SUGENG TRIUTOMODEPUTY CHIEF FOR PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS

NATIONAL AGENCY FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT2ND IAP MEETING

PATTAYA, 6 – 8 SEPTEMBER 2011

5TH AMCDRR

Proposed Theme & Structure

5TH AMCDRR

Country : IndonesiaOrganizer : Government of the Republic of

IndonesiaSupport : National Platform for DRR

Indonesia, Yogyakarta Platform for DRR, IAP members

Date : Oct 2011Location : YogyakartaVenue : Jogja Expo Center (JEC)

2

PROPOSED OVERARCHING THEME

Strengthening Local Capacity in Disaster Risk

Reduction

3

• Emphasized that success in reducing disaster risk and adapting to

climate change, and in achieving sustainable livelihoods, requires extensive collaboration and partnerships that reflect the mutual dependence of central and local governments and civil society actors. These should provide necessary resources at the local level, involve civil society in monitoring progress on disaster risk reduction, and include mechanisms for increased accountability.

• By 2011 national assessments of the safety of existing education and health facilities should be undertaken, and that by 2015 concrete action plans for safer schools and hospitals should be developed and implemented in all disaster prone countries. Similarly, disaster risk reduction should be included in all school curricula by the same year

• By 2015, all major cities in disaster-prone areas should include and enforce disaster risk reduction measures in their building and land use codes

2ND SESSION GLOBAL PLATFORM 2009

• Support local governments and non-state actors as the front line of risk reduction implementation

• Increase investment in DRR at local level and ensure national growth does not increase local risks

• Address local action directly in national growth targets, plans

and policies. Strengthen capacities of local governments and ensure resource availability.

• Encourage collaboration with communities and volunteers including through participatory risk assessments and local multi-stakeholder monitoring and reporting

3RD SESSION GLOBAL PLATFORM 2011

• …develop capacities at the national and local levels through awareness, education and training and strengthen the governance systems for disaster risk reduction, particularly at the local level

• Encourage the national governments to place communities at the centre of all aspects of disaster risk management through community-based disaster preparedness, mitigation and response

• Strengthen the participation of civil society in local, national and regional level planning and implementation for DRR

2ND AMCDRR – DELHI DECLARATIONCALLED ON

• On involvement and empowerment of local governments and civil society in disaster risk reduction: to encourage ongoing efforts towards decentralizing disaster risk reduction by building local capacity to integrate DRR into local development planning

• To encourage effective national legal and policy frameworks, financial and technical support to local authorities and community-based organizations to undertake DRR programmes

• To enhance multi-stakeholder collaboration with local governments and communities to reduce climate and disaster risk in urban and rural areas

• To integrate DRR into national, sub-national and sectoral development planning

3RD AMCDRR – KUALA LUMPUR DECLARATIONCALLED ON

• ….to develop a strong communication plan on national priorities on DRR and CCA to be reached out to governments at sub-national and local level including cities

• To promote awareness of DRR and CCA for development stakeholders and communities at risk

• To promote multi-hazard risk assessments and capacities in local settlements

• To promote with local governments the incorporation of risk reduction in planning and zoning regulations, building regulations especially for communities at highest level of exposure

4TH AMCDRR – INCHEON DECLARATIONCALLED ON

Progress in DRR is occurring, especially institutionally in the passing of national

legislation, establishment of early warning systems, and strengthening of disaster preparedness and response. However, it also raises some concerns

and one of them is

the insufficient level of implementation of the HFA at the local level.

MID TERM REVIEW OF HFA

• An archipelago state with more than 17,000 islands

• 238 million people with ethnically diverse population

• 33 provinces, 500 districts/municipalities

• Strengthening local DRR is key strategy in achieving the vision of the nation: building the resilience of its nation to disasters

INDONESIA & DRR

1. To encourage stronger political commitment and investment for local action in disaster risk reduction

2. To build on the findings and recommendations of the Global Platform’s Third Session which brought up the theme “Invest Today for A Safer Tomorrow – Increase Investment in Local Action”.

3. To establish a practical and collaborative mechanism for building resilience at the local level among the countries in the Asia Pacific region.

