1
Tracking the Progress: Lessons Learned on HFA Reporting (2007-2009)
UNDP Regional Center in Bangkok-Crisis Prevention and Recovery
In cooperation with UNISDR Asia Pacific
November 2008
The following views have been obtained through a survey of individuals and consultants who
are supporting government focal points in the process of HFA Reporting in eight (8) countries
under an agreement between UNDP-Crisis Prevention and Recovery and UNISDR Asia Pacific.
The paper does not constitute an endorsement by UNDP, Government Focal Points and UNISDR
and is developed by authors as their contribution to the discussion on capacity enhancement in
disaster risk reduction.
1.
The Hyogo Framework for Action- Context in the Asia Pacific Region
The adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action for 2005-2015 during the
World Conference on Disaster Reduction in January 2005 was significant as this
was launched with the strong resonance of the powerful earthquake and tsunami
that hit the Indian Ocean Region on 26 December 2004. The tragedy of the more
than 260,000 deaths and billions in losses highlighted dramatically the
importance of risk awareness, early warning, vulnerability reduction, and
sustained attention to disaster and risk management.
Sadly, following the 2004 tsunami, many more catastrophic events provided
additional reminder of the vulnerability of many Asia Pacific countries to natural
disasters. These included the occurrence of major earthquakes (China, Pakistan
and India), devastating cyclones in Bangladesh, the Philippines and Myanmar
and widespread flooding in Nepal and India. Further, historical disaster loss
data bases
1
in a number of countries indicated the increasing significance of
extensive risks-i.e. low intensity, but more frequent events that were primarily
induced by climate change related impacts. Trends indicate that although they
were not life threatening like the big events that get into the news headlines,
impacts of extensive risks to livelihoods of communities and poverty situation
were very serious. These patterns were seen in small island states (example-wide
spread sea swells in Maldives) and landslides and flood prone communities in
Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. These events also did not receive international attention
and thus recovery of those affected was unaided and losses accumulate over
time.
Many stakeholders in the region have now accepted the urgency and importance
of a comprehensive and systematic approach towards disaster risk reduction.
1
National Disaster Loss Data bases (30 year data) in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu and Orissa in India, Indonesia,
Nepal, and Iran. Five year data in Indonesia, and limited historical data in Maldives and Fiji
2
The HFA is seen as a significant stepping up from a reactive emergency response
and ad hoc disaster reduction planning to long term and strategic programming.
It is accepted as an “integrating” framework of action to enable a concerted
national effort in its implementation. The HFA represents the collective
commitment of governments, regional and UN organizations, local authorities,
NGOs and experts as well as International Finance Institutions.
2.
Background on the UNDP RCB-CPR and UNISDR Asia Pacific
Cooperation
The UNDP Regional Center in Bangkok- Crisis Prevention and Recovery Team
(RCB-CPR) has been providing in country technical advice, facilitating cross
learning events and initiating partnerships that resulted in positive progress in
developing capacities in disaster risk reduction and recovery. These include
improved country level disaster risk reduction (DRR) programming, better
information management capacity, enhanced early warning and risk assessment
practices and improved skills of specialists in disaster reduction and early
recovery. The RCB-CPR and UNDP Country Offices (COs) have substantially
supported the governments and stakeholders in a number of countries, with a
relative higher focus on the tsunami affected countries in enacting new disaster
management laws and establishing new institutional arrangements that embrace
comprehensive approaches to disaster risk management. All these legislative
changes reflect increased focus on comprehensive disaster risk management. At
the international level, all these countries are undertaking the initial steps in
forming national platforms and developing stakeholders’ consensus for national
action plans to implement commitments under the Hyogo Framework for Action
(HFA): 2005 -2015.
It is important to note that monitoring and reviewing progress in disaster risk
reduction is not only an essential feature of the Hyogo Framework for Action,
but even more so a prerequisite for informed DRR planning and programming.
