicator with mean scores of 4.1, 3 and 3.1 respectively for high, middle and low-income countries.
While overall progress is being made in this area it is often as a result of ad hoc initiatives rather than institutionalised practices or strategies per se. In the recent past, in spite of increased recognition for coordination on information management and dissemination functions in post disaster scenarios, it has been found challenging to coordinate information both within and between multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the World Bank, and the national authorities responsible for disaster management, relief, recovery and rehabilitation.
There is a continual need, therefore, for the adoption of standardised information systems, protocols and procedures for information management that are in place before disasters occur and that can manage damage and loss information and recovery need information as it arises. While a number of initiatives are underway in this area under the auspices of the World Bank and the CWGER, it is clear that there is a long-way to go before they become mainstreamed at the country level in middle and low-income countries.
Post-disaster evaluation is becoming more widespread, highlighted by the experience of the Tsunami Evaluation Committee (TEC). Countries, such as Armenia and Turkey report taking into account the experiences of past disasters to prepare emergency response plans, development and research projects, purchase new equipment and educate and train members of rescue and relief forces, as well as the public. Jamaica also reports that information and lessons learnt are shared and communicated through reports from all sectors after a disaster event. In contrast, other evaluations such as a recently completed study of the ten years following Mitch in Central America by the World Bank show how both affected countries and donors alike may quickly forget about commitments made in the aftermath of a regular disaster. Frequent post-disaster evaluations with broad stakeholder participation are therefore critical to promoting greater accountability.
Related documents
HFA Monitor Template (291 KB)
HFA Monitor Template - Working Format for National Consultation Process (436 KB)
HFA Biennial Monitoring and Progress Review Framework
Responsibilities for HFA Reporting and Monitoring
HFA Monitor User Guidance Notes (229 KB)
