Uploaded on

The ISDR system in Europe

The ISDR system in Europe

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
699
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • the UN Secretary General indicated to the General Assembly in 2008 that the second session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in June 2009 would initiate the mid-term review (MTR) of HFA expected by 2010 this was welcomed by the General Assembly7
  • i. What is the overall progress on HFA implementation and what are the prospects, on prevailing trend, for achieving the desired outcome of a “ substantial reduction in losses”? ii. What have countries done to progress HFA and what do national authorities and other stakeholders consider as their big achievements, major constraints, and main lessons learnt? iii. What have been the promoters and barriers to investment in disaster risk reduction and how can funding be placed on a more predictable and sustained footing? What adjusting or strengthening is needed of the international architecture including the roles of ISDR institutional partners, to help accelerate HFA implementation? v. What adjustment of directions and priorities are needed to take up new opportunities for disaster risk reduction in relation to climate change and any other emerging issues? vi. What types of key deliverables would make the biggest impact during the remaining period of HFA, and what key policy and strategic orientations should be taken up as we move towards and beyond 2015?

Transcript

  • 1. Demetrio Innocenti, UNISDR Europe www.unisdr.org IDRC Global Risk Forum Special Session on National Platforms in Europe Davos, Switzerland 31 May 2010 The ISDR system in Europe
  • 2. Outline
    • Overview on the HFA
    • The HFA 2010 monitor tool
    • HFA Mid-Term Review (HFA MTR)
    • The role and function of NP: overview of NP in Europe
  • 3. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters
    • … to substantially reduce disaster losses, in lives, social, economic and environmental assets….
    • Three strategic goals
    • The integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning.
    • The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards.
    • The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes.
  • 4. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters
    • Five priorities for action
    • Governance : ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for implementation
    • Risk identification: identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning
    • Knowledge: use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
    • Reducing the underlying risk factors in various sectors (environment, health, construction, etc.)
    • Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response
    • Words Into Action:
    • A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework
    • www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Words-into-action/Words-Into-Action.pdf
  • 5. HFA Monitor
    • 3 strategic goals
    • 22 core indicators in 5 priorities for action
    • 5 drivers of progress
    • 3 future outlook statements
    • 5 levels of progress from minor progress to comprehensive achivement
  • 6. HFA Monitor
    • A web based monitoring system
    • Hosted at
    • http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring /
    • Primary target user: National government
  • 7. Key issues and challenges emerged from previous reporting cycle
    • Multi-stakeholder approach not common
    • Subjective progress assessment
    • Lack of civil society involvement
    • Inadequate visualization of the input to HFA monitoring
    • No means of verification for the reported status
    • Access of the monitoring tool to regional organizations
  • 8. Key enhancements for 2009-11
    • Improvements in HFA monitor tool:
      • A set of ‘Key Questions’ and ‘Means of Verification’ added
      • Overall interaction design improved
      • Visualization of HFA progress input (phase 2)
      • Access to regional organizations (phase 2)
    • Available ONLINE from 22 March 2010
  • 9.  
  • 10. Monitoring the implementation of the HFA in Europe
    • 2009: first European regional report of the implementation of the HFA.
    • It consolidates and analysis information from the HFA monitor reports of 17 European countries and 6 Regional Organizations (EC, EUR-OPA, RCC SEE, DPPI SEE, CEUDIP, aENNP).
    • It formulates recommendations for the regional implementations of the HFA based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the HFA monitor reports.
    Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/europe/publications/v.php?id=9452
  • 11. The Global Assessment Report
    • 2009: the first Global Assessment Report (GAR) gave a global overview of the progress in HFA implementation at the global level (information reported from 102 countries)
    • Significant progress: HFA Priority 1, 5
    • ( Strengthening institutional capacities, systems, policies and legislation for disaster risk reduction; technical and institutional capacities for disaster preparedness, contingency plans)
    • Consistent progress: HFA Priority 2
    • ( Identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks; enhancement of early warning systems)
