Global Network Discussion Paper
Resilient People, Resilient Planet
Comments and Reflection on the Chair’s Summary Statement - Fourth Session of the
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva 21-23rd May 2013
“The next generation of disaster risk management framework’s (HFA2) should build mutually
reinforcing agendas to manage different risks that interact to cause disaster losses i.e. a
normative framework that connects the disasters and development agendas to strengthen the
general resilience of communities and societies to extreme shocks and stresses of all kinds within
a complex uncertain risk landscape”
“Building people’s resilience to life’s uncertainties.. ”
GNDR Discussion Paper:
GNDR discussion papers are written to encourage policy debate and to provoke discussions on disaster
risk reduction issues. They are “work in progress” papers which contribute towards developing Global
Network policy positions. The views and recommendations expressed draw on the experiences of GNDR
members but do not necessarily represent a consensus position within the Global Network membership.
Marcus Oxley DRAFT 29 July 2013
E-mail address: Marcus.oxley@globalnetwork-dr.org
1
Executive Summary:
Resilient People, Resilient
Planet
The following paper provides comments and reflections on the various actions points highlighted in the
fourth session’s Chair’s Summary, drawing out implications to inform the shaping of a post-2015 disaster risk
management framework that reflects the complex and uncertain risk landscape within which people live.
Action Points
The goal of the Hyogo Framework for Action is nations and communities resilient to disasters, with an
expected outcome of a substantial reduction of disaster losses. Based on the discussions at the Global
Platform the Chair’s Statement summarised a set of actions points and issues deemed important to the
achievement of this goal and outcome. First and foremost was the recognition that reducing disaster losses will
require greater progress in addressing the root causes of risk. Although the creation of risk is inherent within
development process it will be necessary to ensure risk construction is within acceptable levels . This is
particularly the case for small scale extensively-occurring “everyday” disasters which are reported to account
for the vast majority of disaster losses (GAR 2013). Over time small scale “extensive” risks can concentrate and
reconfigure into “intensive” risk which is more difficult and expensive to retrospectively address. Addressing
the root causes of extensive risk offers a cost effective long term approach to reversing the continued upwards
trend in disaster losses.
Although historically disaster risk reduction has been associated with major natural disasters there is growing
recognition that different types of social, economic and environmental risk are intertwined and cannot be
addressed in isolation. In an increasingly complex hyper-connected world there is a need for new generation
of disaster risk management frameworks that facilitate more holistic integrated approaches to dealing with
extreme shocks and stresses of all kinds. This will involve building mutually reinforcing agendas and
strategic partnerships to change development pathways to address underlying risk drivers, whilst
simultaneously strengthening the capabilities of communities and societies to better prepare, cope and
adapt to existing risks.
From a GNDR perspective the effectiveness of HFA2 will depend on how disasters are conceived and framed
within a sustainable development agenda. Building political ownership for shared agendas to reduce disaster
losses requires developing disaster risk management approaches that yield broader development benefits than
“standalone” actions to protect lives, livelihoods and assets from losses due to hazards of only natural origins.
In an complex uncertain risk landscape the benefits to individuals and institutions of investing in actions
focused on only one category of hazards are too narrow and “opportunity costs” too high.
Recent thinking on “resilience” i.e. the ability of a community / society to sustain and transform itself when
subjected to (foreseen and unforeseen) shocks and stresses offers an appropriate conceptual model that better
reflects the more flexible, holistic and iterative approaches that communities themselves adopt to cope
multiple shocks without recourse to external resources. GNDR believes community resilience is the foundation
of a resilient society and a defining characteristic of sustainable development. The principles of community
resilience (i.e. responsiveness, connectivity, diversity, learning, self-organisation, inclusion, social cohesion,
boundaries & limits) can sustain and guide meaningful cooperation over the longer term and should underpin
the HFA2. The goal of disaster risk management is to strengthen societal resilience to sustain development.
