Hyogo framework of action

5/20/2018 Hyogo framework of action

1/90

IMPLEMENTING THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK

FOR ACTION IN EUROPE

Regional Synthesis Report 2011-2013


2/90


3/90

ImplementingTHE HYOGO FRAMEWORKFOR ACTION IN EUROPEREGIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORT 2011-2013


4/90


5/90

Preface

Te Hyogo Framework or Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilience o Nations and Communities to Disastersemphasizes the need to monitor and review progress in disaster risk reduction to both documents the implementation othe Framework and to inorm disaster risk reduction planning and programming at national and regional levels.

Responsibilities or monitoring the HFA are assigned mainly to governments, but they are also identified or regional or-ganizations and institutions, international organizations and partners in the International Strategy or Disaster Reduction.

Te main objective o this report to identiy key trends in terms o progress made and challenges aced at both national

and regional levels through the implementation o the HFA in Europe between 2011 and 2013 and to compare progressmade, lessons learned and challenges to overcome as compared with those reported in 2011 and in 2009.

Tis synthesis report is based on reports submitted by countries and regional organizations that responded to the HFAmonitoring requirements. Tose countries that have yet to respond remain unrepresented.

While in some countries consultation exercises were conducted as part o the review process, the reports are sel-assess-ments by national authorities prepared by the designated HFA Focal Points.

In addition, this report presents the findings o the first seven European cities to complete the Local Government Sel-Assessment ool, an effort to benchmark and report progress made in building resilient cities.

Tis is the last European regional HFA report to be published in advance o agreement on a successor to the HFA, as the

World Conerence on Disaster Reduction is tentatively scheduled or January 2015. At that time a new instrument willbe agreed upon and submitted to the United Nations General Assembly or endorsement. It is thereore hoped that thisreport will inorm the consultations or how best to continue DRR work in the Post-2015 ramework.

5


6/90


7/90

Acknowledgements

UNISDR grateully acknowledges the countries and regional organizations o Europe that have reported on the imple-mentation o the HFA.

Te countries are: Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Te Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, Swit-zerland, Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia, urkey and the UK. Special thanks are offered to the HFA FocalPoints o those countries who acilitated, coordinated and presented the reports.

Te regional organizations and initiatives are: the Council o Europe (EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement), the Eu-ropean Commission, the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative or South Eastern Europe and the EuropeanForum or Disaster Risk Reduction.

Special thanks are extended to Ms. Donna Childs (UNISDR Consultant) who developed the report, Ms. Steanie Dan-nenmann-Di Palma (UNISDR) who consolidated and commented the reports and to Mr. Demetrio Innocenti (UNIS-DR) and Ms. Mariana Cristina Lucia Osihn (UNISDR) or their thoughtul contributions.

Ms. Paola Albrito (UNISDR) guided the development o this report.

Te Council o Europe (EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement) and the UNISDR Europe Regional Office kindly sup-ported publication o this report.

Disclaimer

Te findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed here are those o the authors and do not necessarily reflect theofficial views o UNISDR or o the governments o its member countries, which cannot be held responsible or any useo the inormation contained herein. Te designations employed and the presentation o the material do not imply theexpression o any opinion whatsoever on the part o the UN Secretariat concerning the legal status o any country, terri-tory, city or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delineation o its rontier or boundaries.

Te material in this publication is copyrighted. No use o this publication may be made or resale or other commercialpurposes without prior written consent o UNISDR. All images remain the sole property o the quoted sources and maynot be used or any purpose without written permission rom the relevant sources.

For permission to make available online, distribute or reprint any part o this work please contact UNISDR at [email protected]

7


8/90


9/90

Contents

Preace................................................................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgements.......... ................... ................... .................. ................... ................... ................... ................... ..............7

Disclaimer..........................................................................................................................................................................7

Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ..11

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................................13

1. HFA implementation at national level........................................................................................................23

1.1 Strategic Goals..........................................................................................................................................................231.2 Priorities or Action......................... ......................... ......................... ........................ ......................... .......................23

Priority or Action 1........................ ........................ ......................... ........................ ......................... .......................23



Priority or Action 4 ....................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ........................ .......................35


1.3 Drivers o Progress....................................................................................................................................................40

2. HFA implementation at regional level........................................................................................................512.1 Advances in HFA implementation at regional level.................. ......................... ......................... ........................ .......51

European Commission............................ ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............51 Council o Europe European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement....................... ........................ .......56

Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initia- tive or South Eastern Europe............................ ........................ .......58

European Forum or Disaster Risk Reduction................. ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............59

3. HFA implementation at local level getting cities ready..........................................................................65 en Essentials or Making Cities Resilient:

Essential 1...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............66

Essential 2...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............67

Essential 3...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............68

Essential 4...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............69

Essential 5...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............70

Essential 6...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............71

Essential 7...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............71

Essential 8...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............72

Essential 9...................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...............73

Essential 10........................ ......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................ ...........74

3.2 Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................................................77

4. Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................81 4.1 Progress rom previous reporting cycles............. ........................ ......................... ........................ .......................81

4.2 Challenges............. ................... .................. ................... ................... ................... ................... .................. .........82 4.3 Recommendations............ .................. ................... ................... ................... .................. ................... .................84

4.4 Looking ahead to 2015......................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ........................ ...........86


10/90

10


11/90

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACP Arican, Caribbean and Pacific Group o States Natural Disaster Facility

CIMA International Centre on Environmental Monitoring

CMEPC Civil Military Emergency Planning Council or SEE

CRR Community Risk Register

CoE Council o Europe

DG Directorate General

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO

DKKV Deutsches Komitee Katastrophenvorsorge e.V. (German Committee or Disaster Reduction)

DPP Disaster Preparedness and Prevention

DPPI SEE Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative or South Eastern Europe

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRRI Disaster Risk Reduction Initiative

EC European Commission

ECHO DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (European Commission)

EENA European Emergency Number Association

EU European Union

EUR-OPA Council o Europe European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement

EWS Early Warning Systems

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme

GMES Global Monitoring or Environment and Security

HFA Hyogo Framework or Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience o nations and communities to

disastersIDNR International Decade or Natural Disaster Reduction

IFRC International Federation o Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

ISDR International Strategy or Disaster Reduction

LRF Local Resilience Forum

LRRD Linking Relie Rehabilitation and Development

NAO North Atlantic reaty Organization

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NP National Platorm

PPRD Programme or the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Natural and Man-made Disasters

RCC SEE Regional Cooperation Council o South East Europe

SEE South Eastern Europe

SEEDRMAP South Eastern Europe Disaster Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Programme

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNISDR United Nations Office or Disaster Risk Reduction

UNOCHA United Nations Office or the Coordination o Humanitarian Affairs

UNU-EHS United Nations University, Institute or Environment and Human Security

WCDR World Conerence on Disaster Reduction, Kobe & Hyogo/Japan, 2005

WMO World Meteorological Organization

11


12/90

12


13/90

13

Executive Summary

Background

In January 2005, at the World Conerence on Disaster Re-

duction, UN Member States adopted the Hyogo Frame-work or Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilienceo Nations and Communities to Disasters as an ambitiousprogramme o action to significantly reduce disaster risk1.

Monitoring and reporting on progress is an essential eatureo the HFA. Responsibility or monitoring and reporting isassigned mainly to governments, with specific requirementsincluding the preparation o national baseline assessments,periodic summaries and reviews o progress, and reports onrisk reduction progress in other policy rameworks such asMillennium Development Goals. Other requirements in-

clude contributing to regional assessments2

. Reporting re-sponsibilities are also identified or regional organizationsand institutions, international organizations within theISDR system.

