Loy Rego is a Practitioner with 39 years of leadership and technical work on governance, program development and implementation on Disaster Preparedness, Risk Reduction (DPRR), Resilience and Adaptation. He worked for 15 years with the Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center in Bangkok (1996-2011) as Director and later Deputy ED. Since 2011, he has served as Technical Advisor and volunteer in the US, Myanmar, Egypt and India on DPRR, Rio+20, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other
international agendas. He worked to establish the MARS Practitioners Network (2012) and VERVE Volunteers Program(2014).
Not only must we pay attention to health risks and outbreaks, but we must take an overall integrated approach to sustainability and resilience, focusing on addressing the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the SFDRR and other global commitments in an integrated manner. We are in a new era, with bold visions, and special challenges and we need to address them in an integrated manner.
The ongoing half decade (1980-2030) has been a significant period of transformative change and advancement of disaster preparedness and risk reduction in the sustainable development context.
Assisting Countries in Natural Disasters and Strengthening Response Capacities of UN
Agencies Natural disaster response has been practised since time immemorial. During the 60s, 18.5 million were affected by drought and 5.2 million by floods annually. During the 1970s and 80s, three million died, over 800 million people were affected and US$ 23 billion damage were caused by natural disasters (General Assembly (GA) Res/43/202), twice more than the 1960s. The number of cyclone-earthquake victims shot up as poor people built unsafe houses on dangerous ground. The worst disasters: Sub-Saharan African droughts and Southeast Asian floods, each claiming several hundred thousand victims were directly associated with environment/development mismanagement.
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987): “Our Common Future” highlighted that “35 million were affected by African drought, tens of millions by better managed, thus less-publicized Indian drought. Floods poured off the deforested Andes and Himalayas with increasing force. The 1980s seem destined to sweep this dire trend into a crisis-filled 1990s.”
In 1970, when the catastrophic Bangladesh Cyclone struck, the UNSG recommended assistance in natural disasters, including applying technology/scientific research for natural disaster prevention and mitigation, including effective dissemination of research on causes, early manifestation of disasters and improvement of early warning systems (EWS) (Res 2717/70). The next year, UNGA asked the UNSG to create a permanent UN Disaster Relief Office (UNDRO), appoint a Disaster Relief Co-ordinator to promote natural disaster prevention, control and prediction, and advise Governments on pre-disaster planning and national disaster EWS improvements” (Res 2818/71). Eight years later, the GA welcomed UNDP’s Governing Council decision to include technical co-operation activities for disaster relief, preparedness and prevention nationally and regionally; and “requested the New International Development Strategy Preparatory Committee to consider these issues, (Res 34/55/79). In 1981, the UNGA stressed strengthening UN natural disaster response systems and coordinating all relevant EWS.” (Res 36/225/81)
Origins of Natural Disaster Reduction in the 1990s The idea of an International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was first suggested by Dr Frank Press, President, US National Academy of Science, at the 8th International Congress of Earthquake Engineering in 1984, taken up by bodies in the international scientific community, resulting in the 1987 UNGA Resolution designating the 1990s as IDNDR, recognizing the importance of reducing natural disaster impact on people, particularly in developing countries and fostering NDR co-operation in the international community under the UN. The UNSG appointed an
ad-hoc international Group of Experts, chaired by Dr Press to help the UN prepare for IDNDR, and a UNGA resolution was adopted during December 1989. IDNDR began on January 1, 1990.
The IDNDR goals were to:
i) Improve each country’s ability to mitigate ND impacts.
ii) Devise guidelines and strategies to mitigate these effects.
iii) Foster scientific and engineering endeavours to reduce loss of life and property.
iv) Disseminate existing/new information about ND assessment, prediction, prevention and mitigation.
v) Promote technical assistance and technology transfer programmes, demonstration projects, education and training on specific hazards in location.
Since IDNDR’s start, a framework for the first five years was:
a)A ten-member Special High Level Council (SHLC), including serving and former Presidents and Prime Ministers.
b) 25 international expert Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) (principally research scientists), and,
c)National IDNDR Committees (NC) network.
Both SHLC and STC are serviced by the IDNDR Secretariat in Geneva, responsible for carrying forward the programme of work agreed by the STC, and working with the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA), reporting to the UNSG through USG for HA. The Secretariat started with three staff and increased to 15 in the Yokohama Conference run-up.
IDNDR activities undertaken or planned prior to Yokohama were:
1) Development of techniques and mechanisms for improved warning of tropical cyclones.
2) Comprehensive monitoring of high-risk volcanoes.
3) Programmes for reducing earthquake vulnerability.
4) Improvement of international statistical ND databases.
5) Educational and training activities.
6) Mapping health emergency preparedness and response in Africa.
7) Studies on disaster impact in large cities.
Till early 1994, 130 countries established NCs. The more active NCs commenced activities described in their papers at the Yokohama Conference. In addition, numerous international and regional meetings of IDNDR Committees and technical specialists were held. The IDNDR Secretariat and Osseratorio Vesuviano (Italy), produced a Newsletter-Stop Disasters-every two months, distributed free to anyone with an interest in IDNDR’s programme.