2
Translating a shared vision for resilient societies into a reality will require managing and coordinating a range
of actions by different actors across different layers of society (vertical scales). This will require strengthening
integrated risk governance involving greater public transparency; accountability; coordination; participation
and partnerships – some of the principles of good governance which resonate strongly with community
resilience principals. With the majority of disaster losses due to small-scale “everyday disasters” it will be
important the HFA2 prioritises actions that resource and empower local state and non-state actors to develop
local partnerships and engage communities to ensure results are achieved and sustained. Importantly this
will require social change processes to change prevailing norms and address power imbalances underpinning
differential vulnerability. Developing appropriate structures and processes will require changes in the culture
of public administration and the adoption of new ways of working.
Developing more integrated approaches to manage extreme shocks and stresses of different kinds would
benefit from “closer collaboration between the scientific community and those responsible for
implementation”. Specific needs include developing a common language, new tools and approaches ,
including methodologies for mapping and assessing the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of risk.
From a GNDR perspective there is a pressing need for a better scientific understanding of the inter-dependent
nature of different types of risks, together with a greater knowledge of the environmental capacities and
thresholds on which the life-support functions of our social-ecological systems depend.
Implementation and Action
The broad consensus on actions points and critical issues that emerged during the Global Platform 2013
discussions implies that changes need to be made to overall positioning, architecture and timeframe of HFA2.
This discussion paper would support calls for these changes and suggests the successor framework has two
overarching strategic objectives:
1) Change socio-economic development pathways to ensure the construction of new risks are within
acceptable levels;
2) Strengthen the systemic (general) resilience of communities and societies to absorb and adapt to existing
shocks and stresses of all kinds.
Both of these pre-emptive and corrective components should be underpinned by a set of resilience principles
under a resilience-based sustainable development agenda. In an increasingly complex uncertain risk landscape
a new generation of risk management frameworks are needed that can connect the disasters and
development agendas to co-manage different risks that interact to cause disaster losses. Risk
management frameworks that don’t adopt holistic approaches will eventually lose relevancy.
The next step is to develop an open and inclusive drafting process where the nature and form of HFA2 can be
further discussed and developed into a coherent set of goals, objectives and priority actions, including
strategic linkages with other post-2015 frameworks. To help clarify to stakeholders the drafting process GNDR
suggests the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
UNISDR to clarify HFA2 drafting process, including links with other post-2015 processes
UNISDR to share vision of HFA2 through preparation of a zero draft
Design of monitoring mechanism ( standards, targets and indicators) for HFA2 and other frameworks
Broad consensus and ownership amongst stakeholder of final draft HFA2 (preparatory conferences)
Final review and adoption at World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Japan March 2015
3
The Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction remains committed to connecting the
local experiences and realities facing poor at-risk communities with the high level policy dialogue and
welcomes future opportunities to contribute towards the formulation and implementation of HFA2.
Resilient People, Resilient Planet
Comments and Reflection on the Chair’s Summary Statement - Fourth Session of the
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva 21-23rd May 2013
Introduction
The fourth session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 was the largest and most diverse to
date with over 3,500 participants representing a diverse range of state and non-state stakeholders. The primary
focus of the GP-DRR 2013 discussions was on emerging themes and critical issues considered important to the
development of a post-2015 successor arrangement to HFA1 i.e. HFA2.
