Indicators to measure
progress in DRR and HFA
implementation
HFA Monitoring and Review 2009-2011
The Hyogo Framework for Action Progress Review and Reporting Framework for the
Arab States Region
March 29th - 30th, 2010
Cairo, Egypt at the Regional Centre
for Disaster Risk Reduction – Training and Research
Indicators of progress
• Prepared as a first step by the
ISDR System partners,
coordinated by the UNISDR
Secretariat
• Draws on national and
international expert
contributions
• to assist States to assess their
progress in the implementation
of the Framework of Action
32 Basic Indicators
Number of Indicators
EXPECTED OUTCOME
Substantial reduction of disaster losses
3
STRATEGIC GOAL
1. Integration of DRR in development
2. Strengthening of institutions
3. DRR approaches in preparedness and
recovery
2
3
2
7
4
4
4
6
4
22
PRIORITY OF ACTION
1. Priority for Action 1
2. Priority for Action 2
3. Priority for Action 3
4. Priority for Action 4
5. Priority for Action 5
(Legal-institutional)
(Scientific-Technical)
(Social)
(Developmental)
(Humaitarian)
118 additional Indicators
Number of Indicators
STRATEGIC GOAL
1. Integration of DRR in development
2. Strengthening of institutions
3. DRR approaches in preparedness and
recovery
3
4
2
9
27
24
22
30
6
109
PRIORITY OF ACTION
1. Priority for Action 1
2. Priority for Action 2
3. Priority for Action 3
4. Priority for Action 4
5. Priority for Action 5
(Legal-institutional)
(Scientific-Technical)
(Social)
(Developmental)
(Humanitarian)
Level of achievement
Level
Generic Description of Achievement
5
Comprehensive achievement has been attained, with the
commitment and capacities to sustain efforts at all levels.
4
Substantial achievement has been attained, but with some
recognised deficiencies in commitment, financial resources or
operational capacities.
3
There is some commitment and capacities to achieving DRR
but progress is not substantial.
2
Achievements have been made but are relatively small or
incomplete, and while improvements are planned, the
commitment and capacities are limited.
1
Achievements are minor and there are few signs of planning
or forward action to improve the situation.
Indicators in HFA Monitor
• 3 strategic goals
• 22 core indicators in 5 priorities for action
• 5 drivers of progress
• 3 future outlook statements
• 5 levels of progress from minor progress
to comprehensive achivement
Key Questions and Means of
Verifications
• To provide some additional focus to each
one of the core indicators.
• Not meant to replace the core indicators
• Focused on the unanswered questions,
gaps and challenges identified in the
previous HFA review exercise and GAR
2009
Further guidance on indicators
• Explanatory audio guidance and notes on
key questions and means of verification
• Indicator of Progress
• Words Into Action
Available at:
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo
/hfa-monitoring/
Priority for action 1
Ensure that disaster reduction is a national
and local priority with a strong institutional
basis for implementation
CI 1: National policy and legal framework for disaster risk
reduction exists with decentralised responsibilities and
capacities at all levels.
• Is DRR included in development plans and
strategies? Yes No
National development plan
Sector strategies and plans
Climate change policy and strategy
Poverty reduction strategy papers
CCA/ UNDAF
CI 2: Dedicated and adequate resources are available to
implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at all
administrative levels.
Is there a specific allocation of budget for
DRR in the national budget? Yes No
% allocated from national budget
USD allocated from overseas development assistance fund
USD allocated to hazard proofing sectoral development
investments (e.g Transport, agriculture, infrastructure
USD allocated to stand alone DRR investments (e.g. DRR
institutions, risk assessments, early warning systems, …)
USD allocated to disaster proofing post disaster
reconstruction
CI 3: Community participation and decentralization are
ensured through the delegation of authority and resources
to local levels.
• Do local governments have legal
responsibility and budget allocations for
DRR? Yes No
Legislation
Budget allocations for DRR to local
government
CI 4: A national multi sectoral platform for disaster risk
reduction is functioning.
• Are civil society organisations , national planning
institutions, key economic and development
sector organisations represented in the national
platform? Yes No
civil society members (in numbers)
sectoral organisations (in numbers)
women’s organisations participating in
national platform (in numbers)
Priority for action 2
Identify, assess and monitor disaster
risks and enhance early warning
CI 1: National and local risk assessments based on hazard
data and vulnerability information are available and include
risk
• Is there a national multi-hazard risk
assessment available to inform planning
and development decisions? Yes No
Multi-hazard risk assessment
% of schools and hospitals assessed
schools not safe from disasters (in numbers)
Gender disaggregated vulnerability and capacity
assessments
 Agreed national standards for multi hazard risk assessments
CI 2: Systems are in place to monitor, archive and
disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.
• Are disaster losses systematically
reported, monitored and analysed?
Yes No
Disaster loss database
Reports generated and used in planning
CI 3: Early warning systems are in place for all major
hazards, with outreach to communities.
• Do risk prone communities receive timely
and understandable warnings of impending
hazard events? Yes No
Early warnings acted on effectively
Local level preparedness
Communication systems and protocols
Active involvement of media in early warning
dissemination
CI 4: National and local risk assessments take account of
regional/trans-boundary risks, with a view to regional
cooperation on risk reduction.