In accordance with the HFA monitoring process, reportswere prepared or the first, second and third sessions o theGlobal Platorm or disaster risk reduction, which tookplace in Geneva, Switzerland, in May 2007, June 2009, andMay 2011, respectively. Te report prepared or the thirdGlobal Platorm covered the period 2009 -2011. Te aimwas to update all stakeholders on the progress made sincethe 2009 reporting. Te reports3 identified trends and pat-terns in disasters and global disaster risk, mainly gatheredrom recent global and regional reports, and progress madeby countries and organizations to reduce risks and to imple-ment the HFA.

o continue the HFA monitoring process, UNISDR in-stituted a systematic process with a request on reportingissued in January 2007 to the nationally-nominated HFAocal points and to the Permanent Missions to the UnitedNations in Geneva, accompanied by guidelines or report-ing on progress on the implementation o the HFA. Asa ollow-up, in order to systematize existing data and as-

sessments, and reviews o progress at the national level, anon-line monitoring and reviewing tool, the HFA Monitorwas made available to countries.

In addition, a Global Assessment Report, coordinatedby UNISDR, was developed to undertake a major globalstock-taking on trends in disaster occurrence and risks andprogress on disaster risk reduction. Te report was launchedin June 2009. In May 2011, the second annual Global As-sessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) waslaunched, to assess risks and progress made since 2009 andthe third bi-annual GAR will be published in May 2013.

Te process o reflection on the progress achieved has beenuseul in identiying areas where more work is needed andhighlighting how regional partners may support the effortsin urthering disaster resilience. Te monitoring has alsobeen helpul in highlighting best practices at the GlobalPlatorm to promote more widespread adoption o success-

ul approaches in building disaster resilience.

Objectives

Te main objective o this report is to provide an update onachievements, advances and key trends in the implementa-tion o the HFA at national and regional levels in Europerom 2011 - 2013, as identified by the partners, and to re-port progress made and challenges encountered since thelast report prepared in 2011.

Te assessment process aims: o monitor progress on achievements, build resilience

to disasters, and identiy gaps and necessary resourcesrelated to programmes and initiatives;

o oster closer collaboration and cooperation amongnational actors and among/with regional organizations;

o stimulate exchanges and activities with regional/international entities;

o enhance visibility o countries within the globalarena;

o share good practices/lessons learned among na-

tional actors and with other countries that might beundertaking similar initiatives; and

o access the rolling possibility o the HFA Monitoron-line reporting tool.

Given that countries have the primary responsibility orimplementing measures to reduce disaster risk and ormonitoring and reporting on their progress, the ISDR sys-tem and UNISDR are ocusing on assisting national e-orts towards these ends, in addition to the task o collatinginormation to support regional coherence and coordina-tion in addressing efforts towards a more disaster resilient

Europe.

Methodology

Te present study is based on a review o reports providedby national and regional actors via the monitoring toolHFA Monitor, which was designed and coordinated byUNISDR and is hosted online at PreventionWeb. Otherinormation and reports have also been consulted and madeavailable via sources including the UNISDR website androm ISDR system partners. In view o the act that the

1Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters: http://www.unisdr.org/hfa2Reporting on Disaster Risks and Progress in Risk Reduction, UNISDR/GP/2007/2, http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform3Availab le on the PreventionWeb website ht tp://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/GP


14/90

14

inormation available covers only some countries in the Eu-rope region, this report provides only a partial and henceindicative account o the progress being made.

O the 38 national authorities/HFA Focal Points includedin the HFA Monitor tool or Europe, a total o 26 have re-

ported. Te countries which reported results or the 2011 2013 period are: Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cro-atia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Te Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, Swit-zerland, Te ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia, ur-key and the United Kingdom.

Regional organizations and initiatives that provided in-ormation are: the Council o Europe (EUR-OPA Ma-jor Hazards Agreement), the European Commission, theDisaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative or SouthEastern Europe, and the European Forum or DisasterRisk Reduction.

Te report provides key insights into how disaster risk re-duction is currently conceived and practiced by national au-thorities implementing the HFA. It analyses the progressmade in reducing disaster risk in Europe as reported bynational authorities and identifies obstacles and challengesthat need to be overcome.

Te report is based on the three Strategic Goals and fivePriorities or Action o the HFA and includes an iden-tification o good practice and achievements, as well as an

analysis o gaps and suggestions or ways orward, throughan in-depth review o the experiences o the countries thatresponded. Such assessments can reveal gaps in resource useand capacities and identiy untapped potential.

Te levels o progress developed by UNISDR or the HFAMonitor, which are applied in all five HFA Priorities, en-able a sel-assessment o the extent to which policies, pro-grammes and initiatives are sustainable in achieving the in-dicated risk reduction objectives. Te levels o progress are:

1. Minor progress with ew signs o orward action in

plans or policy.2. Some progress but without systematic policy and/or

institutional commitment.

3. Institutional commitment attained but achievementsare neither comprehensive nor substantial.

4. Substantial achievement attained but with recognizedlimitations in capacities and resources.

5. Comprehensive achievement with sustained commit-ment and capacities at all levels.

Insights into progress made on key cross-cutting issues,

such as gender issues and human security/social equity, arehighlighted where they have been mentioned in national orother reports.

Findings

Governments and organizations recognize the need to raisethe priority o disaster risk reduction and are directly re-sponding to the expectations and directions o the HFA.Tis commitment is evident in the establishment o 38 o-

cal points and 25 national platorms established or disasterrisk reduction activities o Europe.

Te specific indicators o progress presented in the countryreports show that a large majority o reporting countriesattained institutional commitment or substantial achieve-ments in ensuring that disaster risk reduction is a nationaland local priority with a strong institutional basis or im-plementation. However, there are recognized limitations incapacities and resources.

While little change is seen in the quantitative levels o

achievement relative to what had been reported in 2011,subtle changes are occurring that are proound and revealedin the text o the country and regional partner reports. Atthe national level, the strategic goal statements illustrate theways in which countries are moving rom a culture o reac-tive response and recovery rom disaster to proactive riskreduction and saety. Countries and partner organizationsreported on their levels o progress with both qualitativesel-assessments that the countries measured in terms oquantitative values.

Significant challenges remain in implementing the HFA;the lack o adequate resources to support disaster risk re-

duction measures remains the most severe constraint.Clearly more work must be done to demonstrate the e-ficacy o public investment in DRR.

Another strong insight to emerge rom the reports is thatthe demands o effective DRR are increasing rom a rangeo actors, such as emerging risks, population migration pat-terns and the effects o climate change. As a consequence,the quantitative levels o achievement tend to understatethe work that has been done; while the results appear con-stant over three reporting cycles, the goal posts moved. Inresponding to new hazards, countries are working harder to

stay in place.

Conclusions

At the national level the strategic goal statements illustratethe ways in which countries are moving rom a culture oreactive response and recovery rom disasters to proactiverisk reduction and saety. Tis requires a significant changerom a mind-set o crisis to one o resilience.

Many challenges remain to successully embed a resilienceculture into policies, programmes and planning. Te corechallenge relates to the need or the political will to advancedisaster risk reduction to the top o the policy agenda. Tis


15/90

National Platforms and HFA Focal Points Established in Europe

National Platforms HFA Focal Points

ArmeniaBelarus

Bosnia and HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatia

Czech RepublicFinlandFrance

GermanyGreeceHungary

ItalyMonaco

The Netherlands

NorwayPolandPortugal

Russian FederationSerbiaSpain

SwedenSwitzerland

The former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaTurkey

United Kingdom

AlbaniaArmeniaAustriaBelarus

Bosnia & HerzegovinaBulgariaCroatiaCyprus

Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFranceGeorgiaGermany

GreeceHungaryIceland

ItalyMalta

Moldova

MonacoMontenegroThe Netherlands

NorwayPoland

PortugalRomania

Russian FederationSerbia

SlovakiaSlovenia

SpainSweden

Switzerland

The former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

TurkeyUkraine

United Kingdom

requires strong public support to ensure that political lead-ers are responsive to their constituents in assuring that dis-aster risk programmes are properly supported at all levels.

Tis has been a particular challenge owing to the pro-longed economic downturn in Europe. Governments arefinding it difficult to support public investment in disasterrisk reduction when aced with more immediate needs andscarcer financial resources. At the same time, the process oreflecting on the achievements o the HFA since 2005, inpreparation or the Post-2015 Framework, may motivateincreased attention by governments to DRR.