4. To promote local knowledge and practices in DRR as a way of enhancing local capacity in DRR

OBJECTIVES

1. Declaration of commitment with action plan and follow up strategy to enhance local capacity in disaster risk reduction

2. Regional partnership for strengthening local capacity

3. Technical and political recommendations on programs to empower local capacity among countries in the region

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

1. Mainstreaming Community-based DRR into Development

2. Local level Risk Analysis and Management

3. Local level Risk Financing4. Institutionalization of CBDRR and CCA at

local level5. Promoting Public-Private-Partnership at

the Local Level

INITIAL PROPOSED SUB-THEMES (1ST IAP MEETING)

13

1. Integrating local level DRR & CCA into National Development – Community Based Disaster Management

2. Local Risk Assessment and Financing

3. Strengthening local risk governance and partnership

PROPOSED SUB-THEMES(2ND IAP MEETING)

14

STRUCTURE OF THE CONFERENCE

5th AMCDRR

Pre Conference

Plenary Market Place Film FestivalSite Visit

ISDR Partners’ Meeting

High Level Round Table Meeting

Technical Session

50 Booth DRR Film Festival : 20 selected movies

Field Visit

Cultural Visit

Side EventsSpecial

Sessions(if required)

The main forums for consultation will be:

a) the ISDR Asia partnership

b) an executive committee that will be set up with representation of regional and national organizations (the same will exist to follow

up on implementation of the outcomes post-conference)

c) a donor support group that will be set up with representation of key bilateral and multilateral donors. Detailed terms of reference for both the executive committee and the donor support group will be developed and consulted in due course.

CONSULTATION MECHANISM

TIME LINE 2011

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun Jul

August

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Prep. Meeting 1

Prep Mtg-1with UNISDR

1st IAP Meeting

Site Visit 1

Prep. Meeting-2

• Prep. Meeting-3 w nat’l and local actors

• Formal letter to President

• Prep. Meeting-4 w nat’l and local actors• Prep. Meeting-5 w UNISDR and nat’l & local actors

• Prep for setting up Secretariat• Prep. Meeting , 8 August• FGD on proposed sub-themes, 16 August• Draft 0 Concept Note, 29 August

• 2nd IAP Meeting, Bangkok• Donors’ Support Group Meeting• Est. of National & Local

Committee• Site Visit 2

• Launching Website• 1st Announcement• Government Formal

Announcement ( by President on IDDR)

• 1st Announcement

• Invitation Letter

17

•2nd Announcement

…more on proposed sub-themes…

Integrating Local Level Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into National

Development- Community Based Disaster Management

Highlights of Presentation1. Rationale 2. Questions/concerns to be researched/explored3. Expected Outcome

PROPOSED SUB THEME 1

CONTEXT

• Community has to deal/bear disaster consequences in most direct way

• Priority 3 HFA calls for “Developing or strengthening community-based disaster risk management programmes”.

• The 3rd AMCDRR in Kuala Lumpur encouraged ongoing efforts on building local capacity, the provision of effective national legal and policy frameworks, financial and technical support to local authorities and community-based organizations undertaking DRR activities.

• knowledge and practices of community-based DRR must have reached a maturity stage for sharing and replicating

• Yogyakarta being the venue of the AMCDRR 2012 is also a home for some CBDRM practices to which conference participants can be directly exposed for both learning and sharing purposes.

RATIONALE

• Behind a seemingly shared CBDRM language, differing ways in which organizations ‘do CBDRM’ is still observable.

• Local Practice is always unique and not easily replicable in other areas.

• CBDRM needs to integrate with mainstream issues to avoid being esoteric and isolated initiative applicable in a certain community only.

• Guidelines from government are required.

CURRENT ISSUES : THE SCOPE OF CBDRM

• CBDRM is still facing challenges for escalating and integrating with government policy and practice and methods to overcome them (“Turning Practice into Policy”, Tearfund Report 2007).

• DRR is normally not included in the local government’s budget, unlike relief and rehabilitation/reconstruction funds.

• Access to development funding and planning mechanism needs to be created and facilitated

• Civil society has limited or lack of influence at government level.

• The governments’ outreaching to and supporting the communities/civil societies for community based disaster risk reduction initiatives are crucial.

CURRENT ISSUES: INTEGRATING/MAINSTREAMING OF CBDRM

• CCA in the context of DRR as started in the preceding AMCDRR held in Incheon, Korea needs to be elaborated and put in practice.

• Disaster risk assessment at the county and community level may have not incorporated climate change factor.

