Sendai Framework for DRR

Targets and Indicators

Oct. 2016Oct. 2016

TAKEYA Kimio takeya.kimio@jica.go.jp

Distinguished Technical Advisor to the President, JICA

�UNISDR, Member of Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators &

Terminology relating to Disaster Risk Reduction

�UNFCCC, Members of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International

Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts

World trend of Disaster Reduction

1990

from Natural Disaster to

general Disaster

COP21

Paris Agreement

2015

2

0

Climate Change

Kyoto Protocol

MDGs

SDGs

1

International

Decade for

Natural Disaster

Reduction

1990 2000

1994

Yokohama Strategy and Actions

48 Actions

International

Strategy for

Disaster Reduction

2005→2015Hyogo Framework for

Action 2005-2015

2015→2030

Sendai

Framework

for DRRfrom 48 actions

select 5 priority

actions

0

3

02

0

1

5

Poor people

living in the

vulnerable area

easy to

damage

live more vulnerable area

sometime on the street

Development Obstructed by Disasters～Micro, Personal, Family Level～

2

far away from

developing plan

2

damage

loose

livelihood

easier to

be damaged

deflation

spiral

Development Obstructed by Disasters

～Macro, Country Level～

DevelopmentHow to fill the gaps?How to convince political leaders to invest for DRR?

3

Disaster

Disaster

Disaster

Time

Development

Obstructed

by Disasters

Normal DevelopmentRecovery Effort

Japanese position in the world DRR

• GFDRR & ODI reports, 20 years of international financing of disaster risk reduction (DRR)

• Donor financing is heavily concentrated with Japan and the World Bank accounting for more than 50% of the total.

41991-2010

Total $13.5 billion20 years of international financing of disaster risk reduction (DRR)

World Bank

$ 3.57 billion = 25.7%

Japan

$ 3.75 billion = 27.6%

≒4,000億円

5

JICA’s Support meet to the HFA Priority Action

• The projects related to priority action 4 are increasing rapidly

compared to others.

• It entails the best mix of structural and non-structural measures.

280

206

259

250

300Priority 1_Ensure priority of disaster risk reduction

Priority 2_Knowing disaster risk and act

Priority 3_Improve knowledge of disaster risk reduction

Priority 4_Reduce risks

Priority 5_Prepare in advance and be ready to act for emergency

Priority 4

Reduce Risks

6

0 0 0 0 0 2 292 2 4 6

12

2532

4

96

1525 34

81

4743

68

116

159

206

5 13

23

42

54

3

0

50

100

150

200

～1980 1981～1985 1985～1990 1991～1995 1996～2000 2001～2005 2006～2008

Priority 5_Prepare in advance and be ready to act for emergency

Priority 2

Priority 5

Priority 3

Priority 1

Pre-investment is much Cheaper than recovery cost, but ・・・・・・

but still most of the DRR investment done

after disaster happened

7

Emergency Response

& Recovery

DRR

The importance of pre-disaster DRR investmentGlobal Assessment Report P-87

8

The importance of pre-disaster DRR investmentGlobal Assessment Report

9

The importance of pre-disaster DRR investmentGlobal Assessment Report P-87

10

The importance of pre-disaster DRR investmentGlobal Assessment Report P-87

11

Pakistan case for 2042 GDP will 25% down without DRR investment

Without Disaster

With Disaster

With DRR invest

12

Debate for Risk Transfer

• $1 pre-disaster prevention investment can save $7 damage & loss from disaster

• In order to cover $7 by insurance, 25% of business cost will be needed, → $2

• Instead of $1 pre-investment, pay $2 to insurance company and $7 damage never insurance company and $7 damage never reduced, lost lives never return

• We do not deny the importance of financial failsafe system, as for short term issue, but

• If government rely on this without DRR effort or , forget the importance of DRR, I must sayThe road to hell is paved with good intentions.