Responsibilities for monitoring the HFA are assigned mainly to States but are
also to regional organizations and institutions, international organizations and
ISDR system partners (such as UNDP) and the secretariat. In particular, the HFA
calls on ISDR partners and the secretariat to prepare periodic reviews of progress
and to identify gaps and challenges in implementation. Noting this and in
response to request from a number of countries, the UNDP Regional Center in
Bangkok signed and agreement with UNISDR to cooperate in providing joint
support to enhance capacity of eight (8) countries in coordination and reporting
of DRR progress. These countries include those that were affected by the tsunami
(Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka and India) and another set who requested UNDP
RCB to provide technical support (Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal and Lao PDR).
3
3.
The Capacity Development Context
Routine monitoring and reporting of progress on DRR over period of years
requires considerable effort and resources. It is however imperative that a proper
and consistent system for monitoring and reporting progress in risk reduction is
in place in countries for HFA implementation. In the previous reporting period
(2005-2007), national level stakeholders when left on their own were unable to
provide reports that were substantial in coverage and quality. Reporting was
often limited to listing of activities that did not provide a conclusive picture of
achievements and gaps and the challenges and enabling factors associated with
these. Recognizing the limited capacities of national authorities designated to
lead and coordinate the national HFA progress reviews in some countries, the
UNISDR encourages national and regional institutions working in disaster risk
reduction to provide facilitation, technical and coordination support for
organizing inputs to the national review processes. It is in this context that
UNISDR requested UNDP-RCB/CPR to provide such support to selected
countries in the Asia region given UNDP’s track record in DRR capacity
development and excellent partnership with national authorities.
The support that UNDP RCB-CPR provides in the HFA reporting process is
within the overall capacity development efforts that UNDP provides through the
Regional Programme for Capacity Building in Risk Reduction and Recovery in
Tsunami Affected Countries. The capacity development approach of the
Regional Programme is consistent with the UNDP corporate approach that
recognizes that the ideal country capacity in DRR resides at three levels: the
enabling environment, organizational and individual. Within all three levels,
there are five types of functional capacities that UNDP seeks to enhance
capacities to: 1) engage with stakeholders; 2) assess the situation and define a
vision and mandate; 3) formulate policies and strategies; 4) budget, manage and
implement; and 5) monitor and evaluate. The Regional Programme support to
HFA reporting is a direct pathway to strengthen DRR focal points’ capacity in
stakeholders’ engagement; situational assessment and vision setting and
monitoring and evaluating performance in DRR.
4.
Inputs, Outputs, Results and Enabling Factors
By the end of August 2008, seven (7) countries had undertaken multi stakeholder
consultations and were able to complete the required outputs: country level
consolidated reports on the progress of HFA implementation. The Government
of India (GoI) has requested for an extension of the reporting deadline due to the
vastness of available DRR information to be collected and considered. The GoI’s
uploading into the HFA online monitor is expected to be completed by end of
4
November 2008 and a related in depth review requiring national and state level
consultations is in progress. During all of these processes, the Regional
Programme for Capacity Development for Risk Reduction and Recovery (RP)
provided timely advice through the UNDP CO DRM focal points and perform
liaison and bridging role between UNISDR and the UNDP COs and Government
focal points. Technical assistance included explaining and elaborating on the
reporting guidelines and support to conceptualization of detailed workplan and
stakeholder consultation process at the national level. In the case of Lao PDR,
UNDP directly assisted the national focal organization in analysis of reports and
stakeholders’ contribution and its uploading into the on line monitor. UNISDR
staffs provided overall guidance on the UNISDR monitoring framework and
specific advice on request.
The following sections provide an overview of some of the positive effects of the
HFA reporting which respondents assigned to the reporting process.
3.1
Improved engagement of stakeholders
A common result reported is related to the improved ability of the focal
organizations to engage stakeholders in taking stock of the progress in
implementing the HFA as well as conducting joint analysis.
•
Comments from a senior official from BNPB Indonesia indicate that the
HFA/DRR review process is favorable and propitious for the newly
created agency. He stated that the national consultation allowed an
excellent opportunity for them to know stakeholders that are otherwise
not present in official government functions.
•
In almost all countries, the process is observed to increase participating
organizations commitment towards achieving DRR in contrast to a
prevailing perception that HFA commitments are the sole responsibility of
government.