• There is a need for CCA fund not only that for CC Mitigation.

• Inclusion of CCA in the CBDRM would ensure continuity and consistency on addressing this issue of CCA

• CBDRM also serves as a practical action of community performing climate change adaptation

CURRENT ISSUES: CCA – CBDRM

• What would significantly distinguish urban CBDRM from rural one?

• Has disaster risk assessment incorporated CC factors?

• Considering that local practices tend to be unique, what will be the transferable elements of such practices for other localities?

• How CBDRM could avail of development funding scheme at the national level?

• Is CC global fund accessible for adaptation initiatives, including CBDRM?

• How CBDRM could align with and make benefits of existing development planning mechanism (in Indonesian case, one called Musrenbang?)

QUESTIONS/CONCERNS: TO BE RESEARCHED/EXPLORED

• Experience exchanges re successful CBDRM practices incorporating CCA and integrating it into national development;

• List of criteria and principles on enabling and empowering legislation/regulation, planning, funding scheme, partnership/ networking, research/ assessment, and local-national relationship/arrangement for impactful CBDRM;

• Key messages that include:

o CBDRM funding by host countries and donors,

o modality of future information sharing/cooperation among participating countries, recommendations for on-going HFA and its possible successor arrangement,

o commitment of governments for promoting CBDRM in their respective countries.

• Asian level agenda: e.g. to make 100,000 villages across Asia disaster resilient (see Sub-theme 2 of same expected outcome)

EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THIS SUB THEME

Local Risk Assessment and Risk Financing

Outline of Presentation:

1.Rationale and Current Issues

2.Questions/concerns to be discussed/explored

3.Expected Outcome

PROPOSED SUB THEME 2

CONTEXT

– Risk identification through risk assessment and Risk Financing are two of the five pillars of Disaster Risk Management

– Risk assessment at the local level is key to understand risk distributions; to formulate policy, strategy, and plan for mitigation

– Risk financing at the local level is generally underdeveloped. But, since local governments and communities typically bear the cost of disasters, promoting different risk financing options for local communities and governments through risk pooling and transfer becomes very important DRM measures.

RATIONALE

• The scale/level of risk assessment determines the different types and details of data needed. Determining the scope of the analysis is critical and not always easy

• Methodology for conducting risk assessment have been well developed, but local application require consistent guidelines to ensure comparability between localities

• Limitation in data availability (especially on hazards) requires that various data sources combined with field surveys should be carried out

• At the village level data limitation is less of a problem since raising awareness of risks and concrete and practical actions can still be done even with limited data

CURRENT ISSUES: RISK ASSESSMENT

• At the district level and up, data and method for risk assessment requires more formal and credible guidelines/standards since the resulted risk assessment (map) will be used as the basis for policy, planning and technical regulations.

• Involvement of universities and consulting industry in harmonizing the risk assessment approach is critical to supporting local governments and community who often lack expertise to carry out the assessment by themselves.

CURRENT ISSUES : RISK ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

• Financial impacts to the local community and governments are always high relative to local economy, the main impacts being damage of assets and interruption of economic activities.

• Most of the financial risks are retained by the locals with only few cases of systematic risk transfers.

• There has been long-tradition of community reserve in food/agricultural harvest, but they have not been broadened to cover disaster which may disrupt local supplies (e.g., through pooling resources with other localities).

CURRENT ISSUES : RISK FINANCING

• Local risk assessment serves two different groups of user, namely at the community/village level, and at the district/city or provincial levels. While the use of risk information are generally the same, that is inform development decisions to take risks and risk mitigation into consideration. However, there is a major difference between the use of risk assessment at the village level, which is basically to prioritize community actions, and the use of the assessment at the district level and above, which is more for formal planning and zoning regulation.

• Risk Financing (RF) is a process to determine the strategy achieving the optimal balance between retaining and transferring risk within an entity. At the community or local government level, because of its small economic scale, risk pooling and transfer become very important.