13

How to convince developing country’s political leader to make

investment

EU also appeal before Sendai Conference

14

Shown in the Global Assessment Report 2015 UNISDR as a success case

15

Spending 5～8 % Government budget to DRR

16

Shown in the Global Assessment Report 2015 UNISDR as a success case

17

How to convince developing country’s

political leader to make investment

Sendai Framework for DRRNegotiation Discussion

in Geneva UN/HQfrom Aug 2014 – March 2015 Sendai

Make effective influence to the document of Post HFA, Sendai Frameworkby Japanese government

19

Finalized Sendai Framework for DRR

20

JICA’s Propose for the New Structure of Priority for Action

Priority for Action

Governance/

Mainstreaming

Prevention

/Mitigation

Build Back

Better

PreparednessUnderstand-

ing Disaster

Risk

21

P2.

Strengthening

governance to

manage disaster

risk

P3. Investing

in disaster

prevention

and mitigation

as an asset for

sustainable

development

P5. Recovery

and

Reconstruction

for a resilient

society

P4. Preparing

for effective

response

Risk

P1.

Understanding

Disaster Risk

Logic of the Priority for Action

Governance/Mainstreaming

P2. Strengthening governance to manage disaster risk

Prevention

/Mitigation

P3. Investing in

Preparedness

P4. Preparing for

Build Back

Better

P5. Recovery and

Disaster

Leadership/Governance/Management

22

P3. Investing in

disaster prevention

and mitigation as an

asset for sustainable

development

P4. Preparing for

effective response

P5. Recovery and

Reconstruction for a

resilient society

Understanding Disaster Risk

P1. Understanding Disaster Risk

Disaster management cycle

Knowledge/Evidence/Science Support

23

what is “Resilient” and “Build Back Better”?

24

Concept of Build Back Better

25

4 Outcome Targets

Relation between each Targets

e. Increase number of

countries with national &

local strategies by 2020

3 input Target which can influence to another Targets

f. Enhance

International

Cooperation

g. Enhance Access to

the Disaster Risk

Information

4 Outcome Targets

26

a. Reduce disaster mortality

b. Reduce the number of affected people

d. Reduce disaster damage of critical infrastructures

c. Reduce disaster economic loss

economic loss

damage to critical

infrastructures

Relation between outcome Targetsand actions to be taken

affected people

Sendai Framework for DRR Targets=Relation between 7 Targets=

27

affected people

mortality

economic loss

damage to critical

infrastructures

Relation between outcome Targetsand actions to be taken

affected people

Sendai Framework for DRR;Relation between 4 outcome Targets

28

affected people

mortality

We must convince political leader,DRR is not the cost but the investment,

necessary asset for the future development

Definition of Risks by Sendai Framework

• Para 15. shows the definition,

– The present Framework will apply to the risk of small-scale and large-scale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters

caused by natural or man-made

hazards,hazards, as well as related environmental,

technological and biological hazards and risks. It aims to guide the multi-hazard management of disaster risk in development at all levels as well as within and across all sectors.

29

Indicators of Sendai Framework

• Indicator to monitor the implementation of Sendai Framework for DRR itself

• Used for relevant indicators for SDGs

• Indicator to monitor the achievement of the 7 Targets

• What kind of indicator be needed for Sendai Framework for DRR monitoring and mainstreaming DRR into the governmental policy?

①

governmental policy?

① minimum level:

monitor the implementation of Sendai Framework for DRR,

including proxy data-set also acceptable

② standard level:

not only monitor but show evidence to political leader, to

mainstream DRR as a development issue to Gov. policy

③ highest level:

back ground data set, scientifically, statistically can provide

future risk figure and solution, as academic resolution level30

1. Poverty eradication

2. Food security and nutrition

3. Health

4. Education

5. Gender equality and women's empowerment

6. Water & sanitation

7. Energy

17 Goals

169 Targets

Sustainable Development Goals（SDGs）（Adopted on Sep. 25th 2015）

230 Indicators have

been approved by

UN Statistical

Commission7. Energy

8. Economic Growth

9. Industrialization, innovation & infrastructure

10.Reducing inequality

11.Sustainable cities & human settlements

12.Sustainable Consumption and Production

13.Climate Change

14.Marine resources, oceans and seas

15.Ecosystems & biodiversity

16.Peaceful & inclusive society

17.Means of implementation

Commission

(Mar. 2016）

National Infrastructure Dataset

done by statistics group

Indicators and National Statistic Dataset

highest level

done by statistics group

32

Compromise for monitoring

minimum level

standard level

Variations of dataset 1

Globally Common Dataset

33

NationalSpecifiedDataset

Like Zodo?

