Review of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
Prepared by:
Marcus Oxley
Date
Tuesday 21st July 2015
Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction
8 Waldegrave Rd, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 8HT (United Kingdom)
+44 (0)2089 777726 | info@gndr.org
www.gndr.org
09 February 2016
Contents
GNDR Discussion Paper: ...................................................................................................... 3
Summary – SWOT Analysis………………................................................................................4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
Review per section ................................................................................................................ 5
I.
Preamble .................................................................................................................... 5
Critical Analysis .............................................................................................................. 8
II.
Expected Outcome and Goal .....................................................................................11
Critical Analysis .............................................................................................................12
III.
Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................13
Critical Analysis .............................................................................................................14
IV.
Priorities for Action .................................................................................................15
Critical Analysis .............................................................................................................15
V.
Role of Stakeholders .................................................................................................18
VI.
International Cooperation and Global Partnership ..................................................19
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………20
2
09 February 2016
About this GNDR Discussion Paper:
The following paper provides a critical review from a civil society perspective of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030. The Sendai Framework was adopted at
the 3rd World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan 18 March 2015 and
officially released by UNISDR in July 2015 and will be available in six languages. The official
publication can be found online at: http://www.preventionweb.net/go/sendai-framework
GNDR discussion papers are written to contribute to policy debate and to provoke discussions
on disaster risk reduction issues. They are “work in progress” papers which may contribute
towards developing civil society and inter-governmental policy position. The views expressed
are those of the GNDR Secretariat and although drawing from contributions and comments
received from GNDR members they do not necessarily reflect a negotiated position within the
broader Global Network membership. All comments to: Marcus.oxley@gndr.org
3
09 February 2016
Summary – Sendai Framework SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES:
1. Adopted by 187 member states (HFA-167
member states)
2. Extensive multi-stakeholder consultations
3. Emphasis on disaster risk governance
4. Focus on both risk creation & reduction
5. Inclusion of people in vulnerable situations,
including stronger role of women, children
and youth, persons with disabilities, elderly
persons and indigenous groups
6. Enhanced multi-stakeholder engagement
7. Increased international cooperation
8. Preparedness for resilient recovery
9. Thirteen guiding principles
10. Seven global targets
11. 15 year timeframe - synchronised with SDG
/ Climate frameworks
12. Recognition of small scale, recurrent shocks
13. Multi-scale approach: global/ regional /
national/ local
14. Stronger linkages with health issues
15. Strong on role of science and technology
16. Recognised role to private sector
17. Broader scope – natural and man-made
hazards.
1. Incomplete problem analysis which underutilizes lessons
learnt and findings from HFA implementation and final review
Complex, poorly-constructed goal, outcome & priority areas
2. Weak connecting logic between problem analysis, lessons
learnt, principles, objectives, actions
3. Ambiguous global targets – need specificity
4. Some missing principles: legal basis (human rights);
environmental integrity;
5. Missing discussion on power dynamics shaping political
economy of development
6. Weak strategic connections with other post-2015
development frameworks
7. Contextual appropriateness in situations of complexity;
informality; fragility and insecurity (including conflict) not
discussed
8. Missing cultural dimensions – related to societal and
individual behaviours, norms, values and perceptions of risk
9. Weak on accountability and transparency
10. Undervalues learning processes, including systemising postdisaster lessons learnt
11. No additional or predictable financial resources through
international cooperation
12. Specific verses comprehensive risk management
13. Strong emphasis on top-down government-centric actions
with less emphasis on connecting and strengthening informal
community-owned approaches
14. Underplays significance of local knowledge and capacities,
particularly in relation to small-scale disaster
15. Underplays role of ecosystems in reducing / modifying
natural hazards, including recognition of limits / thresholds
16. Need to establish stakeholder advisory groups
17. No policy guidance on transition from HFA to SFDRR
18. SFDRR formulation process was expensive – does the
outcome doc represent value-for-money?
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
1. Development of joint implementation actions
(assessments, programming, monitoring,
evaluation in conjunction with other post2015 frameworks
2. Multi-stakeholder collaboration and
partnership under a post-2015 sustainable
development agenda
3. Potential synergy of resources, time and
effort with other development actors
4. Resilience as a trans-boundary convening
concept to breakdown thematic silos
5. Linkages to human-rights agenda
6. Development of strong domestic legal basis
for reducing risk to acceptable levels
1. Limited relevance to local realities – fragility, insecurity,
conflict, informality, small scale.
