HFA progress monitoring and

Review 2009-11

Meeting of the ISDR Asia Partnership29 – 31 March 2011

Jakarta

Purpose

• Assist countries in assessing HFA progress, gaps and challenges in DRR efforts

• Serves as a continuous feedback mechanism for the countries

Process HFA Review 2009-2011

• A note verbal sent from SRSG to all the HFA National Focal Points in March 2010

• Request sent to UNRC in 32 Countries for appointment of Focal Point from UNCT to assist the process

• On- line Monitor updated and communicated to the HFA Focal Points

• Time line set for Interim reports ( October 2010) and Final reports (March 2011)

• Multi- stakeholder consultations for review encouraged

Changes from the last reporting cycle

• More focus on quality of review• Multi stakeholder involvement in

consultations• Greater involvement of the civil society

organizations• Initiated alignment of local and national level

reviews (pilots in Nepal, Indonesia)

Changes in HFA monitor tool

Based on the feedback from the last review cycle: – A set of ‘Key Questions’ and ‘Means of

Verification’ added – Some changes to design – Section open to Regional inter- governmental

organisations for regional reviews

National level arrangements

• Nominated HFA focal points facilitate inputs to online ‘HFA Monitor’

• Multi stakeholder inclusive consultations with government and other stakeholders

• Draw on existing monitoring and review process (if available)

• Include analysis of DRR progress reported in other frameworks (CCA, NAPA, MDG etc.)

• Supportive of national processes and feeds into national level DRR planning

How countries were supported

• UNRC appointed focal points in 20 Countries• Direct support / facilitation provided to 06

countries on request

UNISDR (LAO-PDR, Maldives, Mynamar and Pakistan)

• UNESCAP DRR Advisor (Nepal, Bhutan)• Two Local Level HFA review Pilot Workshops

conducted (Indonesia and Nepal)

HFA Interim Report 2009-2011Status

Reports finalized, upload in progress,

8, 25%

Consultations under progress, 10, 31% Submitted Reports,

14, 44%

Priority Area 1:Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation (Average Score 3.1)

MAIN FINDINGS

18%5%

36%

41%

1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy None

2 Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment

1- Maldives2- Marshal Islands3- Solomon Islands4- Vanuatu

3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial

1- Bhutan2- Fiji3- India4- Indonesia5- LAO-PDR6- Myanmar7- Nepal8- Sri Lanka9- Timor-Leste

4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources

1- Australia2- Bangladesh3- Hong Kong4- New Zealand5- Pakistan6- Philippines 7- Samoa8- Vietnam

5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels 1- China

9%

27%

64%

Priority Area 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning (Average Score 3.1)

MAIN FINDINGS

1Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy

None

2Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment

1- Lao - PDR2- Myanmar

3Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial

1- Bangladesh2- Bhutan3- Fiji4- Hong Kong5- Indonesia 6- Maldives7- Marshal Islands8- Nepal 9- Pakistan10- Samoa11- Solomon Islands12- Timor-Leste13- Vanuatu14- Vietnam

4Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources

1- Australia2- China3- India4- New Zealand5- Philippines6- Sri Lanka

5Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels

None

Priority Area 3: Use of knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels (Average Score 2.9)

MAIN FINDINGS

23%23%

54%

1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy None

2 Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment

1- Hong Kong2- Marshal Islands3- Myanmar4- Timor-Leste5- Vanuatu

3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial

1- Bangladesh2- Bhutan3- Fiji4- Indonesia5- Lao-PDR6- Maldives7- Marshal Islands8- Nepal9- Pakistan10- Philippines11- Samoa12- Solomon Islands13- Vietnam

4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources

1- Australia2- China3- India4- New Zealand5- Sri Lanka

5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels None

Priority Area 4:Reduce the underlying risk factors (Average Score 2.7)

MAIN FINDINGS

5%

32%

14%

49%

1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy 1- Timor-Leste

2 Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment

1- Lao-PDR2- Marshal Islands3- Myanmar4- Nepal5- Samoa6- Solomon Islands7- Vanuatu

3 Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial

1- Bangladesh2- Bhutan3- Fiji4- Hong Kong5- India6- Indonesia7- Maldives8- Pakistan9- Philippines10- Sri Lanka11- Vietnam

4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources

1- Australia2- China3- New Zealand

5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels None

Priority Area 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels (Average Score 3.1)

MAIN FINDINGS

19%10%

29%

42%

1Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy

None

2Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment

1- Hong Kong2- Indonesia3- Marshal Islands4- Myanmar

3Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial

1- Bhutan2- Lao-PDR3- Maldives4- Nepal5- Samoa6- Solomon Islands7- Sri Lanka8- Timor-Leste9- Vanuatu

4Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources

1- Australia2- Bangladesh3- Fiji4- India5- Philippines6- Vietnam

5Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels

1- China2- New Zealand

Key Findings

38% of the countries reported dedicated and adequate resources for disaster risk reduction, while 33% countries have presented average resources for DRR in the countries

50% of the countries presented average progress (3) in integrating DRR into School Curricula, while 23% of the countries have made significant achievement in this area

Only 2 countries reported inclusion of women's organization in National Platform, some countries have reported contingency planning with gender sensitivity, while 03 countries reported measures to address gender issues in recovery.

Only 30% countries reported significant achievement, 30% of the countries presented average and 40% of the countries have presented weak progress in DRR Mainstreaming

Areas where progress made National policy and legal framework for disaster risk

reduction

Community participation

Early warning systems

National and local risk assessments and regional / trans-boundary risks

Public Awareness

Integration with environment related policies and plans

Disaster preparedness and contingency planning

Areas for more attention Accessibility of relevant information on disasters at all

levels

Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments

Social development policies and plans

Planning and management of human settlements

Assessment of disaster risk impacts from major development projects

Integration with post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes

Learning from 2009-11 process

Active response from stakeholders INGOs, NGOs, and local authorities.

The reporting process better where UNCT focal points are more engaged

Where National Platform / DRR Mechanisms are functioning, the process is better organised and need little help from outside

The need to strengthen the HFA Reporting process and formalize it to DRR Mechanisms / Platform raised in consultations

Key questions helped stakeholders to respond to the requirements, however the question also led to limitations of further thinking

Countries experienced difficulties in collecting Means of Verification

Key issues and challenges

Ownership of the reporting Process and Report it self is still weak in the countries

Although more stakeholders were involved in the process engagement of more categories required

Countries are reluctant to share budget information

New changes in HFA Monitoring format need more rigorous information collection for reporting and authentication purposes.

Utilization of HFA reports still remain a questions in the countries

HFA Regional Synthesis Report • Capture the progress made against the HFA

priority areas,• Develop a comparative analysis of the progress

made against the declarations and actions plans from previous four Asian Ministerial Conferences on DRR:

Beijing declaration Delhi declarationKuala Lumpur declaration and Action PlanIncheon declaration and DRR-CCA Road Map

HFA Regional Synthesis Report

Review the status and progress on key recommendations of Chairs summary GPDRR 2009;UNISDR strategic objectives for the period 2010-11 in the region:

• Investments on DRR

• Urban Risk Reduction

• DRR-CCA integration

Analysis/content

• Achievements and key trends in the region against 5 priority areas, three outcomes and 22 HFA indicators

• Progress against the drivers of progress of HFA• How progress has evolved since the WCDR in 2005• Constraints and challenges encountered in the

implementation and reporting of HFA in the region• Recommendations and future priorities, supported by

best practices• Lessons from the review process, compilation of the

national/regional reports and the key steps taken by HFA Focal Points in review and reporting.