Glacier melting?

Regional SpecifiedDataset

Cross border issue?

Monsoon specific?

Variations of dataset

ExtremeEvent

from flood to zodo

34

very low damagebut importantlike drought

Slow on setEvent8 itmes

sea level rise, ・・・

Japanese Initiative for finalizing Indicators

35

Relation between Capacity and International Cooperation Needs

Total Support Input

(Capacity, Finance)

• Requested resources depends on each countries’ condition

Capacity → Finance → Capacity

• Start from Capacity Development Support for strategy

→shift to implementing financial support

→shift to every sector leaded by the central DRR agency

• support substances changes by this process

36

2020年

National & Local

DRR Strategy

pre-disaaster investment

Mainstreaming DRR into every

sector

(Capacity, Finance)

＝Self Effort +International Cooperation

2030年？～ 2030年？ 2050年？

Reconstruction Needs based on Random Disaster Happen

37

Poor people

living in the

vulnerable area

easy to

damage

live more vulnerable area

sometime on the street

Poor layer is continuously struggling with Spiral of “Disaster and Poverty”

3838

damage

loose

livelihood

easier to

be damaged

deflation

spiral

far away from

developing plan

Reduction of flood damages in Japan

by continuous investment6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

01946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Number of fatalities by flood

Source: Water Disaster Statistics, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure Transport and Tourism

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

01962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Area inundated (ha)

Number of fatalities and inundation area have dramatically been reduced in Japan

due to continuous investment in and efforts for flood mitigation.

1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Proposing tools for Post MDG/HFA

Convince Policy Maker

by DR2AD Model

Approach for today’s invest

40

Disaster Risk Assessment

to all projects

Approach for today’s invest

Low Regret Investment

41

Existing knowledge for each priority area from the practitioner’s “brute” view, enough or not?

= not from deliver side but from needs on the ground =

A ctio n A reaE xistin g K n o w led g e/R esea rch en o u g h o r n o t?

E xp ected su p p o rt fro m S & T

P rio rity 1

U n d erstan d in g d isaster risk h azard /risk m ap p in g　○

D isa ster sta tistic d a ta sto ck　×S tan d ard ization of d ataset　△

C C /d o w n sca lin g in to p ra ctica l p la n /red u ce u n certa in ty　×E arth q u ake p rid iction　×U sin g satelite/n on d estru ctive m eth od ology　△U sin g in n ovated tech n ology for M eteorology ○

42

P rio rity 2S tren gth en in g d isaster riskgovern an ce to m an age d isaster risk

N ation al/Local D R R P lan n in g　○

P o litica l m ech a n ism /d yn a m ism resea rch 　×C o n v in ce P o litica l L ea d er/S o cia l, P o litica l S cien ce　×E ffective M on itarin g m eth od ology　×

P rio rity 3In vestin g in d isaster risk red u ction forresilien ce

P ractical p reven tion m esu res　○M a cro eco n o m ic ev id en ce o f D R R effectiv en ess　×C C /d o w n sca lin g in to p ra ctica l p la n /red u ce u n certa in ty　×

P rio rity 4 -1E n h an cin g d isaster p rep ared n ess foreffective resp on se

U sin g sa telite p ra ctica l m eth o d o lo g y　×P reven t p rod u ce fu tu re/u n d erlyin g risk　×

P rio rity 4 -2“B u ild B ack B etter” in recovery,reh ab ilitation an d recon stru ction

C C /d o w n sca lin g in to p ra ctica l p la n /red u ce u n certa in ty　×A p p ro p ria te seism ic d esig n fo r m a so n ry h o u se　△