    • Weak progress: HFA Priority 3 and 4
    • ( Knowledge, innovation and education, raising awareness; in particular mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into economic, social, urban, rural, environmental, infrastructure planning)
    Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413&pid:34&pif:3
  • 12. The HFA Mid-Term Review (MTR)
    • Welcomed by the General Assembly (UNGA A/RES/63/216. Resolution on International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 25 February 2009 9 par 16).
    • It should “ address strategic and fundamental matters concerning its implementation to 2015 and beyond ” (Chair Summary GP09).
    • The MTR will be driven by HFA stakeholders themselves i.e. (governments, civil society, NGOs and regional, and international institutions within the ISDR system framework.
    • European actors will meet in Geneva for sharing their inputs for the HFA MTR on 15 June 2015 – Session chaired by the SRSG for DRR.
  • 13. The HFA Mid-Term Review (MTR)
    • The overall objective of the MTR is to assess the extent to which the HFA has been progressed so far and to help countries and their institutional partners at all levels identify practical measures to boost commitment, resourcing, and effort in its further implementation, recognising the evolving global context for disaster risk reduction.
    • The MTR is conceptualised in two parts: first, a retrospective examination of the period 2005-2010, and second, a prospective scan of 2010-2015 and, to some extent, the horizon beyond .
  • 14. HFA MTR Timeline
  • 15. HFA and NPs in Europe and Caucasus Region
    • Out of 49 Countries:
    • 36 have designated HFA Focal Points
    • Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina , Bulgaria , Croatia , Cyprus, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland , FYI of Macedonia, France , Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary , Iceland, Italy, Malta , Moldova , Monaco, Montenegro , Norway , Poland, Portugal , Romania, Russian Federation , Serbia, Slovenia , Spain , Sweden , Switzerland , Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom .
    • 16 Countries have developed a National Platform:
    • Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, FYI of Macedonia , France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Monaco, Poland, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom .
    • .
  • 16. Why National Platforms for DRR?
    • Disaster risk reduction is a complex issue that calls for close cooperation among different stakeholders and sectors
    • It requires comprehensive and technical skills and knowledge (generation and exchange)
    • Need to mainstream DRR into development planning and practice
  • 17. UN Resolutions on National Platforms 1999 - UN Economic and Social Council, Resolution 1999/63 All Governments to maintain and strengthen established national and multi-sectoral platforms for natural disaster reduction in order to achieve sustainable development goals and objectives, with the full utilization of scientific and technical means. 2005 - UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/59/231 Governments to establish national platforms or focal points for disaster reduction, strengthen platforms where they already exist, United Nations system to provide appropriate support to those mechanisms…” 2005 – Hyogo Framework for Action (2005 – 2015) All nations to support the creation and strengthening of national integrated mechanisms, such as multi-sector national platforms to ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority. All States to designate a national coordination mechanism for the implementation and follow-up to the Hyogo Framework
  • 18. WHAT: National Platform is the nationally owned and led forum that -
    • - operates at multiple levels
    • - attracts multiple sectors
    • - engages multiple stakeholders
    • Serves as a coordination mechanism for mainstreaming DRR in the country
    • Analyse trends, exchange ideas and facilitate decision making on areas of priority requiring concerted action
    • Focus on prevention, preparedness and mitigation instead of merely focussing on disaster management and recovery
    • Contribute to the establishment and development of comprehensive and appropriate national DRR systems and be its custodian
  • 19. National Platforms are NOT
    • necessarily new institutions, but ideally build on existing national coordinating mechanisms that may keep its name and just officially declared as National Platform, provided it is truly multi-stakeholder, multi-sector and respect country’s diversity
    • the HFA focal point institutions / the national disaster management institutions, the civil protection service, a national steering committee, composed of government ministries ONLY
  • 20. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=601 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=3292
  • 21. www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/national/list/?pid:181&pil:1#F
  • 22. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Regional Office for Europe Regus EU parliament, Square de Meeus, 37 T: ++32 (0)2 791 7665 and 7666, F: ++32 (0)2 791 7900 [email_address] [email_address] [email_address] Thank you