2. Continued upwards trend in disaster losses
3. Complex risk landscape – requires systems-wide
perspectives and holistic approaches
4. Lack of political commitment - weak implementation / limited
impact / non-compliance and/or enforcement
5. Lack of strategic coherence with other frameworks
6. Competition amongst other higher profile post-2015
development agendas
7. Inability to forge strategic coalitions to address underlying
risk drivers ( as per HFA)
8. High expectation within LDCs on increased international
cooperation(resources)
9. Less impact than the HFA despite increased losses and
significant accrued learning
4
09 February 2016
Introduction
The following paper provides a critical review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
(SFDRR) 2015-2030 adopted by 187 countries at the third World Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction (WCDRR) held in Sendai, Japan 14–18th March 2015. The successor framework to the
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was developed through an extensive three year period of
consultations at national, regional and global levels, with a final round of intense negotiations taking
place at the UN World Conference in Japan. The entire process, including national, regional and
global consultations culminating in the WCDRR, is likely to have cost in the region of USD 100
million.
Following the same structure of the adopted framework, this review highlights key issues, strengths
and weaknesses considered important for effective disaster risk reduction informed by civil society
experiences gained in the HFA implementation. The review has been prepared by the GNDR
Secretariat with some inputs from GNDR members and is intended to contribute to policy debate
and inform discussions about the future role, priorities and partnerships of civil society in supporting
the implementation, monitoring and review of the SFDRR. It is not intended to represent a
consolidated policy positon across the wider GNDR membership.
Review per section
Preamble
The preamble is an important introductory statement that sets the context for the development of
the SFDRR. By drawing on the experiences and lessons learnt in the implementation of the HFA it
identifies the core problem to be addressed and the proposed solution, including defining the
framework goal, expected outcome, priority areas and key principles underpinning its approach.
Importantly, the preamble calls for DRR and resilience to be addressed within the context of
sustainable development and poverty eradication and integrated into relevant policies and
programmes at all levels.
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Lessons learned, gaps identified and future
challenges
The preamble highlights the main achievements and shortcomings of the HFA as follows:
Achievements
 Raised public and institutional awareness based a simple framing of DRR concepts and actions
 Enhanced international and regional cooperation and partnerships
 Advocacy tool for mobilising DRR investments
 Provided policy and technical guidance for developing national DRR policies and practices
 Generated political commitment and focused actions by a wide range of state and non-state
actors
 Contributed towards decreasing mortality of some hydro-met hazards (floods and tropical storms)
Gaps and Challenges
 Continued upwards trend in disaster losses in all countries
5
09 February 2016




People in vulnerable situations, especially in developing countries, are disproportionately
affected
High percentage of losses due to recurring small-scale disasters
Inadequate means of implementation, particularly at the sub-national / local levels
Ineffective in addressing underlying risk factors (exacerbated by climate change)
Other Critical Gaps and Challenges:
Some additional gaps and challenges based on experiences of the HFA should have been taken
into account when developing and implementing a DRR policies and programmes1. Lack of coherence and mutuality across inter-related development frameworks
2. Growing implementation gap between national policy and local action “Clouds but little rain”
3. Substantial under-reporting of losses due to small-scale disasters (which constitute the
majority of disasters and a high percentage of losses)
4. Compartmentalisation of the HFA priority actions due to weak strategic alignment and
coordination
5. Limited political space and participation of local people and local authorities in policy
formulation, strategic planning and decision-making processes
6. Weak domestic accountability and commitment for implementation of an “adopted”
framework
7. Weak political ownership of the DRR agenda outside of DRR actors and institutions
8. Failure to systematically learn from disasters, including undertaking post-disaster forensic
investigations
9. Weak collaboration and knowledge sharing mechanisms, particularly for non-state actors
10. Policy appropriateness in contexts of complexity, uncertainty, informality, fragility,
insecurity (including conflict)
11. Limited guidance to address unequal power relationships that influence implementation
Despite some progress in reducing losses since the adoption of the HFA, the evidence
indicates that in all countries (especially developing countries) the creation of disaster risk is
increasing faster than the ability to enhance disaster risk management capacities. The result
is a continued rise in disaster losses which undermine efforts to achieve sustainable
development. This is a core problem that must to be addressed in the SFDRR. The preamble
highlights a range of risk drivers and compounding factors that contribute to and intensify the
generation of new risk. However, some key risk factors (e.g. fragility, conflict and insecurity)
identified within the UN Multi-stakeholder Compilation Report have not been incorporated
with the new framework.
The following diagram represents a visual summary of the problem analysis as described in
the SFDRR preamble.