Progress

An area o substantial progress concerns the establish-ment of legal and regulatory frameworks for disaster riskreduction.All countries reported progress in this area. Insome cases, the countries enacted new legislation to addressDRR; in other countries, existing legislation was amendedto remain current and relevant to the changing risk land-scape.

Te unctioning o multi-sectoral National Platformsshowed significant gains with seven countries establishingnew National Platorms: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovi-

na, Greece, Te Netherlands, Norway, Serbia and urkey.Existing platorms expanded their reach and engagement.Other countries, such as Austria, Romania and Slovenia,

15

are actively working to establish National Platorms.

Reliance on key drivers o progress improved,with 50% in-creases over the last reporting cycle in significant relianceon key driverssuch as gender, capacities, security/social eq-uity, and engagement/partnership approaches.

Preparations for trans-boundary risksshowed substantialimprovement, in part motivated by legislation o the Euro-pean Union, the initiatives o the regional partners and theneed or countries to collaborate on mutual risks to betterleverage limited resources.

Te first ever peer review on the implementation of the

Hyogo Framework for Action, perormed in the UnitedKingdom was a success, with helpul eedback and insightgenerated to support DRR efforts.

At the local level: strong growth in the Resilient CitiesCampaign and the first ever reporting using the LocalGovernment Self-Assessment oolwere strong successes.Equally important were new initiatives to raise awareness,such as the Champions of Change Award and the com-mitment to invest in DRR to protect cultural heritage.

Progress in addressing climate change adaptation was

made at local and at regional levels. Te science-policydialoguewas enhanced with specific measures to translatescientific research into measures to reduce disaster risk.


16/90

16

Te 2011 HFA Europe Report recommended more workbe done to engage the private sector in DRR.Since then,some tentative measures have been advanced, such as workwith the insurance sector in several countries. Ideally en-gagement with the private sector should occur on severaldifferent levels: it is critical that the private sector develop

resilience, both to reduce unnecessary demands on govern-ment services and to ensure more reliable tax and employ-ment bases. In addition, the private sector can better inormthreat and hazard identification as it offers a different per-spective on risk. Finally, the private sector can mobilize abroad range o resources to support effective DRR.

Challenges

Te increased awareness o the importance o disaster riskreduction is evident in the country and regional partner re-ports. However, building a culture o saety and resilience

is challenging owing to the crosscutting nature o disasterrisk reduction.

Many gaps and challenges identified in the 2009-2011HFA progress report persisted over the 2011 2013 pe-riod, such as the need to deepen capacity in the insurancesector both to assess risk and to reduce the burden on thegovernments.

As severe disasters increasingly impact economic and socialdevelopment without necessarily accompanying physicaldamage, policymakers are challenged to shit their para-digm o disasters and risk finance. Tis requires news policyrameworks, responses and programmes or risk mitigation,needs that are proving challenging.

Nearly all countries reported challenges in sustaining com-mitment to and engagement in DRR.A window o op-portunity exists ollowing a major disaster when awarenessis high. But as the disaster recedes into memory, it becomesmore difficult to sustain interest in the longer-term worko DRR.

Te need to develop capacity in the insurance sectorshould be viewed with greater urgency. Lessons learnt

rom initiatives such as Europa Re reinsurance acilitycould be drawn to acilitate affordable access to catastrophicinsurance coverage in other countries.

Much more work needs to be done to build capacity at thelocal level.oo oten responsibilities or DRR have beentranserred to the local levels without sufficient resources toimplement the programmes.

Tere has been virtually no progress in developing plansfor sectoral risk assessmentand protection and saeguard-ing o economic activities. Effectiveness in implementing

DRR is hindered by the lack o common understandingor appraisal o impacts. Property damage or destruction okey physical inrastructure is relatively easy to measure, but

other losses, such as reduction o the tax base when disas-ters disrupt livelihoods, are more difficult to measure. Ad-dressing these gaps in understanding may motivate greaterDRR investment.

Nearly all o the countries reported that it was almost im-

possible to calculate DRR spend, as DRR activities areembedded in multiple agency budgets (environmental, se-curity, humanitarian, etc.) and at all levels o government.Developing a database o disaster losses may be helpul inurthering this analysis.

Most countries reported that they were challenged to mo-bilize adequate resources to und DRR activities at alllevels. Tese difficulties were compounded by a prolongedperiod o economic downturn and competing demands ormore limited public resources.

Assessing progress in the domain o the identification, as-sessment and monitoring of disaster risks and enhancedearly warning systems is difficult, owing to the act thatthe challenges become greater every year. Emerging threatsthat had not previously been identified, changes in tech-nology that render state-o-the-art systems obsolete or lesseffective and migration patterns that shit populations tohazard-prone areas all these actors conspire to make pro-gress challenging.

It is absolutely critical that countries commit to the finan-cial analysis of DRR.Te example o Switzerland showshow the analysis motivates better resource allocation and

decision-making. Most o the evidence or positive returnon DRR investment in anecdotal; a more rigorous approachmust be adopted to develop a strong analysis.

Developing approaches to enhancing the safety of aginginfrastructure and housing remains a challenge or mostcountries.

Te approach to safeguarding hospitals and schoolsshowssome progress, but much more work is needed.

Motivating more comprehensive risk assessments re-

mains a challenge, and is being supported by initiatives atregional level.


17/90

17

Recommendations

Based on the experiences reported by the national andregional partners via the HFA online reporting tool, andwith reerence to other inormation made available throughUNISDR and its partners, the ollowing recommendations

are put orth or consideration.

National level

National policies or disaster risk reduction shouldbe integrated into sectoral and development plansto ensure a comprehensive approach to building re-silience. Tis is consistent with the recommendationadvanced in the 2011 HFA Europe Report.

Te private sector should be engaged in an appro-priate manner to allow data gathering or threat as-

sessment to private sector players as their vulner-ability impacts livelihoods and production. Teyshould also be engaged through public-private part-nerships, to contribute their proessional competen-cies to disaster risk reduction efforts and to ensuretheir own disaster resilience.

A more intense investment in the modernization oearly warning systems and communications tech-nologies is required, accompanied by a public edu-cation campaign to ensure their proper use.

Substantial progress has been made in gathering riskand hazard data. It is recommended that an appro-priate investment be made in developing knowledgemanagement and management inormation systemsto ensure that such data can be retrieved, analysedand used in the most effective manner. Tis is con-sistent with the recommendation put orth in the2011 HFA Europe Report. Te 2013 HFA countryreports indicate risk and hazard data are being col-lected, but integrating reporting systems limits theeffective use o the data.

Progress has been made in securing commitmentsand mobilizing resources to develop disaster lossdatabases. Tis work is critical to developing theanalysis on returns to public investment in DRR.More work needs to be done to expand the develop-ment o such databases in other European countries.

It is critical to develop analyses o financial and so-cial returns on investment in disaster risk reductionin order to build public support or resource mo-bilization. At present, such evidence is mostly an-ecdotal. A rigorous financial study to demonstratethe value o DRR may be helpul in motivating

public investment, particularly in times o economicausterity. owards this end, engaging private sectorplayers, particularly the insurance sector, which has

a repository o claims data, may be helpul. Somecountries, such as France, Germany, Sweden andSwitzerland have made progress in this area.

Te Resilient Cities Campaign provides a positiveexample o making progress with very limited finan-

cial resources, but boundless creativity. Celebratingthe Firefighter o the Year or the Champion oLocal Change keeps DRR in the public attention.It also affords an effective way o sharing best prac-tices, such as recognizing Barcelona as a model cityor DRR.

Innovations on insurance coverage and the acces-sibility o global pools o capital in the reinsurancemarket offer countries new opportunities or risktranser to ensure contingent capital when needed.Countries should examine new, less capital-inten-

sive measures to use insurance instruments to pro-tect public resources.

It is recommended that countries begin to considerDRR in their insurance regulatory rameworks par-ticularly as regards compulsory insurance to reduceburdens on governments, and insurance pricing asan incentive to promote risk awareness preventionand mitigation.

An area or uture work remains translating inte-grated risk approaches rom the national level bothupward to regional levels and downward to local

levels.