IDNDR certainly increased awareness of the need for and ways of achieving disaster mitigation among UN agencies, scientific community and multilateral/regional lending institutions: World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB).
IDNDR’s first half focus and biases were seen in:
a)Origins in the scientific and engineering communities reflected in activities in the Yokohama run up and beyond, with social sciences greatly under-represented, a bias partially corrected in its second half.
b)Emphasising mitigation of sudden impact natural hazards (cyclones, floods, earthquakes, etc.), with focus on slow impact hazards like drought, somewhat ambiguous.
c)With UN emphasis on member governments and IDNDR on scientific and engineering solutions, the NGO community was not been closely involved, except in some National Committees. Consequently, potential NGO contribution for community-level disaster mitigation initiatives was not adequately explored.
d) The Decade’s start coinciding with the end of the Cold War was unfortunate, with international community’s attention and humanitarian resources largely focused on conflicts in Africa, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, IDNDR’s focus on ‘natural’ disaster PMP had limited relevance. Many STC selected international programmes/demonstration projects experienced difficulty in getting sufficient funding.
The Yokohama
Conference of May 1994
The Conference adopted the 10 Point Yokohama Strategy and Action Plan for a Safer World (YSSW), on ‘natural’ disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation and reduction (DPPMR).
Key principles were:
I) Risk assessment key for DR
ii) DPP reduces disaster relief
iii) DPP integral to development policy and planning nationally, regionally, bilateral, multilaterally and internationally
iv) Capacity Development (CD) and Strengthening DPPMR beyond a decade
v) Early warning (EW) and effective dissemination using telecom and broadcasts
vi) Prevention measures are most effective with participation from local community, national government, regional and international levels
vii) Vulnerabilities can reduce by proper development patterns and appropriate community education
viii) Share DPPM technology freely and on time
ix) Ensure environmental protection and poverty alleviation for sustainable development
x) Each country bears primary responsibility to protect its people, infrastructure and assets against NDR, with the international community mobilising NDR technologies and finance.
The Strategy and its Action Plan for 2000 and Beyond mandates:
a) Global culture of prevention essential for DR.
b) Self-reliance in each vulnerable country and community, comprising efficient capacity building (CB) and resource use.
c) DPMM Education and training.
d) HR and CB of DRM R&D institutions.
e) Networking of existing DPRM centres of excellence.
f) Active role of media in DR.
g) Improved DPPR awareness and involvement.
h) Active community based approaches (CBA) to vulnerability reduction
i) Improved risk assessment, monitoring, and forecasts/warnings communication.
j) Integrated PPR policies for natural, environmental and technological disasters.
k) Improved inter disciplinary research at universities, scientific/technical institutions, regional and sub-regional organisations.
l) Effective national legislation, political decision making and administrative actions.
m) Promoting cooperation/information exchange/joint activities, regionally and sub-regionally including regional/sub-regional centres establishment.
o) Using existing DR technology.
p) Integrating private sector, promoting business opportunities.
q) NGOs involvement in natural hazards management.
r) Strengthening UN system capacity for natural/technological (NaTech) hazard loss reduction.
Linking Relief,
Rehabilitation and
Development (LRRD) as well as Conflict
Resolution
The 80s saw an active effort to Link Relief to Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) approach, where natural hazards were seen as major causes of emergencies, with reduction an intrinsic part of making recovery processes sustainable. This first entered the aid debate during the African food crises of mid-to-late 1980s calling for ‘prevention rather than cure’ and relating LRRD processes through more appropriate land-management and agricultural systems.
Drought, the principal natural hazard in Sub-Saharan Africa, largely bypassed by IDNDR, with limited National IDNDR Committees and low activity by those established, was accorded higher priority by IDNDR’s STC, a TC session at Yokohama and a joint OAU/ECA/WHO IDNDR African regional DM initiative.
The poor performance of some programmes, emergence of higher-profile political conflicts growing in number and intensity, absorbing aid, perceived as disrupting development, decreased interest in LRRD and was redirected in late 1990s to rebuilding collapsed States. New approaches were needed to ensure ‘better development’ would reduce emergency relief needs, and better ‘relief/rehabilitation’ contribute to development; easing transition between the two.
The conflict discourse overshadowed LRRD processes. Natural disaster response was seen as a linear RRD continuum since the ‘disaster’, caused by a specific, time-bound hazardous event. When applying this model, conflict-related, political emergencies were more protracted than natural disasters, and post-conflict transition a complex, extended process, with risk of violent conflict re-igniting. This distinction has since been challenged by widespread coincidence and convergence of both natural disasters (NDs) and conflict-related weakness in governance and social structures with underlying conflictsaggravated by NDs, leading to LRRD and risk-reduction initiatives recognising their mixed nature. Opportunities arise when NDs affect a conflict-ridden society, seen in tsunami impacts in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan and Indian Kashmir.