DESCRIPTION : WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS

– Is there any success story of local/district level risk assessment that was carried out cost effectively

– How can data gap for high resolution local risk assessment be addressed

– How can local government and community used risk information to influence development decisions to improve their resilience

– Is there any experiences in successfully implementing local risk financing strategy

– What has been the experience of insuring public assets in Bali and West Sumatra provinces as well as in provinces in other Asian countries

– How successful been risk pooling be implemented at the local level, and can it be sustainable

QUESTIONS/CONCERNS: TO BE RESEARCHED/EXPLORED

– Exchange of experiences in successful village level risk assessment and resilience

– Aiming for Asian level agenda: e.g., to make 100,000 villages across Asia disaster resilient (incl. applying RA & RF)

– Compilation of methodologies to carry out cost effective and high resolution local (district level) risk assessment

– Exchange of experiences in local disaster risk financing and pooling

– Discovery of local risk financing model that can be applied in Asia

EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THIS SUB THEME

Strengthening Local Risk Governance and Partnership

• Outline of Presentation:1. Rationale 2. Questions/concerns to be discussed/explored3. Expected Outcome

PROPOSED SUB THEME 3

• Asia and the Pacific is a region vulnerable to natural hazards. The risks depend not just on natural phenomena but also on the political, economic and social environment in which disaster events occur (Asia Pacific Disaster Report 2010)

• Provides “enabling environment” for interaction between state, civil society, private sector, at-risk people.

• Governance - HFA Priority 1 (cross-cutting all HFA Priorities)

• Capable, accountable and responsive governance ..... single most important factor in determining progress in building resilience

• Principal recommendation GAR 2009: Address underlying risk factor ;

“Poor local governance”

RATIONALE - CONTEXT

“Communities and local authorities should be empowered to reduce disaster risk by having access to information, resources and authority to implement actions for disaster risk reduction” - HFA 2005-2015

GAP

• Local state / non-state actors convert national DRR policy into practice..

....but policies weakened by a lack of resources and capacity at the local level to carry them out.

State and non-state actors are keen and open to collaboration, but have not found the effective formula for a balance collaboration.

RATIONALE-CONTEXT & GAP

Global efforts: The HFA Effect

• The number and quality of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) progress reviews is evidence of a growing concern for reducing disaster risk.

• The discussion of indicators and progress helps generate a common language and understanding.

• Whereas good progress is being made in early warning, preparedness and response, countries are still struggling to address the underlying risk drivers.

• Gender and public awareness are still not being adequately addressed.

• Investment in disaster risk management, particularly within sectors and through local governments, is severely limited.

(Global Assessment Report 2011)

RATIONALE - CHALLENGES

The Chair Summary in The Third Session of the Global Platform in Geneva May 2011 identified some critical steps to be considered, few amongst the 10 steps are :

• Increase investment in disaster risk reduction at the local level and ensure national growth does not increase local risks.

• Guide public and private sector investments and improve quality and consistency in implementation.

• Increase dedicated budget allocations for disaster risk reduction

• Provide guidance to National Platforms to improve the effectiveness and support the executive level of decision-making.

• Strengthen public awareness of disaster risks

RATIONALE - OPPORTUNITY

• Adapt innovative social protection and ecosystem management mechanisms to reduce disaster impacts based on understanding of the dynamics of vulnerability and ensuring protection of the most vulnerable households, communities and social groups.

• Ensure attention to disaster risk reduction in upcoming meetings, such as the 5th Asian Ministerial Conference in Indonesia, Rio+20, UNFCC mechanisms, the 6th World Urban Forum and the Aid- Effectiveness Meeting in 2011. Support implementation of the Millennium Development Goals by promoting risk reduction strategies that protect development investments.

RATIONALE – OPPORTUNITY (CONT.)

• What are emerging concerns and challenges in ensuring effective local risk governance and partnership in your respective country?

• Recommend 3 most urgent priorities of actions and its

conditioning requirements/enabling environments to strengthen local risk governance in your respective country in various levels (national, provincial, district and local)

• Exchanging/sharing experiences of actions /implemented strategies which can be done jointly in various level : local, national, regional for strengthening the local risk governance and partnership

QUESTIONS TO BE EXPLORED WITHIN THIS SUB THEME

• Identified concerns and challenges in ensuring effective local risk governance and partnership in respective country and regions

• Collective recommendations of relevant actions in strengthening local risk governance and partnership : Agenda for Change

• Documentation of available resources : model of good best and bad practices in strengthening local risk governance and partnership

EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THIS SUB THEME

How can 5th Asian Ministerial Conference

in Disaster Risk Reduction serve added values in this regard ?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT WHAT CAN WE DO

Questions/comments/inputs ?

THANK YOU