It is recommended that the regional organizationspromote discussion o gender perspectives on DRRto promote dialogue on both how to interpret andbest implement this approach.

Regional level

Similar to what emerged in the last reporting cycle,there has been coherence regarding the recommen-dations developed in the 2011-2013 HFA Europe

Report and the area o ocus in the past two years.Tis has been the case particularly or the significantprogress made by the EC in supporting disaster riskreduction efforts in South Eastern Europe, support-ing efforts towards the development o comparablerisk assessments, and mainstreaming disaster riskreduction in EU financial and legislative instru-ments.

Te 2011 HFA Europe report recommended thatNational Platorms be more inclusive to enhancetheir effectiveness. More effective engagement

o the private sector allows or better risk assess-ments as the private sector views different hazardsand emerging threats rom a unique perspective. In


18/90

18

addition, motivating private sector preparednessensures the stability o livelihoods and local econo-mies impacted by disaster while reducing demandson emergency responders. Certain countries havebeen successul in engaging the private sector; theirexperiences should be highlighted by the EFDRR

to share lessons learned or all member NationalPlatorms.

All o the countries report challenges in motivatinginvestment in DRR, in large part due to competingdemands on limited resources in an environment oeconomic austerity. Like the example o Switzer-land, there is the need to work at national level todemonstrate a positive return on DRR investment,without which governments cannot justiy budgetallocations to DRR. Te European Forum or Dis-aster Risk Reduction may be helpul in triggering its

member National Platorms to develop such finan-cial analysis rom which all countries would benefit.Regional Organizations, such as the EC, shouldcontinue supporting on-going efforts on cost-bene-fit analyses o disaster risk reduction at the nationallevel including through the development o disasterloss databases.

Te cooperation acilitated by regional initiatives,such as the Council o Europe and Disaster Prepar-edness and Prevention Initiative or South EasternEurope (DPPI), has also motivated progress to-wards better management o trans-boundary risks.

Over the recent years, EU cooperation in disastermanagement has evolved by shiting rom responsetowards a more balanced system that also coverspreparedness and prevention actions. In addition tothe development o a EU cross sectoral risk man-agement ramework, disaster risk prevention andmanagement considerations have been included ina number o key EU policies and legislation. It isrecommended that the EU continues its engage-ment to support the development o a comprehen-sive approach to risk assessment and management

to ensure resilience in the ace o threats.

Te European Forum or Disaster Risk Reductionbrings coherence and a coordinated approach to im-plementing the HFA in Europe. It is recommendedthat the EFDRR consider how to best acilitate ex-changes among participating cities in its memberNational Platorms where communities o interestcan be ormed to address critical gaps.

Limited progress has been made in advancing secto-ral risk assessments and programmes since the 2011

reporting cycle. Tis remains an area o critical vul-nerability as countries are at risk or vital sectors otheir economy being impacted by hazards. Certain

countries report awareness o how, or example, theirtourism sectors would be impacted by disasters, butthis awareness should be translated in tangible pro-grammes o action. Te on-going efforts rom theregional organizations to support risk assessment tocould motivate a greater sense o urgency.

Regional insurance programmes may diversiy riskand reduce the cost o insurance coverage. Regionalactors have an area o comparative advantage inthis domain as certain countries are identified withhigh-severity risks (Armenia and earthquakes, orexample, or the Czech Republic and floods). Re-gional programmes can construct insurance port-olios to dampen the consequences o catastrophicrisk at local and national levels. Expanding capacityor insurance programmes is an area requiring ur-ther attention rom the regional partners.

In considering the need to deepen insurance capac-ity, the National Platorms need to better engagethe insurance sector or its expertise in assessingand pricing risk. Very limited progress has beenreported in this area. As many European insurersdo not limit their underwriting to national markets,this is an area where regional partners can engageand provide support to the national platorms. TeEuropean Forum or Disaster Risk Reduction canengage insurance companies with pan-Europeanoperations to provide technical expertise, particu-larly to those countries with more modest resources

supporting their National Platorms.

Regional organizations have achieved progress inincluding DRR into their policy and strategy pa-pers. It is now important to ensure that these effortswill translate, as done in the past, into suitable andcoherent programming or the benefit o comple-menting national efforts.

Tere is a need to bring resources to the local levelwhile at the same time highlighting or national ac-tors the success o local municipalities in creative

approaches to move the DRR agenda orward evenwhen resources are limited. Te EC should explorepossibilities o support to such efforts particularly inthe view o the Climate Change Adaptation strate-gy developed or European Countries. A number oapproaches may be envisioned to achieve this result,such as, perhaps, a handbook o success stories romthe Resilient Cities Campaign.


19/90

19

Local level

Consider how the local reports may advance DRR, inaddition to their benchmarking function. Te origi-nal intent o the local reporting tool was to be re-sponsive to the third ocus area or the 2012 2015

phase o the Resilient Cities Campaign: to developan instrument or benchmarking and reporting pro-gress against baseline measures at the local level. Teinitial set o reports suggests they may offer a widerrange o uses to advance DRR. Te local reportingmay identiy cities that could join working groupsdedicated to common areas o concern, such as, orexample, addressing the challenges o aging urbaninrastructure. Tey may also highlight innovativeapproaches that could be replicated in different na-tional contexts. Te European Forum or DisasterRisk Reduction should give time and attention to

the first set o local reports, as it did to the first na-tional peer review o a country on the HFA imple-mentation, to solicit input rom all stakeholders asto how best utilize the local reports, in addition totheir aid in benchmarking progress at the local level.Te cities have invested considerable time and effortto develop thoughtul responses to the sel-assess-ment tool; the result can be a more effective resourceor DRR than was originally envisioned. Te ECshould ensure that such efforts toward exchangesamong the local level on building resilience to dis-asters are met with acilitation o such exchanges.

Examine how the 2011 2013 local reports may guidethe development of a Post-2015 DRR framework.Asconsultations or the Post-Hyogo Framework orDRR are underway, an examination o the first set olocal reports may suggest how the Post-2015 rame-work should be developed to ensure that it is welladapted to the local level. Te Local GovernmentSel-Assessment ool [LGSA] was developed inthe context o the Resilient Cities Campaign, whichwill continue in its present orm beyond 2015. Nev-ertheless, the local reports should be examined notonly in the context o the Resilient Cities Cam-

paign, but also in the context o the Post-2015consultations as the reports are, in effect, seven casestudies o how the Hyogo Framework applied to thelocal levels and where gaps may exist.


20/90


21/90

HFAImplementationAt National Level


22/90


23/90

REGIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORT 2011-2013

23

1. HFA Implementation

at National Level

Tis chapter examines the achievements, advances and keytrends in the implementation o the Hyogo Framework

or Action at national level. It presents an overview o theresponses provided by the individual governments to therequests or inormation regarding progress towards each othe three HFA Strategic Goals and five HFA Priorities orAction. Tis is the third such bi-annual assessment under-taken, enabling progress to be measured against previousreporting cycles in 2007 2009 and 2009 2011.

1.1 Strategic Goals

With the adoption o the HFA in 2005, the ollowing threestrategic goals were outlined to guide activities on disaster

risk reduction and recovery across all levels: :

1. Te more effective integration of disaster risk consid-erations into sustainable development policies, plan-ning and programming at all levels, with a specialemphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, prepared-ness and vulnerability reduction.

2. Te development and strengthening of institutions,mechanisms and capacities at all levels,in particularat the community level, that can systematically contrib-ute to building resilience to hazards.

3. Te systematic incorporation of risk reduction ap-proaches into the design and implementation ofemergency preparedness, response and recovery pro-grammesin the reconstruction o affected communi-

ties.

o accomplish these strategic goals, the HFA identifies five

Priorities or Action :

HFA 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a nationaland local priority with a strong institutional basis or im-plementation.

HFA 2: Identiy, assess and monitor disaster risks and en-hance early warning.

HFA 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to builda culture o saety and resilience at all levels.

HFA 4: Reduce the underlying risk actors.

HFA 5: Strengthening the disaster preparedness or effec-tive response at all levels.

