|
 |
1 |
Vulnerable Rural Livelihoods
|
|
|
 |
Problems
|
|
|
 |
Strengthening Livelihoods
|
|
|
|
2 |
Poor Urban Governance
|
|
|
|
Problems
|
|
|
|
Strengthening Urban governance
|
|
|
|
3 |
Declining Ecosystems
|
|
|
|
4 |
Climate Change - For example, if mortality levels relative to hazard exposure to tropical cyclones are currently 200 times greater in low-income countries than in Organization for Economic lCooperation and Development (OECD countries, then the consequences of increasing cyclone severity due to climate change will turbo-charge the disaster risk-poverty nexus, drastically increasing disaster impacts on the poor and resulting poverty outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Amazing Facts
|
|
|
|
1 |
Between 1975 and 2008, 8,866 events killed 2.28 million people. Of these, 23 mega-disasters killed 1.7 people, mainly in developing countries. In other words, .26% of the events accounted for 78.2% of the deaths. Disasters with more than 10,000 Fatalities
|
|
|
|
3 |
While only 11% of those exposed to hazards live in low human development countries, 53% of disaster deaths are concentrated in those countries. Disaster risk is fundamentally associated with poverty at both the global and local levels.
|
|
|
|
4 |
Thus, while high-income countries account for 39% of the exposure to tropical cyclones, they only experience 1% of the deaths. On the other hand, low income countries represent 13% of the exposure, but over 81% of the deaths from cyclones happen there.
|
|
|
|
5 |
Given a cyclone of the same force hitting Japan and the Philippines, even though Japan has more people, 17 times as many people would die in the Philippines as would die in Japan.
|
|
|
|
6 |
900 million people now live in informal settlements in developing country cities. Many of these are in hazard prone areas. El Salvador example
|
|
|
|
What kinds of natural events are there? Where are they happening?
|
|
|
|
Who is dying?
|
|
|
|
Disaster Dissection Framework
|
|
|
|
1 |
Was there a government in place that integrated disaster risk into planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction, and response and recovery programs?
|
|
|
|
Does the country have a national integrated disaster risk reduction platform, with designated responsibilities at the national through to the local levels? p6
|
|
|
|
Do communities and local authorities have the ability manage and reduce disaster risk by having access to the necessary information, resources and authority to implement actions for disaster risk reduction? p5
|
|
|
|
Is risk reduction included in development policies and planning at all levels of government?
|
|
|
|
Is community participation promoted in disaster risk reduction?
|
|
|
|
Does the government have the benefit of the transfer of knowledge, technology and expertise from the international community to enhance capacity building for disaster risk reduction?
|
|
|
|
2 |
Was the vulnerability to the hazard identified, assessed, monitored and was adequate warning provided?
|
|
|
|
Are risk maps up to date and given out to the public and communities at risk in an appropriate format? p7
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to know how much risk and vulnerability exists to assess the potential impact of disasters on social economic and environmental conditions and disseminate the results to decision-makers, the public and populations at risk?
|
|
|
|
Is there a record of statistical information on disaster occurrence, impacts and losses?
|
|
|
|
Was there an early warning system that was people centered, timely and understandable, which takes into account the demographic, gender, cultural and livelihood characteristics of the target audiences, including guidance on how to act upon warnings, and that support effective operations by disaster managers and other decision makers? p7
|
|
|
|
Does the country cooperate with other countries in the region to exchange, monitor and assess information?
|
|
|
|
3 |
Did people know how to respond to the hazard?
|
|
|
|
Was easily understandable information on disaster risks and protection options, tailored to the local population, available?
|
|
|
|
Are disaster reduction options available to the public before construction, land purchase or land sale is accomplished?
|
|
|
|
Is disaster risk reduction knowledge embedded in school curricula?
|
|
|
|
Is there a local risk assessment and disaster preparedness program in schools and institutions of higher education?
|
|
|
|
Are there training and learning programs in disaster risk reduction targeted at specific sectors?
|
|
|
|
Is there community-based training initiatives to enhance local capacities to mitigate and cope with disasters?
|
|
|
|
4 |
Were efforts made to reduce the presence of underlying risk factors while the hazard was experienced?
|
|
|
|
Did the state encourage the sustainable use and management of ecosystems, including through better land-use planning and development activities to reduce risk and vulnerabilities?
|
|
|
|
Are there environmental and natural resource management approaches available that incorporate disaster risk reduction?
|
|
|
|
Does the country promote food security?
|
|
|
|
Does the country ensure that hospitals are "safe from disaster"?
