1. www.unisdr.org 1 UNISDR Secretariat Asia and Pacific IAP meeting 25 March 2010 www.unisdr.org Learning from the 2007-2009 HFA progress review

2. www.unisdr.org 2  Introduction  Review of Reporting Process, Format, Indicators  Challenges  Learning  Recommendations

3. www.unisdr.org 3 Introduction  On- line survey to get feedback on the 2007-09 reporting process  2 Studies on the utilisation of HFA reporting South East Asia ( Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam) South Asia ( Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka)

4. www.unisdr.org 4 Purpose of HFA review  What is the purpose of the review?  Who is it for? Help countries to explore gaps, opportunities, learning, awareness, baseline Utility during the review process, product (review report), post product Basis for cohesive, coordinated national DRR processes Basis for programming, investment Country led process

5. www.unisdr.org 5 HFA reporting process  Process more important than the final product, the HFA review report  General consensus- process keeps a focus on disaster risk reduction and the Hyogo Framework, a reminder to all stakeholders  Provide an anchor, a reminder in a coherent and consistent manner on DRR and CCA.  provides space for the government to lead, build political will to the process.  The process is becoming more inclusive

6. www.unisdr.org 6 Challenges 1/3  Reporting process not fully ingrained within regional, national or sub-national processes.  Not fully inclusive- need for involvement of a wider array of stakeholder’s including civil society  Inadequate voice of the community and women  Inadequate allocated time for consultations  Focal points – competing demands, resulting in more focus on the product then the process

7. www.unisdr.org 7 Challenges 2/3  Self assessments by national focal point/ agency with no adequate time for consultations  Not all review reports reflected national and local stakeholder perspectives  Focus on national level, no dedicated modules on regional reporting  Inadequate training, insufficient clarifications provided on the review format

8. www.unisdr.org 8 Challenges 3/3  Not all aspects of progress have been captured in the review  DRR initiatives within the development and poverty reduction sector are not reflected in the report  Advocacy of HFA- limited, preaching to the converted

9. www.unisdr.org 9 Indicators  Mixed views: Too many, too few, does not sufficiently cover key aspects  57 % respondent of the global feedback survey mentioned that number of indicators are ‘too many’.  Cross cutting issues such as gender, cultural diversity, technology transfer, and volunteerism are not well represented  Most of the indicators measure the inputs to risk reduction, not the impact of those inputs  Does not provide sufficient evidence for decision making

10. www.unisdr.org 10 Learning 1/3  It is a significant task – multiple linkages (MDG s, CCA, poverty reduction) multiple sectors (Env, water, health, education) multiple layers regional, national, local, technical, social, economic), multiple stakeholders (Govt, community, civil society, donors, women, men)  Stakeholder expectation: a comprehensive reporting process, link to national action planning to clearly identify gaps in programming and map the way forward  Review report, review process, HFA is used as a reference and guide- example Indonesia  A system is evolving towards an enabling environment for DRR, requires time and sustained support

11. www.unisdr.org 11 Learning- challenges  Process mirrors the wider enabling environment: integration into climate change adaptation and development is limited.  Used less for analysis and decision making, more as status overview/stock take  Require more institutionalized representation in the process  Require inclusion of the voice of the communities  Experience differs in SEA and SA sub regions- related to SNAP s  Level of understanding of the HFA is low outside disaster management circle

12. www.unisdr.org 12 Learning- challenges  Need improvement on guidance on multi stakeholder consultative review process  Means of Verification to support the levels of progress  Current priority question is less what to do but how to move forward – turning policy into practice; how to manage the national platforms  Local level and community inclusion is crucial to turn policy into action  There is demand for more open monitoring, reporting and learning process  National platforms: opportunity for inclusive and institutionalising the system of participation

13. www.unisdr.org 13 Recommendations 1/3  Strengthen the process by institutionalising with further support  Strengthen the role of multi stakeholder National Platforms in reporting  Promote and support countries to use the HFA review process as an integrated reporting and learning tool, not as a not stand-alone process  Promote integrated reporting with SNAPs  Support countries to develop their own tools for more comprehensive, strategic, evidence based and user friendly reporting process

14. www.unisdr.org 14 Recommendations 2/3  Provide space to incorporate country level development interventions that are effective in building and strengthening the resilience  Allocate space to report progress at the state or sub national and community levels.  HFA review report to be a living document linked to the national action planning monitoring processes

15. www.unisdr.org 15 Recommendations 3/3  Promote the possible uses of the HFA review as a resource to different stakeholders  Increase awareness, understanding and participation of key groups such as media, private business and professional associations  Media- in communicating, promoting and informing the wider audience of the HFA review findings.  International and regional agencies - to use HFA reporting process for sharing and advocacy – build peer pressure  Donors – a guide to promote the priorities of HFA national processes

16. www.unisdr.org 16 Disaster risk reduction is everyone’s business www.unisdr.org www.unisdr.org/asiapacific