One of the roles of the Global Network for Disaster Reduction (GNDR) is to connect the local realities that face
at-risk communities with the multi-lateral high-level policy dialogue that occur at regional and international
conferences such as the GP-DRR 2013. To have an impact at the local-level internationally negotiated
frameworks must be appropriate to the needs and priorities of those most-affected by disasters, particularly
low-income households in developing countries. Towards this end, GNDR’s Views from the Frontline (VFL) 2013
report provided a summary of recommendations for consideration within the post-2015 DRR framework :




Tackle the underlying causes of risk, including linkages with other post-2015 development frameworks
Recognise the impact of small-scale recurrent “everyday” disasters of all types
Prioritise the most at-risk people, particularly low-income households, women, children, displaced,
elderly , people with disabilities
Greater focus on rights, responsibilities and accountabilities
Promote multi-stakeholder partnerships and community participation
With the above recommendations in mind, the following paper provides comments on the critical issues
highlighted in the GP-DRR 2013 Chair’s Summary, including drawing out implications for HFA2. The Summary
is a key output document serving as a concise report summarising the conference discussions. The document
is split into two sections: the first distils down discussions into a set of “Action Points”; the second, entitled
“Way Forward” reiterates some critical issues whilst outlining next steps towards developing HFA2,
culminating in the World Conference on Disaster Japan 2015. The relationship between the sections 1 and 2
requires closer harmonisation, although it is assumed the various points raised will inform the shaping of
HFA2. Encouragingly, from a Global Network perspective, virtually all the VFL 2013 recommendations have
been incorporated within the summary statement.
The Chair’s Summary can be downloaded from the UNISDR website or available through this link.
Part 1: Actions Points
Specific comments on the individual action points are as follows:
Targeting the root causes of risk
4
The Chair’s Summary first action point recognises that a successor framework will require greater progress in
targeting the root causes of risk – an area of HFA 1 where least progress has been made. GNDR has
consistently held that the utility of the HFA in reversing the upwards trend in disaster losses must ultimately be
judged on how effective it has been in addressing the causes of people’s vulnerability and exposure,
particularly low-income households in developing countries. Some of the identified drivers of risk that cause
vulnerability and exposure to extreme shocks and stresses are as follows:











Poor governance, ineffective policies, corrupt institutions
Environmental degradation / eco-system decline / misuse of natural resources
Extreme poverty and severe incomes inequality
Conflict and violence
Food insecurity
Inadequate livelihoods
Inadequate infrastructure, unregulated construction practices
Basic services such as water and sanitation, education, healthcare, banking, insurance and marketing
Communicable (pandemic) and non-communicable diseases
Demographic changes, including unplanned urbanisation
Exclusion, discrimination and marginalisation of different social groups (e.g. women)
From a GNDR perspective, the continued accumulation of global risk stock and associated upwards trend in
disasters losses are a manifestation of accumulating stresses in our social-ecological systems. Because the
construction of risk is inherent in development processes, tackling the causes of risk will require changes to
social, economic, environmental and political development pathways to ensure the construction of new risk
is within “acceptable” levels. Defining societal thresholds of acceptable risk will involve trade-offs between
short term costs and longer term benefits. These trade-offs will have to be negotiated between different
stakeholders (particularly vulnerable communities and high risk groups) to ensure costs and benefits are
equitably spread. For existing risks already within the system the emphasis should be on strengthening
absorption and adaptive capacities at the appropriate level, particularly household and community levels
where risk is realised.
It is important that future frameworks recognise disaster risk reduction is primarily a development issue;
many of the causes of vulnerability and exposure are not incidents of fate but are socially differentiated
resulting from specific power relationships and policy decisions which can be discriminatory, exclusive and
unjust. Inevitably power, poverty and politics are central to addressing the root causes of vulnerability and
exposure amongst different societal groups. The notion of differential vulnerability must be central to a
successor framework which must develop local leadership and institutional arrangements that support social
processes to change prevailing norms – empowering local people and local actors to overcome passivity and
take collaborative actions to strengthen resiliency.
Global Network members through the “Action at the Frontline “ initiative are currently researching effective
local-level change process to address these power imbalances, where practical using small-scale localised
disasters as a leveraged entry point. Whilst resilient communities are considered the foundation and basic
building block of a resilient nation it is apparent that many of the underlying risk factors are exogenous
(beyond the control) of local actors and communities. Measures to strengthen resilience at the individual,
community and local levels must be linked with complementary actions at the national, regional and
international levels.