6
09 February 2016
Diagram 1. Preamble “Problem Tree” Analysis
Continued increase in disaster losses in lives, livelihoods
and assets in all countries (social, economic,
environmental)
EFFECTS
Disproportionate impact on vulnerable people
and lesser developed countries
Disproportionate impact on vulnerable
people and lesser developed countries
Undermining of Sustainable
Development Efforts
Disproportionate impact on vulnerable
people and lesser developed countries
CORE
PROBLEM
Increasing vulnerability and exposure of
people, livelihoods and assets
Disproportionate impact on vulnerable
people and lesser developed countries
Increase frequency & intensity of
climate hazards
Ineffective policies, plans and actions:
1. To prevent the creation of new risk
2. To reduce existing risk
CAUSES
COMPOUNDING FACTORS
Poor Land
Management
Unplanned
Urbanisation
Pandemics
Epidemics
Demographic
Changes
Inadequate means
of implementation
Poverty and
Inequality
Non-risk
informed
policies
Inadequate
DRM
Capabilities
Weak Institutional
Arrangements
Ltd
Available
Technology
Unregulated
Private
Investment
Complex Fragile
Supply Chains
Weak accountability
for Disaster risk
creation
Climate Change &
variability
Ecosystems
Decline
Unsustainable
use Natural
Resource
Building on the problem analysis the preamble identifies the solution as developing a broader, more
people-centred preventative approach to disaster risk. This will require the engagement of all
relevant stakeholders, particularly the inclusion of disproportionately affected groups, in the design
and implementation of policies, plans and standards. Importantly, it will involve more dedicated
action focused on tackling underlying risk drivers, including strengthening the accountability of
those responsible for creating disaster risk, together with the continued strengthening of disaster
risk governance, notably enhanced preparedness, response and recovery capabilities.
The SFDRR notes that Increased international cooperation between countries and organisations is
considered essential to augment domestic resources and capabilities, particularly in countries
where losses are disproportionately greater. This should help ensure adequate means of
implementation in terms of capacity-building, financial resources and technical assistance. The
negotiations on the post-2015 development agendas (DRR; SDGs; Finance for Development;
Climate Change) offer a unique opportunity to increase coherence and linkages across different
policy domains thereby contributing to building resilience and achieving the global goal of ending
poverty.
Taking the above into account, the preamble calls for focused action in the following priority
areas:1. Identify, monitor, assess, understand and share disaster risk knowledge
2. Strengthen disaster risk governance and coordination across relevant sectors and
institutions, including the meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders at appropriate
levels
7
09 February 2016
3. Invest in strengthening the social economic resilience of people, communities and countries
4. Enhance disaster preparedness, response and recovery capabilities
These priority areas constitute a “theory of change” as to how the identified problem will be
addressed and how the expected outcome and goal of the framework will be achieved. A summary
of key elements of the intended solution as outlined in the preamble narrative is represented below:
Diagram 2. Preamble “Solution Tree” Analysis
Substantial reduction in disaster losses in all
countries (social, economic, environmental)
OUTCOMES
Reduced relative impact on vulnerable
people and lesser developed countries
Strengthened disaster resilience of people,
communities and countries
OBJECTIVES
Broader, more people-centred preventative approach to prevent new and reduce existing risks, thus
protecting the lives, livelihoods and assets of people, communities & countries
1/ Increased
disaster risk
knowledge
2/ Strengthened
disaster risk
governance
3/ Investment in
resilience: people,
community, country
Increased means of
implementation
Greater coherence
across policy
frameworks
4/ Enhanced
preparedness, response,
recovery capacities
MEANS
Increased multistakeholder
collaboration
Enhanced
international
cooperation
Enabling institutional
environment
Strengthen
accountability for
disaster risk creation
Engagement of Political
leadership
Greater inclusion
of vulnerable
groups
Enhanced technology
& research
ENABLERS
Strong Political commitment
Scope
The final paragraph of the preamble states that the SFDRR will apply to small and large-scale,
frequent and infrequent, slow and sudden-onset disasters caused by natural or man-made
hazards, including related environmental, technological and biological hazards.
In this respect the SFDRR encompasses a broader range of hazards than within the HFA, although
further clarification is required in terms of what is covered under “man-made” hazards. For
example, does the scope of the SFDRR include nuclear disasters?