LRRD approaches have addressed conceptual gaps, but other emerging knowledge was not yet reflected:
a) Rebuilding markets and market relationships.
b) Transcending the ‘yeoman farmer/fisher fallacy’ that assumes own production is best to follow.
c) Finding a supportive and effective relationship with local government and policy/programming synergies to take advantage of economic boost post disaster.
d) Confronting HR capacity gaps in the aid industry, and,
e) Closing gaps between rhetoric and reality in DRR.
2000 to 2015: Growth of UNISDR and the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)
The “IDNDR International Programme Forum: Towards Partnerships for Disaster Reduction in the 21st Century” was the decade’s closing event. UNSG Kofi Annan stressed: “We must, above all, shift from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. Prevention is not only more human cure; it is also much cheaper, but above all, let us not forget, is a moral imperative, no less than reducing risks of war.” The Forum’s joint participants’ statement: the “Geneva Mandate”, focussed on longer term DR action. The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) was launched in December 1999 by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), endorsed by UNGA as the successor international framework to IDNDR.
The “Safer World in the 21st Century: Disaster and Risk Reduction” strategy, developed after the 1999 Forum had four goals:
a) Increase public awareness of risks of natural, technological, and environmental hazards.
b) Obtain public authorities commitment to reduce risks to people, their livelihoods, social and economic infrastructure, and environmental resources.
c) Engage public participation at all implementation levels to create disaster-resistant communities through increased partnerships and expanded networks.
d) Reduce economic and social losses caused by disasters, measured by gross domestic product.
A global Inter-Agency DR Task Force (IATF) was established in January 2000. ISDR, re-established in December 1999 as an inter-agency secretariat with an expanded mandate as coordination focal point of the UN system and regional organizations with representation from UN bodies, STC members and regions for NDR work, defining strategies for multi-level international cooperation, while ensuring complementarity of action with other agencies. The existing inter-agency NDR secretariat function and coordination of IATF work continued, under direct authority of USG for HA with finance from extra-budgetary resources through a specific trust fund. ISDR was mandated to promote public awareness, commitment, expand networks and partnerships. (IDNDR Successor Arrangement, A/54/497)
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 2002, recognized DRR as prerequisite to achieve SD. Member States agreed on: “An integrated, multi-hazard, inclusive approach to address vulnerability; disaster risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, essential elements of a safer world in the 21st century, and endorsed actions to: (a) Strengthen ISDR’s role and encourage provision of financial resources; (b) Support effective regional, sub-regional and national strategies and DM institutional use of traditional and indigenous knowledge and promote CBDM planning by local authorities, including training and public awareness; (WSSD Chapter IV: A/CONF.199/20): Protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development)
These references were improvements in recognising DR compared to UNCED at Rio-de-Janeiro 1992. Climate negotiations were linked for the first time and used until today: “encourages UN Conference of Parties (CoP) to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and parties to the Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC to address adverse CC effects, especially in vulnerable developing countries, and encourages Intergovernmental Panel on CC (IPCC) to continue assessing adverse CC effects on socio-economic and NDR systems of developing countries; (A/RES/58/215)
The YSSW Review (2004) in preparation for the World Conference for DR-Jan 2005 provided disillusioning findings: i) Since YSSW adoption, there were 7,100 ‘natural’ disasters worldwide, killing over 300,000 people and causing over US$ 800 billion losses. The UN USGHA indicated “on average, the over 200 million people annually affected by ‘natural’ disasters since 1991, is seven times more than the 30 million affected annually by conflict.” (Para 14), ii) While 11% of people exposed to natural hazards live in low human development countries, they cause more than 53% of recorded deaths. (Para 22), c) Disaster sociology and human dimensions’ highlight vulnerability in conditioning people’s risk exposure. (Para 79)
ISDR’s comprehensive global report ‘Living with Risk’ (LwR, 2004), identified lessons from past DM work, arguing for increased action to reduce risk and vulnerability to hazards, to meet tomorrow’s challenges, showing people at risk because of their social, economic and environmental vulnerability, which must be factored in to achieve sustainable development. DRR concerns everyone, from villagers, heads of states, bankers, lawyers, farmers, foresters, meteorologists to media chiefs and argued for action to build sustainable societies.
The Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction(WCDR) in January 2005 in Kobe city, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, adopted the “Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters”, to use DRR as a foundation for sound national, regional and international development agendas to achieve substantial reduction of lives, disaster losses, and community/country assets.
WCDR took place on the 10th anniversary of the 1995 earthquake, still under the impact of the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, getting attention of politicians and international media. 168 Member States represented by 4,000 people participated in Kobe. They agreed on HFA for 2005–2015 with three strategic goals and five Priorities for Action (PfA). The goals were:
(a) More effective DRR integration into multi-level SD policies, planning, and programming, emphasising disaster PMP, and vulnerability reduction.
(b) Strengthening institutions, mechanisms, and capacities at all levels to systematically build resilience.
(c) Systematic incorporation of DRR into design and implementation of emergency preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction of affected communities. HFA had five PfAs, i) Ensure DRR is a national and local prioritywith strong institutional implementation, ii) Identify, assess and monitor DR and enhance EW; iii) Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a multi-level culture ofsafety and resilience, iv) Reduce underlying risk factors; and v) Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective multi-level response.