1.2 Priorities for Action

Responses to each o the priorities are addressed in termso the individual indicators o progress. Where appropri-ate, progress is identified, along with any constraints andrecommendations.

Te indicators o progress developed by UNISDR in theHFA on-line tool, which are applied in all five HFA pri-orities, enable a qualitative sel-assessment o the extent towhich the policies, programmes and initiatives are sustain-able in achieving the indicated risk reduction objectives.Indicators are assessed using the ollowing graduated five-point scale:

1. Minor progress with ew signs o orward action inplans or policy.

2. Some progress but without systematic policy and/orinstitutional commitment.

3. Institutional commitment attained but achieve-ments are neither comprehensive nor substantial.

4. Substantial achievement attained but with recog-nized limitations in capacities and resources.

5. Comprehensive achievement with sustained com-mitment and capacities at all levels.

Te resulting values o each o the indicators o progressconvert the qualitative sel-assessments presented by each

o the partners into quantitative values. Tis enables com-parisons both within and across reporting cycles.

Priority 1 :Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and localpriority with a strong institutional basis for implementa-tion.

Indicators :

1.1 National policy and legal ramework or disaster riskreduction exists with decentralized responsibilities

and capacities at all levels1.2 Dedicated and adequate resources are available to

implement disaster risk reduction activities at all ad-ministrative levels

1.3 Community participation and decentralization areensured through the delegation o authority and re-sources to local levels

1.4 A national multi-sectoral platorm or disaster riskreduction is unctioning


24/90

Implementing THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION IN EUROPE

24

Summary of ProgressAverage Result: 3.7

Te average score or Priority 1 is 3.7, with three-quarterso countries reporting indicators o achievement attainingthis result. Tree countries Hungary, Slovenia and Swit-zerland reported comprehensive achievement, but all

countries reported some level o progress over the two-yearreporting cycle. Tis result is even with the level reportedin 2009 and a slight increase over the level o 3.3 reportedin 2011.

Progress against indicators

Indicator 1.1:National policy and legal f ramework fordisaster risk reduction exists with decentralized responsi-bilities and capacities at all levels.

Average Result: 4.0

A countrys constitutions, laws and governmental systemprovide the basis to develop plans and institutional ar-rangements or all areas o disaster risk reduction. In mostcountries, disaster risk reduction is a cross-sectoral topicand thereore no single law exists or its regulation. Instead,the elements o disaster risk reduction are integrated in na-tional legislation at all levels.

Nearly all o the countries reported that they have legalrameworks in place or DRR. One country, Albania, re-ported that its Civil Protection law exists in drat version

and is awaiting approval by the Parliament.

wo areas o significant progress were reported by manyo the countries. Te first was the means by which legalrameworks evolved and are updated to reflect emergingrisks and new insights into hazards. Te Czech Republic,or example, reported that it has developed its NationalProgramme to Abate the Climate Change Impacts andits legislative and regulatory ramework or Environmen-

tal Security 2012- 2015. Poland reported that its policyramework now includes current work on Climate ChangeAdaptation Strategy and elaboration o flood deence pro-grammes or at-risk regions.

In January 2012, Georgia adopted its National Environ-mental Action Plan 2012-2016, as required by law or everyfive-year period. Te Plan sets long-term goals, short-termtargets and provides respective activities or eleven areas:Disasters (including natural and man-made disasters), Cli-mate Change, Waste and Chemical Substances, Nuclearand Radiation Saety, Water Resources, Ambient Air, Black

Sea, Biodiversity and Protected Areas, Land Resources,Forestry and Mineral Resources.

Te United Kingdom reported that it had reviewed itsCivil Contingencies Act, and accompanying non-legislativemeasures, that had been designed to deliver a single rame-work or civil protection capable o meeting the challengeso the twenty-first century. Te review concluded that ex-isting legislation was adequate or current and anticipatedneeds.

A second area o significant progress reported by many othe countries were the actions taken to engage many ac-

tors to build capacity and ensure implementation o DRRlegislation consistent with the intent o Parliamentarians.Armenia, or example, reported that it had established three

1. Minor progress with few signs of forward actionin plans or policy

2. Some progress, but without systematic policy

and/or institutional commitment

3. Institutional commitment attained, but achieve-ments are neither comprehensive nor substantia

4. Substantial achievement attained but with rec-ognized limitations in capacities and resources

5. Comprehensive achievement with sustainedcommitment and capacities at all levels.

Armenia

Georgia, Monaco,The former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

HungarySlovenia, Switzerland

Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, CzechRepublic, Finland, France, Germa-ny, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Portugal, Roma-nia, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey, UK

0%

4%

12%

72%

12%


25/90


25

governmental decrees or a DRR national strategy. HFAocal points in the country ormed and led 10 DRR region-al teams to ensure effective implementation o the strategy.

Hungaryreported that its Parliament adopted a new Acton 19 September 2011, Disaster management is a nation-

al cause which became effective with new decrees on itsimplementation on 1 January 2012. Te Act renewed therules o prevention and preparedness, enabled extraordinarymeasures in case o disasters and emergencies and estab-lished a uniorm disaster management system. Te Act alsostressed the involvement o the society in its ulfilment,thus providing a ramework or sel-care and voluntaryparticipation.

In Finland, where the government completed an actionplan in the Spring o 2012, the National Platorm is ollow-ing up and reporting annually about the 46 actions within

that plan that are related to disaster risk reduction. In ad-dition, the Finnish National Platorm will highlight keyresearch projects relevant to DRR.

urkey reported that in 2011, the Disaster and Manage-ment Agency set orth the strategies and actions, within thecountrys National Earthquake Strategy and Action Plan2012 2023, to engage civil society in earthquake disasterrisk reduction. Te Plan also organizes workshops in therelevant provinces to provide a road map to prepare a riskreduction strategy at local level.

wo key challenges were reported by nearly all o the coun-

tries; the first concerns the difficulties in addressing risksin a comprehensive way. For example, many countries are

Source: urkey National Platform

at work implementing the requirements o the EuropeanUnion Floods Directive. Te challenge is that the ocus onflooding risk may divert attention and resources away romother risks. Te opportunity was that the Directive moti-vated action that might not otherwise have been initiated.Tis challenge is particularly acute in countries that ace a

narrower range o identified hazards and so ace difficultyin mobilizing resources to address emerging threats.

Te second challenge reported was the lack o financial re-sources to implement DRR measures enacted into legisla-tion. Indeed, the responses to nearly every one o the 22indicators in the HFA Framework identiy lack o financialresources as a serious constraint.

Indicator 1.2: Dedicated and adequate resources areavailable to implement disaster risk reduction plans andactivities at all administrative levels.

Average Result: 3.6

Nearly all o the countries reported that it was almost im-possible to calculate DRR spend, as DRR activities areembedded in multiple agency budgets (environmental, se-curity, humanitarian, etc.) and at all levels o government.

Many countries reported implementation o DRR plansand activities in response to specific threats. Te decentral-ized democracy o Te Netherlands, or example, has legalrequirements or stakeholders (national, provincial, regionaland local governments as well as private sector businesses)to ulfil responsibilities and commit budgets or disaster riskreduction. Local levels o government, or example, collect


26/90


their own taxes providing or flood protection measures.

Facing a serious earthquake hazard, urkey initiated itsNational Earthquake Investigation Programme in 2012,which unds earthquake research projects o universitiesand government institutions with an initial budget in 2012

o US$1 million, increasing annually through the year 2023.urkey has also mobilized resources or DRR rom theWorld Bank, the European Union, the Japan InternationalCooperation Agency and the Islamic Development Bank.Te country experienced a severe earthquake in 2011 in theVan region and since 2012 has hosted Syrian reugees in itsborder area. Te consequence has been to place a greateremphasis on disaster response and recovery than DRR.

Other countries finance DRR activities or a broader rangeo risks. In Slovenia, DRR activities are financed throughthe national and municipal budgets and through insurance

assessments and other unds contributed by commercialcompanies. Te government annually allocates 0.34% othe national budget to the disaster management system(exclusive o reconstruction). In addition, municipalities areexpected to set aside 3% o their annual budgets or thispurpose, although in recent years, they have allocated just2.1%.

