IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration across ScalesChapter 7regard the voluntary nature of the HFA as a useful flexible commitment,largely based on self-regulation and trust, while others regard this as itsinherent weakness (Pelling, 2011, p. 44).The HFA’s Strategic Goals include the integration of DRR into sustainabledevelopment policies and planning; development and strengthening ofinstitutions, mechanisms, and capacities to build resilience to hazards;and the systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into thedesign and implementation of emergency preparedness, response, andrecovery programs (UNISDR, 2005a). The Framework also provides fivePriorities for Action:1) Ensure that DRR is a national and local priority, with a stronginstitutional basis for implementation2) Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks, and enhance earlywarning3) Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture ofsafety and resilience at all levels4) Reduce the underlying risk factors5) Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.The priorities address all hazards with a multi-hazard approach, hencethe inclusion of climate change risks and adaptation, but they do notspecify the need to factor climate change risks and adaptation intoongoing action. The HFA does identify ‘critical tasks’ for varied actors,including states who are to “promote the integration of DRR with climatevariability and climate change into DRR strategies and adaptation toclimate change” (UNISDR 2005a; see also UNISDR, 2009a, 2011a,b;World Bank, 2011a).7.3.1.2. Status of ImplementationThis section will review the various tools that have been used to measurethe performance of the HFA in fulfilling its Strategic Goals and Prioritiesfor Action.The measurement of performance in the implementation of DRR was amatter of considerable debate when the HFA was drafted. The consensuswas for the final text not to include targets or indicators of progress, butcountries were encouraged to develop their own guidelines to monitortheir own progress in reducing their risks. To assist this process, in 2008,UNISDR published guidance notes on ‘Indicators of Progress’ (UNISDR,2008). This provided the template for self-assessment that is used innational reports. While there is an obvious value in ‘self-assessment’ asa learning experience, in the absence of external, objective evaluation,inevitable doubts will always remain concerning such internal reportingon actual progress with DRR and CCA.The main instruments to encourage HFA applications are the HFAMonitoring Service on PreventionWeb acting mainly as a guidance toolfor countries to monitor their own progress in DRR. This is a multi-tieronline tool for regional, national, and local progress review. CoreIndicators are measured for the five HFA Priorities for Action as notedbelow, and these are reported with detailed analysis in the GlobalAssessment Reports (UNISDR, 2009a, 2011a; refer to Section 7.4.5). Inaddition to these biennial reports, the UNISDR has published a mid-termreview of progress in achieving the HFA (UNISDR, 2011b). Further toolsto measure progress include the reports to the biennial sessions of theGlobal Platform for DRR and the regional platforms for DRR and othersimilar mechanisms. The World Bank and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) also utilize the HFA to guide theirsupport to national and local programs on DRR and gradually also forCCA (the HFA is also discussed in Sections 1.3.6 and 6.3.2).As a result of the adoption of HFA, and the development of performanceindicators, global efforts to address DRR have become more systematic.In 2009, the first biennial Global Assessment Report (GAR) on DisasterRisk Reduction was released and in the same year the Global Networkof Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR) alsoreleased a report on the performance of the HFA (GNDR, 2009). The GARfound that since the adoption of the HFA, progress toward decreasingdisaster risk is varied across scales. This variation is based on nationalgovernment agencies self-assessment of progress against the indicatorsdefined by the UNISDR (UNISDR, 2008) and since many of these indicatorsrequire a subjective assessment, progress is not directly comparableacross countries.Countries have been making improvements toward increasing capacity,developing institutional systems, and legislation to promote DRR, andearly warning systems have been implemented in many areas. However,the Global Assessment Reports (UNISDR, 2009a, 2011a) conclude thatprogress is still required to mainstream DRR into public investment,development planning, and governance arrangements. During 2010, atthe mid-point in the HFA, the UN Secretary General echoed this concernin reporting that “risk reduction is still not hardwired into the ‘businessprocesses’ of the development sectors, planning ministries and financialinstitutions” (UNGA, 2010, p. 5).Further, both the GARs and the GNDR (2009, 2011) noted that atnational and international levels, policy and institutional frameworksfor climate change adaptation and poverty reduction are not yetsynchronized to those for DRR. For example, the 2011 GAR reports onweak coordination and separate management between institutionaland program mechanisms (UNISDR, 2011a, p. 150).The GNDR observed that ecosystem management approaches can providemultiple benefits, including risk reduction, and thus be a central part ofDRR strategies. But countries have experienced difficulty in addressingunderlying risk drivers (such as food security, social protection, buildingcodes/standards, poverty alleviation, poor urban and local governance,vulnerable rural livelihoods, and ecosystem decline) in a way that leadsto a reduction in the risk of damages and economic loss (GNDR, 2009).This Fourth HFA Priority for Action – ‘Reduce the Underlying Risk Factors’– remains the greatest challenge to civil society bodies, with all 13criteria only reaching a rating of 2 on the assessment scale: ‘some activitybut significant scope for improvements’ (GNDR, 2009, pp. 24–26). The404