Critical Analysis
From a GNDR Secretariat perspective there are a number of notable strengths and weaknesses in
the preamble section that are important considerations when formulating and implementing post2015 DRR policy frameworks, policies and plans:
STRENGTHS:
8
09 February 2016
1/ Emphasis on disaster risk governance: GNDR members identified strengthening local
governance as one of the most important factors for the effective implementation of DRR policies.
Not surprisingly for an inter-governmental agreement, the SFDRR has a strong focus on
strengthening State administrative capacities, resources and institutional mechanisms at all levels
to formulate, coordinate and implement DRR legislation, policies, plans and standards with the
inputs of relevant stakeholders.
2/ Inclusion of people in vulnerable situations: The SFDRR promotes a “people-centred”
approach that recognises that policies should be designed to be inclusive of people in vulnerable
situations who are disproportionately impacted by disasters. It calls for governments to engage with
affected populations and explicitly recognises the role of women, youth, persons with disabilities,
poor people, migrants, indigenous, volunteers and older people in the design and implementation
of policies and plans.
3/ Multi-stakeholder engagement: Whilst States have the overall responsibility for reducing
disaster risk the SFDRR acknowledges this is a shared responsibility that requires an “all-ofsociety” engagement. The framework calls for public and private stakeholders to work more closely
and create opportunities for collaboration, including the full and meaningful participation of relevant
stakeholders in the design and implementation of policies, plans and standards
4/ International Cooperation: The SFDRR recognises the different capacities amongst high and
low income countries to reduce disaster risk and calls for enhanced international cooperation to
ensure all States have the adequate means of implementation. Developing countries, particularly
the LDCs, are identified as needing greater external support in terms of capacity building, financial
and technical support and technology transfer to augment domestic resources and capabilities.
5/ Resilient recovery: It is important that societies learn the lessons from past disasters in order to
build safer more resilient communities and nations. The SFDRR emphasises the benefits of better
planning for the recovery phase and utilising the post-disaster recovery as a critical opportunity to
“build back better” including integrating disaster risk reduction into development policies and
planning.
WEAKNESSES:
1/ Incomplete problem analysis: Defining the problem properly is the first and most important
step towards developing an effective solution, thereby saving time, money and resources. In this
respect the SFDRR problem analysis lacks conciseness and is incomplete; the framework correctly
identifies the need for a stronger focus on tackling the causes of risk creation, together with
accelerated actions to reduce existing risks. Similar to the HFA, it identifies a range of risk drivers
and compounding factors, highlighting challenges of inclusion, coordination, coherence,
accountability, resource mobilisation, political commitment and leadership. However, it doesn’t
explain how these challenges will be addressed taking on board the lessons learnt in the HFA
implementation which made least progress in tackling risk drivers.
Moreover, the framework avoids politically sensitive matters of insecurity and conflict, lack of
compliance and enforcement, corruption and bribery, unequal power relationships and vested
economic interests that influence the political economy of development, underpin differential
vulnerability and advance or constrain efforts to strengthen resilience.
2/ Context relevance: The majority of poor people and low-income households who are
disproportionality affected by disasters are exposed to an increasingly complex, uncertain and
unpredictable mix of extreme hazards, shocks and disturbances (social, economic and
environmental) in the context of informality, fragility and insecurity. Importantly, the SFDRR fails to
9
09 February 2016
address how to reduce disaster risk in areas affected by conflict, and related to this, large scale
population displacements and migrations as we are currently witnessing in the North Africa /
Western Asia. To be relevant the SFDRR must be framed in a way that adequately represents and
can engage with these local realities.
3/ Policy coherence: The SFDRR acknowledges the need for stronger coherence between
disaster risk reduction, sustainable development, poverty alleviation and climate change agendas
and recognises the negotiations of the post-2015 development agendas as a unique opportunity to
do this. Like others, GNDR believes that DRR is primarily a development issue, where “disasters
are manifestations of unresolved development problems and outcome-based indicators of skewed
unsustainable development processes” (Lavell & Maskrey 2014). Preventing the creation of new
risk involves building strong alliances with other actors to transform development pathways to make
societies less fragile, more resilient to shocks and disturbances of all kinds, thereby reducing the
risk of future disaster losses.
Building strategic alliances, coherence and mutuality across different frameworks and actors
involves taking a broader systems-wide perspective based on an understanding of the relationship
between disasters and development and of resilience and sustainability. Whilst acknowledging the
need for disaster risk to be addressed in the context of sustainable development the SFDRR
provides limited insight or practical guidance on the “added value” or unique contribution the
SFDRR can make towards the challenge of transforming development pathways.