Along those lines, each o Swedenscounties has a dedicat-ed budget or disaster preparedness as part o a total budgetor work on emergency preparedness. In the event o insu-ficient resources at the local level, the county or nationalgovernment would assume management o a disaster.

TeAlbaniaDisaster Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Pro-ject, unded by the World Bank, aims to strengthen institu-tional capacities to reduce Albanias vulnerability to naturaland man-made hazards and to limit human, economic andfinancial losses due to these hazards. Albania reported thatin November 2012 the General Directorate o Civil Emer-gencies made progress in establishing the National Strategyo Disaster Risk Reduction and a National Platorm withan investment to support a DRR perspective. Albania ex-pects to complete the work programme in May 2013.

However, the average level o attainment on this Indica-tor is institutional commitment but without comprehen-sive or substantial achievements. Most countries reportedthat they were challenged to mobilize adequate resourcesto und DRR activities at all levels. Tese difficulties werecompounded by a prolonged period o economic downturnand competing demands or more limited public resources.

Indicator 1.3: Community participation and decentral-ization are assured through the delegation of authorityand resources to local levels.

Average Result: 3.6

Countries reported progress in delegating authority and re-sources or DRR to local levels, but the levels o progressare uneven. Countries with decentralized systems, such asSwitzerland, reported success in both delegating authorityand commensurate financial resources to discharge DRRresponsibilities.

France was able to build consensus around the need orDRR investment within the context o environmental pro-tection. France reported that rom July 2011 to July 2012,26 flood risk programmes were reviewed, o which 15 werecompleted and 11 are moving orward. A total o 390

million was committed or the 2011 2016 period with thenational government unding 37.5% o that amount.

Source: Sector for Emergency Management and Civil Protection ofMontenegro

Within the ramework o a Disaster Preparedness Pro-gramme o the European Union, DIPECHO, Georgiaisadvancing several projects or 2012 2013 to increase resil-ience and reduce vulnerability o local communities: Sup-porting Community Resilience in the South Caucasus(implemented by Oxam), the Regional Programme orBuilding Saer Local Communities in the South Caucasus(in Georgia and Armenia and implemented by DRC andthe Georgian Red Cross Society) and Supporting Com-munity Resilience to Natural Disasters implemented byACF-ESP.

Norways Climate Change Adaptation Programme high-lights the role o municipalities including adaptation in alllevels o planning. Te programme offers training courses,educational materials and a website disseminating researchand good practices. A white paper on the Programme isorthcoming in 2013.

Despite these examples o progress, countries also reportedchallenges in sustaining commitments at the local levels.Romania, or example, reported that local authorities have

26


27/90


important responsibilities or emergency management and

have annual unds allocated or this purpose. However, ithe local community isnt acing an immediate disaster, theunds are oten redirected or other purposes.

Indicator 1.4:A multi-sectoral National Platform fordisaster risk reduction is functioning.

Average Result: 3.6

A multi-sectoral National Platorm (NP) or disaster riskreduction is a nationally owned and led mechanism acili-tating the interaction o key development players around

the national disaster risk reduction agenda. Te NationalPlatorm serves as an advocate or adopting disaster riskreduction measures at all levels.

Te ollowing countries have officially designated NationalPlatorms: Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ger-many, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Te Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Serbia,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the ormer Yugoslav Republico Macedonia, urkey and the United Kingdom.

Te ollowing countries have nominated HFA ocal points

or disaster risk reduction: Armenia, Albania, Austria, Be-larus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Ger-

many, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Malta, Moldova,Monaco, Montenegro, Te Netherlands, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the ormer YugoslavRepublic o Macedonia, urkey, Ukraine, and the UnitedKingdom.

National Platorms can be effective advocates or DRR. TeNP in Armenia, or example, is working with the UNDPto integrate DRR into the countrys our-year developmentplan.

Since the last HFA reporting cycle, seven countries in Eu-rope have ormed National Platorms: Belarus, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia andurkey. In 2012, Greece established the Hellenic NationalPlatorm or Disaster Risk Reduction, as an open networkand orum o government agencies and other stakeholders,such as scientific and civil society institutions. Te Gen-eral Secretariat or Civil Protection coordinates the NP andserves as the national HFA ocal point.

In 2012, Belarus established its National Platorm, theState System o Prevention and Elimination o EmergencySituations. In addition to representation rom all o the rel-

evant government ministries, the Belarusian RepublicanUnitary Insurance Company (Belgosstrakh) is includedas a key stakeholder as well as the Belarusian Republican

27


28/90


Union o Consumer Societies or its role in providing oodand emergency supplies.

In 2013, Bosnia and Herzegovina launched its NationalPlatorm with its first conerence on disaster risk reduc-tion in the Parliamentary Assembly. Following the open-

ing ceremony, the National Platorm presented sessions onmanaging disaster risk and reducing the risk o dangerousnatural phenomena and concluded with a discussion o thesectoral impact o DRR.

In December 2011, the Netherlands appointed the Na-tional Steering Committee or National Saety and Secu-rity as its National Platorm or DRR and its secretariat atthe National Focal Point or the HFA. Te NP advises thecabinet and parliament on DRR matters and regularly re-ports on national risk assessment and activities to strength-en capabilities and coherence.

Norway established its National Platorm in 2011. Teplatorms mandate is to implement the HFA and coordi-nate DRR efforts between governmental agencies.

Serbia established its National Platorm in 2013, whichplans to hold three to our regular sessions annually witha provision or more requent sessions should emergencysituations arise. Te activities o the National Platorm arefinanced through the ederal budget and the resources othe authorities that are members o the NP.

Te National Platorm ourkeyis one o the ew that has

broad stakeholder participation beyond government minis-tries, including our representatives o the news media, suchas the urkish Association o Journalists and NGOs suchas the urkish Red Crescent.

In countries where National Platorms have not yet beenestablished, other mechanisms serve to convene stakehold-ers in DRR. In Georgia, or example, a think tank was es-tablished with the support o the United Nations Devel-opment Programme. Te think tank engages governmentinstitutions, international agencies, non-governmental or-ganizations and the scientific community in the promotion

o DRR according to the HFA. Te think tank holds regu-lar meetings with specific agendas and active participationo the stakeholders. From 2013 the Ministry o Environ-ment Protection o Georgia assumes responsibility or thisrole. Disaster Risk Reduction is identified as an upcom-ing priority or the Ministry o Environment Protectiono Georgia, which will acilitate the establishment o theNational Platorm.

Other countries, such as Austria, Romania and Slovenia,report plans to develop National Platorms. In Romania,the National Committee or Emergency Situations was in-

tended to perorm the role o the National Platorm. How-ever, as this Committee ocused more on disaster responseand recovery and as it lacked representatives rom civil soci-

ety, the government drated a decision to develop a nationalplatorm.

One o the challenges countries report is inclusion in theirNational Platorms. Italy, or example, cited as a constraintin DRR the need or adequate representation o all o the

actors involved. A number o countries identified the needto include representatives rom the news media in their Na-tional Platorms, perhaps reflecting the urgency o inorm-ing and engaging the public in DRR. Portugalspecificallyreported its need to engage the private sector, the news me-dia and the general public in its National Platorm.

Priority 2 :Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhanceearly warning.

Indicators :

2.1 National policy and local risk assessments based onhazard data and vulnerability inormation are avail-able and include risk assessments or key sectors

2.2 Systems are in place to monitor, archive and dissemi-nate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities

2.3 Early warning systems are in place or all major haz-ards, with outreach to communities

2.4 National and local risk assessments take account oregional/trans-boundary risks, with a view to region-al cooperation on risk reduction.


Te average score or Priority 2 is 3.8 with 80% o countriesreporting substantial or comprehensive achievement. Tislevel is slightly above the levels o 3.6 reported in 2009 and3.4 reported in 2011. Te numerical indicators suggest lit-tle progress achieved over the past three reporting cycles.Careul examination o the text o the country reports sug-gests more meaningul progress than that implied by thenumbers.