• Does your country participate in regional or
sub-regional DRR programmes or projects?
Yes No
Programmes and projects addressing transboundary issues
Regional and sub-regional strategies and
frameworks
Regional or sub-regional monitoring and reporting
mechanisms
Action plans addressing trans-boundary issues
Priority for action 3
Use knowledge, innovation and
education to build a culture of safety
and resilience at all levels
CI 1: Relevant information on disasters is available and
accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through
networks, development of information sharing systems,
etc).
• Is there a national disaster information
system publicly available? Yes No
Web page of national disaster information
system
Established mechanisms for accessing DRR
information
CI 2: School curricula, education material and relevant
trainings include disaster risk reduction and recovery
concepts and practices.
• Is DRR included in the national educational
curriculum? Yes No
primary school curriculum
 secondary school curriculum
university curriculum
Professional DRR education programmes
CI 3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk
assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and
strengthened.
• Is DRR included in the national scientific
applied-research agenda/budget?
Yes No
Research outputs, products or studies
Research programmes and projects
Studies on the economic costs and benefits of
DRR
CI 4: Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to
stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to
urban and rural communities.
• Do public education campaigns on DRR
reach risk-prone communities?
Yes No
Public education campaigns.
Training of local government
Availability of information on DRR practices at
the community level
Priority for action 4
Reduce the underlying risk factors
CI 1: Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of
environment related policies and plans, including for land
use, natural resource management and adaptation to
climate change.
• Is there a mechanism in place to protect and restore
regulatory ecosystem services? (associated with
wet lands, mangroves, forests etc) Yes No
Protected areas legislation
Payment for ecosystem services (PES)
Integrated planning (for example coastal zone
management)
Environmental impacts assessments (EIAs)
Climate change adaptation projects and programmes
CI 2: Social development policies and plans are being
implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most
at risk.
• Do social safety nets exist to increase the
resilience of risk prone households and
communities? Yes No
Crop and property insurance
Employment guarantee schemes
Conditional cash transfers
DRR aligned poverty reduction, welfare policy and
programmes
Microfinance
Micro insurance
CI 3: Economic and productive sectorial policies and plans
have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of
economic activities.
• Are the costs and benefits of DRR
incorporated into the planning of public
investment? Yes No
National and sectoral public investment
systems incorporating DRR.
Investments in retrofitting infrastructures
including schools and hospitals
CI 4: Planning and management of human settlements
incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including
enforcement of building codes.
• Is there investment to reduce the risk of
vulnerable urban settlements? Yes No
Investment in drainage infrastructure in flood prone
areas
Slope stabilisation in landslide prone areas
Training of masons on safe construction technology
Provision of safe land for low income households and
communities
CI 5: Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into
post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.
• Do post-disaster recovery programmes
explicitly incorporate and budget for DRR?
Yes No
% of recovery and reconstruction funds
assigned to DRR
Measures taken to address gender based
issues in recovery
CI 6: Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk
impacts of major development projects, especially
infrastructure.
• Are the impacts of major development
projects on disaster risk assessed?
Yes No
Assessments of impact of projects such as
dams, irrigation schemes, highways, mining,
tourist developments etc on disaster risk
Impacts of disaster risk taken account in
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Priority for action 5
Strengthen disaster preparedness for
effective response at all levels
CI 1: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities
and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a
disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.
• Are there national programmes or policies to
make schools and health facilities safe in
emergencies? Yes No
Policies and programmes for school and
hospital safety
Training and mock drills in school and hospitals
for emergency preparedness
CI 2: Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans
are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training
drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster
response programmes.
• Are the contingency plans, procedures and
resources in place to deal with a major disaster?
Yes No
 Contingency plans with gender sensitivities
 Operations and communications centre
 Search and rescue teams
 Stockpiles of relief supplies
 Shelters
 Secure medical facilities
 Dedicated provision for women in relief, shelter and emergency
medical facilities
CI 3: Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are
in place to support effective response and recovery when
required.
• Are financial arrangements in place to deal
with major disaster? Yes No
National contingency funds
Catastrophic insurance facilities
Catastrophe bonds
CI 4: Procedures are in place to exchange relevant
information during hazard events and disasters, and to
undertake post-event reviews.
• Has an agreed method and procedure been
adopted to assess damage, loss and needs
when disasters occur? Yes No
Damage and loss assessment methodologies and
capacities available
Post disaster need assessment methodologies
Post disaster needs assessment methodologies include
guidance on gender aspects
Identified and trained human resources
Drivers of progress
• ‘Drivers of progress’ refer to factors which
act as drivers or catalysts for achieving
substantial progress in disaster risk
reduction and sustainable recovery from
disasters.
Drivers of progress
• Multi-hazard integrated approach to disaster risk
reduction and development
• Gender perspectives on risk reduction and recovery
adopted and institutionalized
• Capacities for risk reduction and recovery identified and
strengthened
• Human security and social equity approaches integrated
into disaster risk reduction and recovery activities
• Engagement and partnerships with non-governmental
actors; civil society, private sector, amongst others, have
been fostered at all levels