•
Stakeholders in Bangladesh believe that the HFA consultation process had
increased the understanding of the DRR/humanitarian sector of the
broader context of the national development and the relationship of DRR
within the process of achieving the Millennium Development Goals and
national Poverty Reduction Strategy.
•
While the HFA review process increased opportunity for stakeholders’
interaction; existing relationships have a strong influence on the extent of
involvement of sectors. Thus, the amount of information generated and
reported are dependent on the adequacy of participation of specific
sectors. Due to these relationships, it is observed that some information
are lacking in the country reports.
5
•
A number of national focal organizations were unable to take a leadership
role as some of them reside in weak institutional system and others were
newly created. The HFA process however provided a learning
opportunity and almost all were responsive to the task. In these cases, the
augmentation support from UNDP and UNISDR were better appreciated.
3.2
Improved ability to assess the situation and define a vision and mandate
As stated earlier, in the tsunami affected countries, government focal
organizations have taken significant efforts in defining a vision and articulating
their long term DRR plan
2
. This is also the case for the Philippines and
Bangladesh who have already articulated their national vision and priority for
DRR prior to the HFA declared in January 2005. The value added of the HFA
process in a number of countries is seen in the review of these long term plans
against the HFA “benchmark”. The HFA review in Indonesia is noted to have
provided the impetus to identify DRR activities that have been implemented, as
well as challenges and needs faced by pertinent stakeholders and for BNPB to
accommodate them into the national programme. Furthermore, the HFA review
is found to be helpful to give direction on how to balance and prioritize DRR
activities in terms of programming as well as location of implementation.
In Nepal and in Lao PDR, contributors to this paper believed that this process is
enhancing the capacity of their NDMOs to initiate strategic analysis of the
country’s DRR situation. These countries have yet to define a strategic plan and
the institutionalization of DRR and continuous support is sought from UNDP
and ISDR to establish HFA reporting system as part of a capacity development
support in DRR.
3.3
Improved ability to monitor and evaluate progress in DRR
Governments take the HFA reporting as an important political obligation. In
some countries, the strong involvement of civil societies and UN agencies are
also observed. With the support provided by the UNDP and UNISDR, there is
marked and positive improvement on the quality and content of reporting in this
round compared to the GAR 2007 reporting.
However, the NDMOs- who are the default HFA focal organizations are
understaffed, in charge of rather comprehensive DRM projects, and at the same
time expected to respond to disaster events
3
. Individuals tasked to write the
report do not have adequate training in DRR monitoring and evaluation and
2
SNAP in Indonesia, Road Map to Safer Sri Lanka etc.
3
Philippines, Nepal, India, Lao PDR and Bangladesh were engaged in massive humanitarian programmes
during the period.
6
lack the important skills of networking and facilitating consultation processes.
This becomes more challenging in countries where there is no designated
institution for DRR and mainstreaming in sectoral planning as required in the
HFA is rather weak
4
. In these countries, these gaps directly resulted to poor
information gathering and HFA reporting
5
. Reporting schedules are also
perceived to be inadequately planned and most countries reported that more
time could have been allocated for stakeholders’ consultation processes.
In a number of countries who have already embraced a comprehensive approach
to DRR, HFA reporting is seen not only an obligation but an important and
organic responsibility to ensure that their DRR goal is measured and reported. It
is observed however that consistency of information and attention to details can
still be improved. For example, in some cases, information provided tend to
focus more on achievements of a limited sector (government) and inadequate on
information from NGOs, peoples organization, the private sector and the science
sector.
NDMOs in these countries do not have a proper enabling structure and work
programme to perform HFA progress review and reporting. The involvement of
Consultants provided a good stop gap measure in response to country request
for such support. However, almost all countries suggest that the support must be
better structured rather than ad hoc based on lessons learned from this
experience
6
.
5.
Feedback to improve on HFA monitoring and reporting process
For the next HFA reporting cycle, contributors to this paper offer the following
suggestions presented randomly:
a)
The level of commitment accorded by the HFA focal person has strong
influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. Factors that are
observed to help were ownership of the process, pressure from stakeholders’
expectations and high political level commitment.
b)
Relative to a): more efforts should be undertaken to create ownership of non
government actors. The guidelines and HFA appear to be misinterpreted by
some as a government mandate and participation of other sectors is voluntary.
