ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

1

Mid-Term Review of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Roadmap to Disaster Risk

Reduction in the Americas 2010-2015 & HFA Mid-Term Review

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

2

Regional-level discussion surrounding guidance on the most

urgent areas of focus for HFA implementation in the next five years

and beyond

Session Objective:

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

3

• Adoption of the HFA in 2005

• MTR methodology & process

• Main findings: Conclusions and recommendations

• Discussions:– General comments on conclusions and

recommendations– Prioritization of focus areas post-2015– Development of priority areas: ways for moving

forward

Agenda

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

4

Mid-Term Review Process

Guided by the 2009 Global Platform: recommended broad strategic review of HFA as an instrument using qualitative analysis (review not an evaluation)

Participatory approach involving stakeholders at regional, and, when feasible, national levels: – Workshops, on-line debates, interviews – Analytical tools: in-depth studies, literature review– information provided by governments through the HFA

Monitor

Information collected is qualitative, based on self-assessments and perceptions of the stakeholders involved.

Review process was facilitated over a twelve-month period by the UNISDR secretariat

•MTR methodology & process

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

5

An Advisory Group (senior disaster risk reduction experts, representatives from countries, civil society, and grassroots organizations, evaluation experts) was set up to provide technical and strategic advice throughout the MTR process

Five analytical tools were employed to address the Mid-Term Review questions:

• A Literature Review;• Outcomes of structured workshops held at regional and national level;• Selected in-depth studies;• One-on-one interviews with key policy makers;• On-line debates.

Mid-Term Review Process•MTR methodology & process

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

6

The way forward: conclusions and recommendations (1/2)

1. National and international institutions must integrate disaster risk reduction in their development, climate change adaptation, environmental and humanitarian planning, execution and accountability frameworks to safeguard development gains and investments;

2. Governance for the implementation of the HFA at the national and international level should be improved;

3. The effectiveness of National Platforms in informing and supporting the executive level of decision making should be assessed;

•Main findings: Conclusions and recommendations

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

7

4. International, national and local level accountability mechanisms should be encouraged and developed to help measure action taken and progress achieved in disaster risk reduction;

5. Setting targets will help in accelerating HFA implementation through 2015;

6. Common tools and guidance should be further developed and translated in local languages;

7. Standards to ensure quality in the delivery of the guidance could be developed at regional and national levels;

8. The international community should develop a more coherent and integrated approach to support HFA implementation;

The way forward: conclusions and recommendations (2/2)

•Main findings: Conclusions and recommendations

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

8

•General comments on conclusions and recommendations

•Prioritization of focus areas post-2015

•Development of priority areas: ways for moving forward

Discussion:

•Discussions

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

9

Expected outcome: The substantial reduction of disaster losses in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries

Hyogo Framework for Action

Three strategic goals:1) The more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into

sustainable development policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction;

2) The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms, and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards;

3) The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the design and implementation of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery programs in the reconstruction of affected communities.

•Adoption of the HFA in 2005

ww

w.u

nisd

r.or

g

10

5 priorities for action:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation;

2. Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning;

3. Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels;

4. Reduce the underlying risk factors;

5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

Hyogo Framework for Action•Adoption of the HFA in 2005