5
Encouragingly, the Chair’s Statement acknowledges that many communities are subjected to countless small
localised “everyday” shocks and stresses involving multiple risks driven by a range of economic,
environmental, social and geopolitical factors including violence and conflict. This fits with Global Network
members own observations that the majority of disaster losses are due to small-scale extensively occurring
disaster caused by a combination of natural and man-made factors. According to UNISDR research (GAR2013)
ninety per-cent of disaster losses in developing countries are associated with extensive risk. Invariably in lowincome countries the costs of small localised disasters have to be borne by the affected communities
themselves with minimal government or external support. In these situations affected populations must
optimise the use of local resources and capacities to strengthen local absorption and adaptive capabilities
requiring networking, collaboration and partnerships across different groups. Working collaboratively to
address the causes of small scale recurrent disasters is essential to achieve a substantial reduction in disaster
losses, particularly when considering that over time “extensive risk” can concentrate and reconfigure into
“intensive risk” which is more difficult and often prohibitively expensive to retrospectively address.
In summary HFA2 should have much stronger links with the sustainable development agenda to support preemptive changes to development pathways to prevent the construction of new risks, whilst supporting actions
to strengthen societal capabilities to manage existing risks.
Building mutually reinforcing agendas
This action point acknowledges the complex multi-dimensional inter-dependent nature of risks; social, geopolitical, economic and environmental risks are increasingly intertwined, often sharing the same root causes
and solutions within the broader context of sustainable development. The Chair’s Summary notes that it is
important that different policies “are designed to be mutually reinforcing at the local, national and
international levels – with an emphasis placed on integrated, multi-sectoral approaches to disaster risk
reduction”.
GNDR fully support these statements; in an increasingly complex, fast-changing world the causes and effects
of different risks cannot be addressed through isolated actions across individual policy silos. The increasing
array of policies and frameworks (many with an inappropriately narrow and technical focus) have separate
mandates, separate funding streams, are driven by separate agencies with separate processes for
implementing and tracking progress. This weakens accountability and creates institutional overlaps,
duplication and confusion representing a poor return on investment for donor and recipient countries alike.
Building mutually reinforcing agendas and strategic partnerships across different disciplines and sectors
to manage a range of risks that interact to cause disaster losses will require risk management strategies
that foster collaboration and provide multiple benefits in order to get the necessary political engagement
and ownership. Based on the insights of how communities self-manage multiple risks this will require
6
developing a new generation of risk management approaches that yield broader “development” benefits
that both protect and enhance lives, livelihoods and assets.
Interestingly, the Chair’s call for “more integrated risk management approaches” resonates with recent
thinking on “resilience”. The concept of resilience (i.e. the ability of a community / society to sustain and
transform itself when subjected to (foreseen and unforeseen) shocks and stresses of different kinds)
better reflects the more flexible, holistic and iterative approaches that local communities themselves
adopt to reduces losses from multiple shocks and stresses. In a complex uncertain risk landscape the
benefits to individuals and institutions of investing in “standalone” actions that protect people from the
threat of one particular category of hazards are too narrow and the opportunity costs to high.
One of the keys to enabling different actors to work collaboratively lies in identifying resilience principles and
values that are common across a range of different risk categories. These principles of systemic or general
resilience (i.e. responsiveness, connectivity, diversity, learning, self-organisation, inclusion, social cohesion,
boundaries & limits) can sustain and guide meaningful cooperation over the longer term and should be
embedded within environmental, social and economic development pathways under a broader resiliencebased sustainable development agenda. Of course there will always be certain aspects of resilience that are
unique to particular functions and hazard type (for example, storm early warning systems) but in complex
systems different functions are invariably interconnected i.e. there is general in the particular.