Revision of guidelines may include specifying roles of non government actors.
4
Cited in Nepal and observed in Maldives and Lao PDR whose NDMOs are relief and recovery oriented.
5
UNDP DRM focal points see these as opportunity to intensify capacity development support and as
argument for a multi sectoral DRR platform.
6
Most indicate- support should have been started “at the beginning of the year” or “could be “advanced
forward.”
7
c)
Assessment of progress is still subjective with limited quantitative evidences.
Most are challenged in consensus building on the “levels of progress” and
“context and constraints”. Amount of funds allocated to a specific priority
item is one of the suggestions made to describe level of
commitment/progress. An improved guideline on “assessment of indicators”
is needed.
d)
The set of guidelines provided by the UNISDR is very useful and staffs from
the Secretariat and UNDP (both from RCB and Country Offices) had been
efficient and responsive to the needs of the country focal organizations.
e)
Some respondents observe that the guidelines should add a well described
section on profiling risks and establishing baseline. UNDP observes that the
description of natural disasters in the reports is uneven in quality and most
refer to most recent catastrophic events.
f)
All respondents encountered difficulties in using the online monitor, albeit
UNISDR Secretariat responded quickly to requests for help. The most
common complaint was the limited number of words allowed in sections and
almost all suggested a “spell checker” function.
g)
Due to the nature of the 5 HFA priorities, repetitions and overlaps were
unavoidable. Improved guidelines can help. Under Priority 5: there is more
than enough reference to preparedness and emergency response but very
limited reference to assessing post disaster recovery.
h)
Training of reporting officers were inadequate; not much time allocated for
setting up the country level processes. The involvement of the UNDP
Country Offices in the preparatory processes had been uneven.
i)
Four (4) months are inadequate for some (some say 6 months), while others
believe 4 months is adequate with proper planning and focused attention of
the government focal points. Inadequacy of time was seen in “sector specific”
consultation that will provide input to bigger multi sectoral consultation. In
larger countries of Indonesia and India, more time for sub national level
consultations are required.
j)
For many of the non –native English speakers, some of the terminologies used
need further elaboration (what do we mean by” functioning”?). Most common
clarification required was in the section on “drivers of progress”.
k)
The contributors are interested in obtaining copies of completed monitors and
determine patterns and conclusions that may improve future HFA reporting.
Feedback would be useful for the stakeholders who worked on this.
6.
Conclusions and Proposals for Immediate Follow Up Action
The overall experience of those directly involved in this cycle of reporting
indicates a positive improvement from the previous (2005-2007) reporting.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidences show positive changes in functional capacities
of the stakeholders involved in this process. Since HFA reporting requirements
8
will continue to be needed beyond this current cycle, stakeholders at the national
and regional level should consider the need for enhancing such capacities in a
sustainable way.
Without negating the need to develop a long term strategic support, a menu of
immediate follow up actions arising from these survey of lessons learned are
presented as follows:
1.
The systematic Capacity Assessment
7
process that UNDP RCB is
supporting should be undertaken in 2009 as planned. This would help
clarify an endogenous capacity development strategy (functional-
including M and E and technical capacities) to address this in Indonesia,
Maldives, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. For other countries, requirement
for support in future HFA reporting shall be assessed and roles and
responsibilities within a “regional/national work plan” will be developed.
2.
A review of the guidelines must be undertaken with the involvement of
those who were directly involved in this cycle. Revision of guidelines may
include specifying roles of non government actors and hence non
government sectors may also be involved.
3.
Interested countries may participate in a process to analyze training needs
of focal organization/individuals involved in HFA reporting. This will
respond to a common request for a properly structured training input on
HFA reporting.
4.
UNDP and UNISDR will consider follow up support to help conduct
training needs analysis and develop a training module based on both
corporate and field level doctrines and experiences.
5.
An analysis of trend and patterns of reporting including strengths and
weaknesses must be undertaken. A strategy to address information gaps
for example may be developed.
7
Under an AIDCO funded agreement between UNDP RCB and UNISDR.