The HFA Midterm Review (MTR) was done in 2010. In her foreword, the UNSG’s Special Representative (SRSG), Ms Margareta Wahlstrom said, “We are still far from having empowered individuals adopt a DRR approach in their daily lives and demand that development, environmental and humanitarian policies and practices be based on sound DRR measures.” (HFA MTR Suggestions for accelerating HFA implementation, p 9)
“In five years since HFA’s adoption, significant DRR progress was made across international, regional and national agendas, but strongly driven by the DRR community, not fully internalized in how international development assistance agencies, some government institutions, and UN agencies are institutionally and financially organized to manage DRR.” (HFA MTR, p 55) The conclusions, recommendations and way forward address “measuring DRR implementation progress, ask for targets to be set, standards to ensure delivery quality and international, national and local level accountability mechanisms developed to measure action taken /progress achieved.” (HFA MTR,
p 70)
Key Actions During HFA
A thrust of ongoing work of member countries, ISDR Secretariat, UN Organizations and partners were continuing public awareness campaigns, and observance of 13th October (its second Wednesday) as International Day for Disaster Reduction (IDDR). The regularisation of this day beyond the decade and continuance till today, 35 years later is testimony to its value in propagating the global DRR culture and practice around common themes, through diverse action nationally and locally.
Campaign themes since 2000 were focussed on:
a) Disaster Prevention, Education and Youth (2000)
b) Countering Disasters, Targeting Vulnerability (2001) in poorer countries who lack DPP capacity
c) Sustainable Mountain Development (2002) in vulnerable mountain communities
d) Turning the Tide (2003) during the International Year of Freshwater not just to preserve water resources to sustain life, but reduce its capacity to take life away
e) Today’s Disasters for Tomorrow’s Hazards (2004) better preparing communities work together when hazards strike again
f) Microfinance and DRR (2005) recognising from the 2004 Tsunami, US’s Hurricane Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake that the poor usually suffer most, and microcredit is a useful tool for poverty reduction, and potentially disaster reduction
g) Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School (2006) – the theme of ISDR’s first campaign in the HFA decade in partnership with UNESCO
h) Challenging the World’s Education Authorities (2007): Education Ministries, authorities, teachers and parents
i) Disaster Risk Reduction is Everybody’s Business (2008)
j) Hospitals Safe from Disasters (2009) – the theme of UNISDR’s second campaign with WHO and World Bank
k) My City is Getting Ready! (2010) – the Safer Cities theme of the third UNISDR campaign – addressing local governance, urban risk, and sustainable urbanizations developed in UN-Habitat World Urban Campaign.
Since Hyogo, UNISDR took up key sectors, schools, hospitals and cities, to do a sustained long term campaign in partnership with relevant UN Agencies: UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO and UN Habitat.
The first World Disaster Reduction (WDR) Campaign 2006-07 theme, led by ISDR and UNESCO, was: “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School”. Aligned to HFA Priority 3 – Use knowledge, innovation and education to build multi-level safety and a resilient culture. Schools are best venues for forging durable collective values to building a prevention and resilience culture. The WDR Campaign promoted safety of school buildings and DRR mainstreaming into school curricula and activities has now matured into continuing, multi-agency program led by the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GADRRRES) on Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) with a targeted effort led by countries and agencies called the Worldwide Initiative on Safe Schools. WISS held international meetings in Turkey, 2014 and Iran, 2015. WISS’s three components: a) Advocacy and Policy Support, b) Technical Support among Safe Schools Leader countries, technology transfer, twinning opportunities, good practice exchanges, developing education DRR and resilience plans; child-centred risk assessments, and three CSS technical pillarsdelivery, c) Progress Monitoring and Reporting delivered through: annual Safe Schools Leaders meetings, related Working Groups’ annual reports and submission of government national reports.
DRR is indispensable to protect people and countries’ health, welfare and assets. In 2008-09, UNISDR and World Health Organization (WHO) launched the second biennial campaign: Hospitals Safe from Disasters, working with governments, international and regional organizations to better protect health facilities and hospitals to function both during and after disasters. Key essentials are implementing national policies and programs to make health facilities safer, selecting safe sites, designing/constructing safely, protecting health workers, equipment, medicines and supplies, ensuring health facilities receive essential services, developing partnerships between facilities and community, emergency risk management programmes for each facility; test and update response plans with drills/exercises, and train health workers on emergency response. During 2008/09, a lot was done on hospital safety. Health task forces with all stakeholders were established (e.g. Asia Pacific Task force on Safe Hospitals), workshops held (e.g. Kathmandu Declaration on Protecting Health Facilities from Disasters) and projects to implement building codes and train staff carried out (e.g. PAHOs Hospital Safety Index adopted in Latin America, Oman, Sudan and Tajikistan). Despite the campaign end, safer hospital work continues, with more initiatives: a WHO Global Programme on Safe Hospitals; a pledging campaign on safer hospitals and schools in the Asia Pacific region; and a thematic platform on DRR for Health.