|
|
|
|
Are critical public facilities, particularly schools, clinics, hospitals, water and power plants, communications and transport lifelines, disaster warning and management centers, and culturally important lands and structures properly designed and retrofitted in order to render them adequately resilient to hazards?
|
|
|
|
Are their social safety net mechanisms in place to assist the poor, the elderly and the disabled?
|
|
|
|
Is there insurance for people?
|
|
|
|
Are there public-private partnerships in place to better engage the private sector in disaster risk reduction activities?
|
|
|
|
5 |
Was the public prepared for an effective response and recovery?
|
|
|
|
Was rebuilding done in a way to reduce the risk of future disasters?
|
|
|
|
Are all government agencies, and involved international government and agencies, working together to solve problems?
|
|
|
|
Hyogo Framework for Action - What should we do?
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation HFA Action 1
|
|
|
|
1 |
Core Indicator 1 - National policy and legal framework for diaster risk reduction exists with decentralized responsibilities and capacities at all levels.
|
|
|
|
2 |
Core Indicator 2 - Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at all administrative levels.
|
|
|
|
3 |
Core Indicator 3 - Community participation and decentralization are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local levels.
|
|
|
|
4 |
Core Indicator 4 - A national multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning
|
|
|
|
2 |
Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning HFA Action 2
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 1: National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and include risk assessments for key sectors.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 2: Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 3: Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 4: National and local risk assessments take account of regional/transboundary risks, with a view to regional cooperation on risk reduction.
|
|
|
|
3 |
Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels HFA Action 3
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 1: Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through networks, development of information sharing systems, etc).
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 2: School curricula, education material and relevant training include disaster risk reduction and recovery concepts and practices.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost–benefit analysis are developed and strengthened.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 4: Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to urban and rural communities.
|
|
|
|
4 |
Reduce the underlying risk factors (disaster drivers) HFA Action 4
|
|
|
|
Risk factors (BUT SEE DISASTER DRIVERS)
|
|
|
|
demographics
|
|
|
|
technological
|
|
|
|
socio-economic
|
|
|
|
unplanned urbanization
|
|
|
|
development within high-risk zones
|
|
|
|
under-development
|
|
|
|
environmental degradation
|
|
|
|
climate variability
|
|
|
|
climate change
|
|
|
|
geological hazards
|
|
|
|
competition for scarce resources
|
|
|
|
HIV/AIDS impact
|
|
|
|
Population percentage under 14 years old
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 1: Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, including for land use, natural resource management and adaptation to climate change.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 2: Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 3: Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 4: Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including enforcement of building codes.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 5: Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 6: Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
5 |
Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels HFA Action 5
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 1: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 2: Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response programmes.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 3: Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.
|
|
|
|
Core Indicator 4: Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event reviews.
|
|
|
|
1 |
Achievements are minor and there are few signs of planning or forward action to improve the situation.
|
|
|
|
2 |
Achievements have been made but are incomplete, and while improvements are planned, the commitment and capacities are limited.
|
|
|
|
3 |
There is some institutional commitment and capacities to achieving DRR but progress is not comprehensive or substantial.
|
|
|
|
4 |
Substantial achievement has been attained, but with some recognised deficiencies in commitment, financial resources or operational capacities.
|
|
|
|
5 |
Comprehensive achievement has been attained, with the commitment and capacities to sustain efforts at all levels.
|
|
|
|
Assessment Criteria - How well are countries complying with the HFA?
|
|
|
|
Summary of how well we are doing
|
|
|
|
1 |
Little progress is being made in the use of knowledge, innovation and education and in particular in the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into economic, social, urban, rural, environmental and infrastructure planning.
|
|
|
|
2 |
Significant progress is being made in strengthening capacities, institutional systems and legislation to address deficiencies in disaster preparedness and response.
|
|
|
|
3 |
Good progress is also being made in the identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks and in the enhancement of early warning systems.
|
|
|
|
Sources
|
|
|
|
2 |
ISDR Indicators of Progress This is a very important document published in 2008 by the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. It provides guidance on how to measure progress in reducing disaster risks and in implementing the HFA.
|
|
|
|
3 |
preventionweb.net—key-documents - This is a site that has links to many important documents, but particularly important is the 2009 Global Assessment Report (GAR) on Disaster Risk Reduction called "Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate." www.preventionweb.net—index.php The downloads for this GAR are in 9 parts, including seven chapters, a pre-, a post- and errata.
|
|
|
|
7 |
www.gripweb.org—grip.php - Global Risk Identification Programme is a multi-stakeholder initiative that directly aligns with the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)’s Priority Area 2: risk identification, assessment and monitoring.
|
|
|