Assessing progress in the domain o the identification, as-sessment and monitoring o disaster risks and enhancedearly warning systems is difficult, owing to the act thatthe challenges become greater every year. Emerging threatsthat had not previously been identified, changes in tech-nology that render state-o-the-art systems obsolete or lesseffective and migration patterns that shit populations tohazard-prone areas all these actors conspire to make pro-gress against Priority 2 challenging.

Tis, in turn, highlights one o the limitations o the HFAreporting methodology. Te country reports identiy pro-

gress made and challenges remaining against five priori-ties. Tey do not provide or a control group in which nointerventions take place. I countries sel-reported levels

28


29/90


o progress remain flat over three reporting cycles, despitesubstantial investment and work, would indicators o pro-gress have shown steep declines over the time period i lesseffort had been advanced? Te common theme in HFA 2is that progress is being made, but that much work is beingdone to stay current in best DRR practices, as the goal postsare moving.


Indicator 2.1:National and local risk assessments basedon hazard data and vulnerability information are avail-able and include risk assessments for key sectors.

Average Result: 3.7

Te country reports present numerous examples o achieve-ment in perorming risk assessments and making the find-ings available to advance saer societies. In Albania, work

is underway to build a disaster loss database (Desinven-tar) with the support o UNISDR and the Italian NationalPlatorm through CIMA Research Foundation. Greecewill have completed its flood hazard maps by December2013 and its flood risk maps by December 2015.

Following the commitment rom EU Member States un-dertaken within the EU cooperation on risk managementto elaborate national disaster risk assessments, Hungaryidentified key relevant risks, such as floods, earthquakes,orest fires, industrial accidents, extreme weather phenom-ena and man-made events (such as migration or terrorism).A national conerence was organized on 30 June 2011 that

convened the government administration and scientific andacademic institutions to conduct and report the risk assess-ment.

Swedenreported progress in improving the state o knowl-edge o landslide risks along the Gta River. In 2012, theSwedish Geotechnical Institute completed a report includ-ing digital risk maps and disseminated it to all stakeholders.

Te UKGovernment has, since 2006, undertaken an annu-al National Risk Assessment across all sectors. Te findingsare published as a National Risk Register, which assessesthe likelihood and potential impact o a range o differ-ent risks that may directly affect the UK. Risks are groupedinto three main categories: natural events, major accidentsand malicious attacks. Te National Risk Register serves toboth raise awareness about risks to individuals and organi-zations in the hope o motivating their own preparednesswhile inorming o efforts made by the Government and

emergency services to prepare. Community Risk Registersconsider the likelihood and potential impact o a range ohazards occurring in specific areas o England and Wales.

Source: Bosnia and Herzegovina National Platform

29


2. Some progress, but without systematic policy

and/or institutional commitment3. Institutional commitment attained, but achieve-

ments are neither comprehensive nor substan-tial



Armenia, Georgia

Monaco, Serbia,The former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

Hungary, Switzerland, The Nether-lands, Slovenia, UK

Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, CzechRepublic, Finland, France, Germa-ny, Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Turkey

0%

8%

12%

60%

20%


30/90


Tey are approved by Local Resilience Forums, which havebeen established under the Civil Contingencies Act. TeForums include representatives rom local emergency ser-vices and public, private and voluntary organizations. TeForums rely on their own judgments about local risks aswell as guidance provided by the National Risk Assessment.

Te key challenges countries identiy in making progressagainst HFA 2 is the increasing work required to remain inplace vis--vis state o the art DRR. Tis insight was bestexpressed by Italy, where risk assessments concerning allmain hazards are perormed at local, regional and nation-al levels. Tese activities are carried out according to riskmaps updated periodically in order to maintain a thoroughknowledge o the distribution, over the whole national ter-ritory, o hazards, exposition and vulnerability.

However, the Italy national report states that the mainchallenge is the increasing magnitude o disasters occurringacross the country. According to Italy, climate change ismodiying the relation between the communities and theirterritories. Tis problem is exacerbated by the presence ohuman settlements and activities even in remote and/ordangerous areas. With climate change introducing newrisks, and migration occurring to more hazard-prone areas,concluding up-to-date risk assessments can be an elusivegoal.

An innovative approach to this challenge is reported by

Francethat, on 3 May 2012, signed a partnership betweenthe Government (represented by the Ministry o Sustain-able Development and the Central Reinsurance reasury)and the private sector, represented by a reinsurance industryassociation. Te partnership was ormed to establish a reg-istry o natural hazards and a standardized risk review.

Indicator 2.2: Systems are in place to monitor, archiveand disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.

Average Result: 3.8

Countries report specific achievements in establishingsystems to monitor and disseminate data on key vulner-abilities. For example, Albania, together with its partners,

Disaster Loss Database :Assessing local risks Finland

Accounting or disaster losses is a key tool or nationalgovernments to ully understand the costs o not investing

in disaster risk reduction and, in turn, developing nationaland local databases on disaster-related economic losses isa tool to inorm decision makers on the most appropri-ate risk reduction investments. Six European countries arebuilding national disaster loss databases: Albania, Croatia,France, Italy, Serbia and urkey.

is upgrading its hydro-meteorological services network byinstallation o a central data management system. Data willbe collected and shared with other national meteorologicaland hydrological services in South Eastern Europe via apublic website.

Germanyreports one o the worlds largest loss databasesor natural disasters is the NatCat Service o the MunichRe Group, a private reinsurance company that has morethan 26.000 data set entries. Te service detects and analy-ses between 700 and 900 events annually, allowing or theanalysis o risk and development o trend orecasts. In ad-dition, Germanys Helmholtz Research Network providesdata on natural disasters to the country s National Platorm.

In Central Europe, a project is underway to develop sot-ware or highly refined weather orecasts and is expected

to be completed in September 2013. Te project partners(Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia,Poland, Italy and Slovenia)expect to establish a web por-tal with real time orecasts to enhance the saety o the localpopulation.

Greece reported that its Institute or Astronomy, Astro-physics, Space Applications and Remote Sensing is devel-oping a real-time fire hotspot detection service. Te pilotapplication was made available to the public in the summero 2012. Te service monitors atmospheric conditions overAthens and recognizes changes arising rom Saharan dust

intrusions, fire smoke dispersion, volcanic ash flight andother sources.

One o the key challenges is mobilizing sufficient resourcesboth to remain current with new technologies and to moni-tor newly identified hazards. For example, Serbiareportedthat it has developed a proposal to implement the emer-gency 112 system, but that unding is a constraint.

Indicator 2.3:Early warning systems are in place for allmajor hazards, with outreach to communities.

30


31/90


Average Result: 3.9

Each o the countries reports specific examples o earlywarning systems operating on a national basis. However,the key challenge is the dual moving targets o emerginghazards and changing technologies, placing systems at risk

o becoming obsolete.

In Bulgaria, two-thirds o the population continues to usean outdated early warning and notification system.

Italy reported that its National Warning System consistso Regional Functional Centres responsible or integratingrelevant data or oreseeable risks. Te challenge is one osystems integration. Tere are resources at the regional andsub-regional level that have not yet been integrated into thenational system.

Serbiareports that its system o alarm sirens does not coverthe entire territory o the country owing to the act that orthe past 30 years there was insufficient financial investmentin maintaining the system.

Indicator 2.4: National and local risk assessments takeaccount of regional/trans-boundary risks, with a view toregional cooperation on risk reduction.

Photograph: Crisis Management Centre and 911 Rapid Response of Armenias Ministry of Emergency SituationsSource: Ministry of Emergency Situations, Armenia

Average Result: 4.0

Each o the countries reported substantial achievementsin regional cooperation to reduce trans-boundary risks.Belarus, or example, reported cooperation agreements inorce with Latvia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and

Ukraine. Croatia reported that it has active internationalcooperation through bilateral agreements signed with Al-bania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Hungary,Montenegro, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic,Slovenia and the ormer Yugoslav Republic o Macedonia.