The third campaign by UNISDR – Making Cities Resilient (MCR): “My City is Getting Ready!” was launched in May 2010, addressing local risk governance, urban risk and resilience, raising awareness and commitment of local governments and political leaders on urban DRR; institutionalised as the longest serving campaign. More than 4,300 cities joined MCR, demonstrating commitment to act on ensuring safety and well-being of citizens from disasters.
The ten MCR essentials developed in 2010 serve as a reliable guide to cities in fulfilling their HFA commitment. A handbook developed in 2011 provided implementation guidance to City Mayors and officials, helped reporting and monitoring and was revised in 2016 after SFDRR. The ten essentials are:
1) Organize for Disaster Resilience
2) Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
3) Strengthen Financial Capacity for Resilience
4) Pursue Resilient Urban Development and Design
5) Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance Natural Ecosystems’ Protective Functions
6) Strengthen Institutional Resilience Capacity
7) Strengthen Societal Resilience Capacity
8) Increase Infrastructure Resilience
9) Ensure Effective Urban Disaster Preparedness and Response, and,
10) Expedite Recovery and Build Back Better.
Two key documents were adopted by government and international stakeholders: the Local and Sub-National Governments Declaration at WCDRR 2015 in Sendai, and “The Florence Way Forward” at the High-Level Forum on Implementing SFDRR at the Local Level in Italy, June 2016.
A focus of subsequent UNISDR annual campaigns was specific at risk groups. During 2011-15, the ‘Step Up’ campaign, dedicated each year to a particular vulnerable group – children and youth, women and girls, people living with disability, older people and indigenous peoples, highlighting their special strengths and positive contributions made to DR. These themes covered a) “Making Children and Young People Partners for DRR” (2011), b) “Women and Girls: the Invisible Force of Resilience” (2012), c) Living with Disability and Disasters (2013), d) Older persons (2014), both their needs and contributions to understanding, planning and community DP action, e) Indigenous people’s Knowledge for life (2015) highlighting traditional, indigenous and local knowledge/practices complementing scientific knowledge.
Overall, this campaign focussing on significant contributions made by each of the vulnerable group contributed greatly to the inclusion of important SFDRR Section 36a, highlighting their leadership and positive role played in their communities and society.
During HFA, the Global Assessment Reports 2007-2015 were institutionalised around specific themes, documenting risk patterns in regions and nations globally, released at the Global Platforms on DRR held in 2007, 09, 11 and 13.
The 2007 Global DRR Review compared risk trends with HFA progress, identifying intensive risk scenarios (where people and economies are likely to experience catastrophic impacts from large-scale events) and extensive risk scenarios (dispersed populations experiencing highly localised, low intensity, cumulative impacts from small-scale, mainly climatic hazards); and examined how HFA will reduce mortality and economic loss from earthquake and climatic hazards in both scenarios.
2009 institutionalised the Global Assessment Report (GAR) every two years on a specific theme. GAR 2009 “Risk and Poverty in a changing climate”showed DR disproportionately concentrated in weak governance, lower-income countries, communities and households; exploring underlying risk drivers like badly planned and managed urban development, vulnerable rural livelihoods, environmental degradation, poverty and inequality.
GAR 2011 “Revealing Risk, Redefining Development” identified effective public policies to address the disaster risk-poverty nexus and political/economic constraints for increased DRR public investment. Using innovative hybrid probabilistic risk models, GAR11 produced risk profiles for several countries to demonstrate how a risk-layered approach to DRM could maximize benefits while reducing costs.
GAR 2013 “From Shared Risk to Shared Value” made the business case for DRR, exploring the nexus with private investment, showing how businesses can invest in DRM to reduce costs and interruptions from disaster losses/impacts; and enhance performance and reputation by minimizing uncertainty and unpredictability.
GAR 2015, “Making Development Sustainable: the Future of DRM” released at Sendai’s WCDRR, questioned whether the way HFA approached DRR was really fit for purpose and reinterpreted DRR in a world threatened by catastrophic DR increases, showing why DRR needs to move from managing disasters to managing risks to contribute to making development sustainable
Six Frameworks: The SDGs, Paris Agreement, SFDRR and AAAA in 2015, and World
Humanitarian Summit and New Urban Agenda 2016
2015-2016 was a major turning point in adopting a cluster of six major International agreements: framed by the Sustainable Development Goals: 2015-2030 (Sept 2015), the Paris Climate Change Agreement 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development; the Istanbul World Humanitarian Summit’s Agenda for Humanity and the Quito New Urban Agenda 2016.
The Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030
SFDRR was the firstpost-2015 development agenda agreement adopted at the Third UN World Conference on DRR in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015, an outcome of Member-State and stakeholder consultations initiated in March 2012 and inter-governmental negotiations from July 2014 to March 2015 endorsed by the UN General Assembly of 2015.
SFDRR works with the above-mentioned 2030 Agenda Agreements and aims over 15 years to achieve the outcome of “Substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries.” To attain this outcome, the SFDRR goal adopted was “Prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated and inclusive economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience.”