From a GNDR perspective the principal factor determining the effectiveness of HFA2 is the way disasters
are conceived and framed within the sustainable development agenda. In an increasingly globalised
world the next generation of disaster risk management framework’s will require holistic approaches that
protect and enhance people ‘s lives, livelihoods and assets across a range of foreseen and unforeseen
shocks and stresses. This has implications for the scope, architecture and governance arrangements of
the HFA and its positioning with other post-2015 development frameworks. GNDR’s experience would
suggest HFA2 should be framed under a sustainable development agenda with an overarching goal of
strengthening societal resilience to sustain development ( disaster losses are an indicator) with the
following two mutually reinforcing strategic objectives ;
1) Change development pathways to reduce the construction of new risks to acceptable levels (i.e. reduce
risk inflows)
2) Strengthen societal capabilities to prepare, cope and adapt to existing risks (i.e. optimise risks outflows)
Importantly, the knowledge and insights of how communities and societies build resilience to shocks and
stresses from the realisation of existing risks (objective 2) can be used to inform and guide the required
upstream changes to development pathways (objective 1).
Comprehensive risk assessments
A starting point for collaborative actions lies with building a common understanding of the risk landscape
including the need for developing participatory methodologies for mapping and assessing the dynamic and
multi-dimensional nature of risk. GNDR would support calls for developing holistic approaches to map and
assess the complex risk landscape in which people live. The mapping and assessment processes should help
local stakeholders to prioritise and design appropriate risk management options.
Notwithstanding the above, whilst it may be possible to map and describe different types of risks it is not
possible to predict when and how they will manifest - therefore adopting comprehensive approaches to
strengthening societal resilience to multiple risks is of paramount importance.
7
Leading at the local level & Engaging communities to achieve results
The Chair’s summary identifies two closely related actions points that recognise disasters manifest
themselves locally and solutions have to be applied locally. The unique role of local authorities and traditional
leadership in leading action to reduce risk, including creating local partnerships with civil society and
community organisations are highlighted. Interesting the Chair states that principles of inclusion, participation
and empowerment of all social groups in communities are essential to drive change and ensure sustained
impact - principles that resonate strongly with resilience principles of inclusion, social cohesion and selforganisation.
Collectively these two action points place highlight the centrality of affected communities and local actors in
actions to reduce disaster risk. Resilience communities supported by appropriate formal / informal institutions
are the foundation and basic building blocks of a resilient society. The statements the “systematic and
meaningful inclusion of communities within planning, decision-making and policy implementation” together
with the comment “women are a driving force for resilient societies” are welcomed, particularly as women
are disproportionally affected by disasters. These actions will necessitate the disaggregation of relevant
disaster information according to economic and social status to get an accurate picture of local realities across
different social groups.
Recognising the private sector as actor and partner
The role of private sector investment in disaster risk management was an area given special attention at the
2013 Global Platform and was the subject of the Global Assessment Report 2013. The rationale for engaging
the private sector is compelling – the global economy’s transformation over the last 40 years has led to a
growing accumulation of disaster risk with between 70-85% of financial investments made by the private
sector. The GAR concludes that success in reducing disaster losses depends on the extent to which businesses
embrace DRR.
GAR 2013 lays out a strong business case why businesses should invest in disaster risk reduction to strengthen
competiveness, sustainability and develop new business opportunities. However, the report doesn’t
acknowledge that the practice of large transnational corporations are not necessarily in the interests of small
local businesses. Further work is required to develop strategic options that HFA2 can adopt to promote more
sustainable patterns of consumption and production and incentivise changes in corporate behaviour in support
of greater resilience.
Strengthen integrated risk governance
Translating a shared vision for resilient societies into a reality will require a range of mutually reinforcing risk
reduction measures owned and executed by different actors at the most appropriate level - depending on the
scale and nature of the risk ; large scale high impact disasters are best managed by national state institutions
(often with international assistance), whilst small scale localised disasters tend to be self- managed by affected
households and communities with the support of local actors.