Hungaryreported that it is the lead partner in SEERISK,a programme unded by the European Union or joint dis-aster risk management in the Danube region that began inJuly 2012. Te other project partners are Austria, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Slo-vakia and Slovenia. Each project partner has a specific role

and responsibility over the lie o the project.

Monaco reported its participation in a UNESCO pro-gramme to develop a tsunami alert system or the Mediter-ranean countries.

Progress against this indicator is advanced mainly due tobinding legislation o the European Union (such as the EU

31


32/90


Seveso Directive regarding chemical accidents and the Eu-ropean Floods Directive), regional cooperation programmes(PPRD, IPA) as well as the cooperation acilitated by re-gional organizations, such as the Disaster Preparedness andPrevention Initiative or South Eastern Europe (DPPI).Te main challenge identified in the country reports is thedifficulty assessing emerging risks both in-country andacross national boundaries.

Priority 3 :Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a cul-ture of safety and resilience at all levels

Indicators :

3.1 Relevant inormation on disasters is available and ac-cessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through net-works, development o inormation sharing systems,etc.)

3.2 School curricula, education material and relevanttraining include disaster risk reduction and recovery

concepts and practices3.3 Research methods and tools or multi-risk assess-

ments and cost-benefit analysis are developed andstrengthened

3.4 Countrywide public awareness strategy exists tostimulate a culture o disaster resilience, with out-reach to urban and rural communities


Te average level o progress or HFA 3 is 3.5, representinga modest improvement over the level o 3.2 that had beenreported in 2011 and 3.5 that had been reported in 2009.While the quantitative indicators may appear to suggestthat the countries are not advancing, there are two issuesto consider. First: the samples considered across reportingcycles are not strictly comparable as a different mix o coun-tries submitted reports in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Only tencountries submitted reports across all three cycles: Arme-nia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany,Sweden, Switzerland, the ormer Yugoslav Republic oMacedonia and urkey. Adjusting the results to comparethe ten countries across reporting cycles shows that pro-gress remained even at 4.0.

Te second issue is that countries are expending consider-able effort to remain in place, as they must simultaneouslydeal with emerging risks and technological changes. In oth-

er words, the goal post (attaining a level o comprehensiveachievement) is moving out o reach.

32


2. Some progress, but without systematic policyand/or institutional commitment

3. Institutional commitment attained, but achieve-ments are neither comprehensive nor substantial



Armenia

France, Poland, Georgia, Romania,Monaco, Serbia, The Netherlands

Hungary, Slovenia

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy,Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzer-land, The former Yugoslav Repub-lic of Macedonia, Turkey, UK

0%

4%

28%

60%

8%


33/90



Indicator 3.1: Relevant information on disasters isavailable and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders(through networks, development of information sharingsystems, etc.).

Average Result: 3.8

Te countries report specific achievements in capturingand disseminating inormation on disasters to all stake-holders. Armenia reported, or example, that in 2011 itsCrisis Management State Academy in cooperation withUNICEF published and distributed manuals on DRR orteachers o students at the pre-school, elementary schooland middle school levels. Bulgariaorganizes regular inor-mation campaigns around key events, such as honouringInternational Disaster Risk Reduction Day and celebrat-ing the Firefighter o the Year. Tese events keep theDRR agenda in the media and public attention even in theabsence o a current emergency situation, which is whenpublic attention is typically ocused on disasters. Finlandreported that its new legislation requiring public warningso disasters will become effective on 1 June 2013.

As with all o the Indicators o progress, the key constraintto implementation is lack o resources, both financial andhuman.

Indicator 3.2: School curricula, education material and rel-

evant training include disaster risk reduction and recovery con-cepts and practices.

Average Result: 3.6

Countries report various approaches to introduce DRRconcepts into the school curricula. Albaniais currently im-plementing a project to introduce DRR concepts to ele-mentary and secondary schools, with a targeted completiondate o 30 June 2013.

Bulgariareported an innovative approach with its national

competition or childrens drawings I saw the disaster withmy eyes jointly sponsored by the Ministry o Educationand Science and the National Palace o Children. In addi-tion, a childrens colouring book, About the disasters mainrules or kids contains ten rules or emergency response ordifferent types o disaster with the aim o providing saetyinormation or children.

Croatia reported that DRR education orms part o itsschool curricula, but existing efforts are believed to be in-adequate by the National Platorm which has identifieddisaster reduction in schools as one o its main priorities.

Te country reports that introducing DRR concepts intoschools is met with strong resistance rom teachers who be-lieve that the children have more than enough academic

33

material to learn.

Croatias experience highlights the key challenge identifiedby countries: DRR may all under the domain o a num-ber o actors in civil preparedness, economic developmentor environmental sustainability, or example, but it has not

been embraced by the actors responsible or primary andsecondary school education.

Georgiaoffers an example o integrating DRR concepts inthe existing core curriculum through two special initiatives:the first is the addition o DRR themes to a mandatoryCivil Protection and Saety course or grades 4 and 8 andsecond, the introduction o DRR learning into the manda-tory Head o Class Hour programme or grades 5 through9.

In the Head o Class programme the coordinator o teach-

ers o each grade level is responsible or conducting a one-hour lesson each week on cross-curricular topics not easilyaccommodated within core subjects. Te program encom-passes not only discussions in the classroom but also a rangeo practical activities, such as excursions and environmentalcampaigns. As part o the Head o Class Hour programme,children also participate in the mapping o school hazards,risks and vulnerabilities and in developing school disasterpreparedness plans, giving them opportunities to learn bydoing as well as to test their newly acquired knowledgein practice. Head o Class is a joint effort o UNICEF,the Disaster Preparedness Programme o the EuropeanCommission or Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

(DIPECHO), Ministry o Education and Science, Min-istry o Environment Protection and Emergency Manage-ment Department o the Ministry o Internal Affairs.

In addition, Georgia provides DRR education and prepar-edness activities to pre-school-aged children and special/inclusive schools through DRR activities in bilisi and twodisaster-prone regions in the country. Georgia has in placea policy to integrate age- and ability-appropriate DRR ma-terials into the school curricula and replicate the coursesnationwide.

Indicator 3.3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk as-sessments and cost-benefit analysis are developed and strength-ened.

Average Result: 3.3

Countries report many successes in developing researchmethods and tools. In Switzerland, EconoMe is a toolprovided by the Federal Office or the Environment to as-sess the cost and benefits o various protection measures. Itallows or better decision making in DRR investment givenlimited financial resources. In addition, Switzerlands Fed-

eral Offices or Civil Protection and or the Environmentdeveloped an e-learning platorm to acilitate multi-riskanalyses: LearnRisk and RiskPlan.


34/90


Te UKreported substantial investment in research initia-tives, such as Living with Environmental Change, which

incorporates DRR concepts, and the Foresight Project,which convenes researchers, academics and policymakers toconsider risks to the UK emerging over a long time hori-zon, up to 50 years.

Te countries report several challenges to achievementon HFA 3.3; in particular, lack o unding and time. Forcountries currently responding to severe hazards, it is di-ficult to take the long view on developing research methodswhen resources are diverted to response and recovery. An-other challenge is the difficulty in quantiying the benefitso public investment in DRR; Switzerlands experience is anotable exception. Finally, the evolving nature o new risks

conounds research commitments.

Indicator 3.4: Countrywide public awareness strategyexists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, withoutreach to urban and rural communities.

raining course, 12 December 2012Source: Italian National Civil Protection

Resilient Cities in Europe

Te Making Cities Resilient: My City is getting ready! campaign,launched in May 2010, addresses issues o local governance andurban disaster risk. Currently, 421 European cities have joined thecampaign, o which ten are Role Model cities. Te Mayor o Venice,Mr. Giorgio Orsoni, was appointed the first European Championo the Campaign.

On 19-21 March 2012, UNISDR and the City o Venice jointlyorganized an event titled Building cities resilience to disasters: pro-tecting cultural heritage and adapting to climate change. Mayorsand their representatives, national government officials, the privatesector, the media, the European C

Hyogo framework of action

Documents

Transcript of Hyogo framework of action