SFDRR built on work done by States and stakeholders under HFA, introducing innovations emphasising DRM instead of DM; disaster risk reduction as outcome; goals focused on preventing new risk, reducing existing risk and strengthening resilience; guiding principles, including primary responsibility of states for DRR; all-of-society, all-of-State institutional engagement; definition of seven global targets; and broadened DRR scope to cover natural, man-made, environmental, technological and biological hazards/risks. Health resilience is strongly promoted, especially significant in the current pandemic.
As Margareta Wahlstrom, UN SRSG for DRR said in 2015, “SFDRR articulates: a) improved DR understanding covering exposure, vulnerability and hazard characteristics; b) strengthening of disaster risk governance, including national platforms; c) accountability for DRM; d) preparedness to “Build Back Better”; e) recognition of stakeholders roles; f) mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid creating new risk; g) resilience of health infrastructure, cultural heritage and work-places; h) strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership, and g) risk-informed donor programs, support and loans from international financial institutions. The Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GPDRR) and regional platforms for DRR is mechanisms for coherence across agendas, monitoring and periodic reviews supporting UN Governance, with UNDRR supporting implementation, follow-up and review of SFDRR.”
SFDRR Targets and
Indicators
SFDRR addressed three dimensions of disaster risk (exposure to hazards, their characteristics, vulnerability and capacity); prevents new risk creation, reduces existingrisk and increases resilience. SFDRR’s seven global targets and four priorities for action assess and guide progress. These targets are measured globally, complemented by appropriate indicators. National targets and indicators aim to contribute to achieving SFDRR outcome and goals.
SFDRR’s Seven Global Targets are to
Substantially reduce
(a) Global disaster mortality by 2030, lowering average per 100,000 global mortality rate in the decade 2020–2030 compared to 2005–2015;
(b) The number of affected people globally by 2030, lowering average global figures per 100,000 in the decade 2020–2030 compared to2005–2015;
(c) Direct disaster economic loss in global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030;
(d) Disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, including health and educational facilities, through developing their resilience by 2030;
Substantially increase
(e) The number of countries with national and local DRR strategies by 2020;
(f) Enhanced international cooperation to developing countries through adequate, sustainable support to complement their national actions for SFDRR implementation by 2030;
(g) Availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS) and disaster risk information and assessments to people by 2030.
SFDRR’s Four Priorities for Action are:
1: Understanding disaster risk in its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics and environment used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness (PMP) and response.
2: Strengthening disaster risk governance nationally, regionally and globally for PMP, response, recovery, and rehabilitation, fostering collaboration and partnership
3: Investing in DRR for resilience, publicly and privately through structural and non-structural measures; enhancing economic, social, health and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries, their assets and environment
4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and Building Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction requires strengthening response preparedness, acting in anticipation, ensuring multi-level capacities in place and helps integrating DRR into development.
Each call for action is at four levels, the national and local, (Sections 24, 27, 30 and 33) and the global and regional levels (Sections 25, 28, 31 and 34). SFDRR recognizes the primary role the State has for DRR with responsibility shared with local government, private sector, community and other stakeholders.
The Sendai Framework Monitor, an online tool captures self-reported (by member states) progress against a set of 38 Global SFDRR Indicators towards seven global targets, which measure progress and determine global trends in risk and loss reduction with customised nationally defined targets and indicators to measure progress against four SFDRR priorities based on national priorities reflected in their national DRR reports.
SFDRR’s Part V: ‘Role of Stakeholders’ effectively articulates the concept of shared responsibility and role of non-state stakeholders as enablers, providing support to States as per national policies, laws and regulations, in SFDRR implementation locally, nationally, regionally and globally, through commitment, goodwill, knowledge and experience. SFDRR recognizes the need for allocating national resources and mobilising additional resources.
Civil society, volunteers, organized voluntary organizations and community-based organizations are recognized collaborators of public institutions, providing knowledge and pragmatic guidance in normative DRR framework and plan implementation; engaging in local, national, regional and global strategy implementation; contributing/supporting public awareness/education, DRR prevention culture, advocacy for resilient communities and inclusive, all-of-society DRM across groups.
Six specific civil society sectors, normally seen as especially vulnerable, requiring special attention, are boldly recognized in SFDRR Section 36
a) i) to vi) for their evocative contribution:
(i) Women’s participation is critical to effective DRM; design, resource and implement gender-sensitive DRR policies, plans, programmes; and capacity building to empower women for preparedness and secure alternate means of livelihood post-disaster;
(ii) Children and youth are change agents and should be given the space and modalities to contribute to DRR, in accordance with legislation, national practice and educational curricula;
(iii) Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and their organizations are critical to DRR assessment, design and plan implementation, tailored to specific requirements, using principles of universal design;
(iv) Older persons have years of knowledge, skills and wisdom, invaluable assets to reduce DR, and should be included in design of policies, plans and mechanisms, including EW;
(v) Indigenous peoples, through their experience and traditional knowledge, importantly contribute to development and implementation of plans and mechanisms, including EW;
(vi) Migrants contribute to resilient communities and societies, and their knowledge, skills and capacities are useful in DRR design and implementation.