The need to manage and coordinate a range of actions by different actors across different layers of society will
require strengthening integrated risk governance. This will involve activities to increase public transparency;
accountability; coordination; participation and partnerships – principles of good governance which resonate
strongly with community resilience principals. With the majority of disaster losses in developing countries
reported to be due to small-scale “everyday disasters” the HFA2 must prioritise actions that resource and
8
empower local state and non-state actors to develop local partnerships (including a socially committed
private sector) and engage communities to ensure results are achieved and sustained.
The experience of GNDR member’s tells us this will involve actions to: enhance local leadership capabilities;
provide decentralised flexible funding; mobilise latent capacities and support social change processes to
change prevailing norms and address power imbalances underpinning differential vulnerability – where local
people and actors (particularly grassroots women’s groups) are the agents of change. Developing vertical and
horizontal structures and processes that in the words of the Chair’s summary are “inclusive, participatory and
empowering” will require changes in the culture of public administration and the adoption of new ways of
working, including redefining relationships between the state and its citizens (social contract). This requires
clarity in legal obligations, institutional and individual responsibilities, entitlements and measurable
commitments (e.g. standards, targets, baselines) together with the ability to monitor progress and seek
redress for non- compliance.
Whilst preventing disasters is a universal agenda for which everyone has responsibilities it is clear a “one-sizedoes-not-fit-all” - suggesting a new DRR framework and associated standards and targets must be flexible
enough to apply a “best fit” approach to reflect the different national and sub-national contexts. In those
countries where state capacities are relatively strong the emphasis should be placed on decentralisation of
flexible funds, government structures and supportive legislation to create a favourable regulatory environment
that empowers local authorities and affected communities to work collaboratively. In low-income countries
where state capacities are weak or absent greater emphasis should be placed on mobilising and strengthening
sources of resilience outside of the state.
Another important observation under the risk governance action point is the acknowledgement that
strengthening resilience ultimately involves behavioural change within complex societies. From a GNDR
perspective, whilst State institutions and policies are important, they are insufficient on their own to change
individual and societal behaviour. For enduring transformational change to occur societal and individual
values, principles, rules and norms need to evolve hand in hand with the formal / informal institutional
architecture. This requires interconnections between individuals, community, the state and its institutions.
The relationship and degree of trust and political reciprocity between the state and its citizens is critical to
building a resilient nation. This is particularly challenging where communities don’t trust their governments
and where civil society is seen as opposition to governments.
Strengthening scientific and technical support
There is broad consensus that the foundation for reducing disaster risk lies in the gathering, mapping, analysis
and sharing of scientific and indigenous knowledge on the hazards and vulnerabilities that societies face. In
this respect the Chair’s Summary identifies some areas where additional work is required including a call for
closer collaboration between the scientific community and those responsible to implementing DRR. This will
necessitate cross-boundary dialogue and joint actions to share learning and develop guidelines for a more
systematic integration of science across existing humanitarian, development and sector planning processes .
From a GNDR perspective it is important to recognises that people, community, society, the economy and
nature are all part of an inter-connected social-ecological system. There is a pressing need for a better
scientific knowledge of the inter-dependent nature of social, economic, political and environmental risks,
supported by evidence-based research and human stories to champion integrated approaches. This evidence
base would need to include compelling narratives to raise understanding of the critical environmental limits
and thresholds on which the eco-system services depend. These limits and boundaries form the starting point
or basis of deduction for future trans-boundary cooperation and collaboration.