Valuable guidance on other sectors is given in Sections 36
(b) Academia, scientific and research entities and networks;
(c) Business, professional associations, private sector financial institutions, regulators, accounting bodies and philanthropic foundations, integrating DRM into business models, and,
(d) Media as an active, inclusive partner contributing to public awareness raising, disseminating accurate DR information, simply, transparently, accessiblyand easy-to-understand.
A third Sendai outcome is the commitment to establish a system of voluntary actions by civil society, private sector, member states and UN organizations. 188 commitments were made in the run up to SFDRR, many of these now publically announced in 31 revised Sendai Framework Voluntary Commitments (SFVC) launched in May 2019 at the Global Platform on DRR in Geneva, with an updated link on the current UNDRR website, including an Indian VC.
Since SFDRR, two rounds of regional platforms on DRR have been held in 2016 and 2018. The First Regional Platform in Asia was held in New Delhi, India in November 2016, and the second in July 2018 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Five regional and sub-regional platforms were held in 2018, hosted by the Governments of Armenia, Colombia, Italy, Mongolia and Tunisia. The Third Asia Pacific Regional Platform was scheduled for late June 2020 in Brisbane, Australia, but was rescheduled due to the COVID-19 crisis and travel restrictions.
The New Delhi Declaration, 2016, resolved to mobilise governments and partners to deliver the Asian Regional Plan for SFDRR implementation in the next 15 years till 2030, and called on all major and stakeholder groups to deliver their ‘Voluntary Statements of Action’ (VSAs). The regional plan covers broad policy directions for SFDRR and SDG implementation; a 15 year long-term roadmap, broken into segments, with percentage-wise targets for 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2030; and the two-year action plan (2016-18) aligned with the road map. ASEAN, SAARC, ECO, SCO, APEC, BIMSTEC and APDIM help act regionally. The Asia Regional Plan and all VSAs from stakeholder groups constitute two principal regional instruments for tracking progress.
Two post-SFDRR Global Platforms (GPDRR) were held; the first in 2017 in Cancun, Mexico and the second in Geneva in May 2019. The GPDRR 2019 was preceded by the Second Multi-Hazard Early Warning Conference, the fourth session of the World Reconstruction Conference, the Stakeholder Forum and the Science-Policy Forum.
The GPDRR 2019 Co-chair summary entitled, “Resilience Dividend: Towards Sustainable and Inclusive Societies”. Ninety-one countries reported national DRR strategies developed, but admitted that the implementation pace, especially at the local level, was not fast enough for the 2020 deadline for Target (e), thus delaying further progress on other targets.
Commitments towards an inclusive DRR approach, recognizing the indispensable role of disproportionately-affected groups, including women, displaced people (DP), PwDs, elderly, and children have not sufficiently translated into action. Achieving the “Resilience Dividend” will require countries, communities, enterprises, and individuals to increase capacities to prevent and reduce risks. Addressing governments and stakeholders needs for SFDRR implementation in coherence with other global frameworks requires a strategic approach to CD supported by adequate funding. DRR risk assessments, strategies, and programmes, should target drivers of inequality and exclusion, and legislation and governance mechanisms should prioritize needs of the most-at-risk and marginalized. Regional DRR approaches should address transboundary risks and inform national strategies for coherent implementation. Regional/sub-regional platforms facilitate exchange of experiences and forge networks. Governments should accelerate DRR strategy implementation, aligned with SFDRR Target (e) i) and ii) by 2020, coherent with National Adaptation Plans (NAPAs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Development Plans (NDPs). Countries must step up systematic reporting to the Sendai Framework Monitor.
GPDRR reiterated that locally-led DRR plans are necessary to ensure national strategy implementation and urged national governments to enable local plan development and implementation to inform revision of national strategies. Local plans should be guided by community knowledge, build on local solutions, city-to-city learning, long-term, integrated urban-rural planning, sustainable financing frameworks and cooperation of all levels of government and other stakeholders.
Disaster-resilient infrastructure is key to risk-informed development. We must capitalize on co-benefits of nature and ecosystem-based solutions (NBS), leverage their complementarity across blue, green and grey infrastructure and help achievethe resilience dividend. GPDRR stakeholders are committed to engage with NBS, resilience and adaptation tracks of the Climate Action Summit.
Ministries of finance and planning, central banks, regulators, and credit rating agencies were urged to ensure financial and development plans/decisions are risk-informed. Private sector is a strategic partner to achieve resilient economies and communities, and public-private partnerships (PPPs) essential to scale-up innovations and investments needed, with standards developed on DRR responsibilities of private sector investors, medium, small, and micro enterprises (MSMEs) in PPPs.
The interplay between disasters, climate change, environmental degradation, and fragility, including water-related risk, should be recognized. GPDRR underscored the security implications of CCD and encouraged context-specific DRR and resilience-building strategies in conflict-affected and fragile contexts, based on risk assessments that integrate CCD and conflicts.