9
In conclusion, there was strong consensus at the GP-DRR 2013 on a range of action points that resonate
strongly with the Global Network VFL 2013 recommendations. These actions suggest the framing, scope,
architecture of HFA2 (and its relationship with other development agendas) must be different from HFA1 business as usual is not an option. The next step is to design an inclusive HFA2 drafting process that is able to
develop these critical elements into a coherent set of goals, objectives and actions
Part 2: Way Forward
The “Way Forward” section serves to outline how the main issues and themes discussed at the Global
Platform are to be taken forward to inform the drafting of HFA2. The section begins by reiterating a
number of critical elements for consideration within a successor framework including:








Focus on addressing the drivers of risk
Focus on local level implementation
Recognition of the role of different stakeholders including communities to achieve results
Addressing the needs of marginalised vulnerable groups
Advancing integrated risk governance
Clear responsibilities and strong coordination
Appropriate financial instruments
A central role for science
The actions points highlighted in section 1 are slightly different from those outlined above suggesting a
harmonising of the two sections is required. It is assumed all the actions points identified in both sections
will be used to guide the HFA 2 drafting process. Importantly, the Way Forward section calls for HFA2 to
be underpinned by a clear set of principles. GNDR would support this call and suggests the framework
should be built around the principles of community resilience based on an understanding of how
vulnerable people absorb and adapt to extreme shocks and stresses of all kinds.
Consideration was also given to an appropriate timeframe for HFA2 implementation. GNDR’s view is that
whilst it is helpful to take a longer term perspective on future risk trends a dynamic and realistic plan of
action will require a considerably shorter time frame given the fast-changing nature of the world. It also
10
makes sense the HFA2 timeframe fits with other development frameworks currently being renegotiated ;
e.g. the successor MDG / SDG frameworks are being planned over a 15 year period on the grounds that
longer time frames would lack urgency and seem implausible given the volatility of today’s world.
The final part of the Way Forward section identifies future activities towards developing HFA2, with an
immediate call for UNISDR to develop a monitoring process with relevant baselines, targets and indicators.
GNDR supports this call although given the stated importance of engaging communities to achieve results
designing targets and indicators must be inclusive of local constituencies and be outcome-orientated. Moreover,
before UNISDR can develop targets and indicators it will first be necessary to redefine HFA 2’s basic architecture
to reflect the actions points and strategic emphasis outlined in the Chair’s Summary.
In addition to planned consultations and preparatory conferences at international, regional and national levels
the “Way Forward “ section highlights that HFA2 will be based on the experiences matured in the
implementation of HFA 1. This will involve a final review of HFA 1, similar to the Yokohama Strategy review
which informed the architecture of HFA 1. Importantly, critical gaps and challenges that need to be addressed
in HFA2 have already been identified in the HFA Mid Term Review; e.g. the implementation gap between
policy and practice; limited progress in reducing underlying risk factors; and the fact that the HFA is isolated
from the mainstream development agendas. From a GNDR perspective these are critical issues related to the
way disasters are conceived and framed within a sustainable development agendas.
The Chair’s summary notes that further discussions on the nature and form of HFA2 will continue through
various national and regional platforms culminating in the World Conference on Disasters in Japan March
2015. To help clarify to stakeholders the HFA drafting process GNDR suggests the following steps:
1
2
3
4
5
UNISDR to clarify HFA2 drafting process, including links with other post-2015 processes
UNISDR to share vision of HFA2 through preparation of a zero draft informed by stakeholder
consultations, HFA1 progress review and other post-2015 development frameworks
Development of monitoring mechanisms (standards, targets, indicators) for HFA2 and associated post2015 development frameworks
Broad consensus and ownership amongst stakeholders of final draft HFA2 (preparatory conferences)
Final review and adoption at World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Japan March 2015
On open and inclusive drafting process is critical to develop consensus and ensure the engagement of different
constituencies, including connecting with other post-2015 development frameworks. Encouragingly the Chair’s
Summary states that the “active engagement of national and local constituencies including communities,
civil society and the private sector will be a prerequisite for a strong and shared outcome. By way of
contributing towards these discussions the Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster
Reduction will continue to support affected communities, national governments, UNISDR and partner
organisations in the formulation and subsequent implementation of the HFA2 towards a shared vision of
“resilient people, resilient planet”.
11
12