GPDRR 19’s overarching message was ‘Resilience pays off’, strongly calling leaders at all levels to ensure resilience dividends and make risk-informed investments, essential for sustainable development and inclusive societies.
Key Ongoing and Planned Actions
Post SFDRR, the Sendai Seven Campaigns (2016-2022) promotes awareness and actions needed for achieving the Seven SFDRR Goals, one per year, over seven years. It involves national and local governments, community groups, civil society organizations, the private sector, international organizations and the UN family to promote good practice internationally, regionally and nationally and in various sectors, to reduce disaster risk and losses.
The campaign, now in its fifth year focuses on SFDRR Targets (a) 2016 :Target (a): Reduced Global Disaster Mortality b) 2017 Target (b): Reduced Number of People Affected by Disasters Globally by 2030; c) 2018:Target (c): Reduce Direct Disaster Economic Loss; d) 2019:Target (d): Substantially Reduce Disaster Damage to Critical Infrastructure and Disruption of Basic Services; e) 2020 Target (e): Substantially Increase the Number of Countries with National and Local Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies by 2020; f) 2021: Target (f): Substantially Enhance International Cooperation to Developing Countries; g) 2022 :Target (g): Substantially Increase the Availability and Access to MHEWS and Disaster Risk Information and Assessments.
The Campaign has evocatively supported awareness and action on the targets and showcased good practice in different parts of the world.
The MCR campaign’s first phase (2010-2015) ‘From awareness to implementation and beyond’, was valued by partners and participating cities. Post SFDRR, it focused on implementation support, city-to-city learning/cooperation, local action planning, progress monitoring, advocacy for widespread local government action and national government support to cities implementing SFDRR locally. Cities are seeking capacity development in strategic planning, effective implementation of risk-informed urban development and finance for resilience; engaging multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder communities, vulnerable populations, private sector; using nature-based resilience solutions; and reducing climate risks through actions.
The MCR campaign will continue well beyond 2020, supporting local governments in strengthening disaster and climate resilience locally to achieve SFDRR, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement and the SDGs by 2030 with more collaboration among local partners. The inputs from 2018-19 consultations informed its successor: Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030), shared publicly at the World Urban Forum on 9th February 2020 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, with a clear commitment from partners including United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), ICLEI, World Bank, UN-Habitat,World Council on City Data (WCCD), Global Resilient Cities Network (Rockefeller Foundation), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR).
MCR2030’s main strategic objectives are increasing: 1) Understanding of risk and commitments to Disk Reduction and Resilience (DRRR), 2) Capacities to plan for DRRR, 3) Capacities to implement DRRR actions. A cross-cutting objective is to increase vertical links with national governments and horizontal links amongst local partners, mainstreaming resilience throughout and between partners, functions and services, and foster city-to-city partnerships and sharing of experience.
Since SFDRR, two more Global Assessment Reports (GARs) were published in 2017 and 2019. GAR 2022 is being planned.
GAR Atlas 2017 “Unveiling Global Disaster Risk” presented risk associated with hazards (earthquakes, tsunamis, riverine flooding, cyclonic winds and storm surge) observed globally with a national level of resolution. Using the same methodology, arithmetic and exposure model for all hazards, GAR Atlas provided globally comparable multi-hazard risk metrics, enabling risk comparisons between countries and regions, enabling estimation of order-of-magnitude of probable losses country-wise, and from different hazards.
GAR 2019 updated progress on implementing SFDRR outcome, goal, targets and priorities and disaster-related SDGs. It analysed changing risk science, explored managing systemic risk and presented innovative practice for pursuing risk-informed SD.
GAR 2022 will focus on how worsening social inequalities and potentially irreversible ecosystem damage are increasing systemic risks, cover how to assess them, focusing on vulnerability and exposure within and between systems and approaches to prevent creation of systemic risk, limit their propagation or mitigate consequences when realised, how risk perception drives decision-making and how to live more comfortably with uncertainty. GAR 2022 will enable increasing coherence and integration across the aligned intergovernmental agendas.
Conclusion
As Mami Mizutori, Secretary-General and Special Representative for DRR since 2018 said, “I doubt that any of us, when we rang in the new year on 1st January, 2020, had any sense we were ringing in a disaster, the scale of which the world has not seen. We have witnessed the darkest and brightest of hours, with selflessness on a grand display in thousands of health workers braving the frontlines. The world is paying the full price now after years of ignoring warnings about the need for improved pandemic preparedness, while pointing out those biological hazards were included in SFDRR at the insistence of Member States, following earlier disease outbreaks including Ebola, SARS and H1N1. COVID-19 will not be the last such “black swan” event, and is a reminder that the greatest single driver of disaster risk is weak governance and lack of leadership, and that scenario planning, risk profiling and mapping, and effective risk governance need to be achieved. It’s time now to walk the talk.” Not only must we pay attention to health risks and outbreaks, but we must take an overall integrated approach to sustainability and resilience, focusing on addressing the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and the SFDRR and other global commitments in an integrated manner. We are in a new era, with bold visions, and special challenges, and we need to address them in an integrated manner.