Although broader in scope than the HFA, the SFA still represents a traditional approach to
managing disaster risk for specific hazard types that aims to protect rather than redefine
development. This differs from the more holistic comprehensive approaches that people,
neighbourhoods, cities and nations adopt to protect and enhance lives, livelihoods and assets
when exposed to a wide range of extreme shocks and disturbances in an increasingly uncertain
fast-changing complex and interconnected world.
4/ Culture: Culture is central to disaster risk reduction. Reducing risk involves changing the
behaviour of complex societies. Experience shows that to change societal behaviour reforms in
institutional policies and procedures must co-evolve with cultural changes related to people’s
beliefs, norms and values that provide a motivating force for a particular type of behaviour. The
SFDRR underplays the important linkages between culture and risk. A “people-centred” approach
to disaster risk requires greater cultural consideration of the ways that people interpret and live with
risk, and how their perceptions, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour (e.g. their needs, priorities,
daily routines, customs and practices) influence their vulnerabilities to hazards, shocks and threats.
5/ Accountability: Accountability is about being responsible for decisions made and actions taken.
It is a core principle of good governance and fundamental to both preventing new and reducing
existing risk. Although the preamble identifies the need to strengthen accountability for disaster risk
creation, the significant of accountability in terms of generating national political commitment and
mobilisation of resources for the realisation of DRR policies is missing. Inadequate means of
implementation for DRR policies is a reflection of competing policy priorities and a lack of strong
political ownership of the DRR agenda.
Political commitment requires greater accountability on the part of national governments to fulfil
their primary obligations and responsibilities for safety and protection, as evident by a willingness to
commit the necessary resources to follow through with activities. Domestic accountability is
strengthened when there is strong public demand together with a compelling public narrative for a
safer environment. The planning, implementation and monitoring of DRM activities should be
supported by a socially committed private sector and an active civil society, underpinned by
10
09 February 2016
domestic legal obligations which clarify individual and institutional responsibilities to reduce risk and
make enforcement easier in cases of non-compliance. Ultimately the performance of governments
to reduce disaster losses reflects internal commitments and priorities. Not surprisingly,
accountability can be a politically sensitive issue that is seldom openly addressed in international
policy frameworks.
6/ Comprehensive risk management approach: The scope of the SFDRR has been broadened
to encompass large and small, sudden and slow-onset disasters caused by natural and man-made
hazards and related environmental, technological and biological hazards. Although the explicit
reference to small scale disasters is a positive development as they constitute a high percentage of
all losses, small scale disasters and associated losses remain substantially under-reported,
uninsured and receive minimal national government or external assistance.
Moreover, governments and affected populations have to manage a complex unpredictable
interplay of social, economic and environmental shocks and disturbances. This makes it more costeffective to adopt comprehensive multi-risk approaches to protect and enhance lives, livelihoods
and assets. In this respect the SFDRR would benefit from being conceptually and operationally part
of a more holistic integrated risk management strategy designed to strengthen “general” (as
opposed to “specific”) resilience to shocks and disturbances of all kinds.
Expected Outcome and Goal
Expected Outcome: i.e. result achieved at the end of the implementation timeframe 2015–2030
“The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and heath and in
the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses,
communities and countries.”
Expected Goal - to achieve the expected outcome
“Prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated
and inclusive measures that: prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to
disasters (new risk); increase preparedness for response and recovery (existing risk); and
thus strengthen resilience”
To achieve the Expected Goal (means)
 Enhanced implementation capabilities of developing countries, particularly least developed
countries
 International cooperation to mobilize support for the provision of the means of implementation
Global Targets
To assess progress towards the goal and outcome seven global targets have been agreed. These
are to be complemented by global indicators and corresponding national targets and indicators
Table 1: Global Targets
1. Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030
2. Substantially reduce number of affected people globally by 2030
3. Reduce direct economic losses in relation to global GDP by 2030
4. Substantially reduce damage to critical infrastructure & services (including health & education) by 2030
11
09 February 2016
5. Substantially increase number of countries with national and local DRR strategies by 2020
6. Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries by 2030
7. Substantially increase access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster information by 2030
Critical Analysis
Section II is important as it defines the SFDRR goal, purpose and accompanying global targets.
1/ Confusing Goal and Outcome: Although short in length Section II lacks clarity because the
construction and logic of the framework goal, outcomes and objectives are ill defined and
confusing. The framework outcome combines the reduction of risk with the reduction of losses
despite these being conceptually different; reducing disaster risk is the way that a reduction in
disaster losses will be achieved. Reducing disaster risk therefore sits under reducing disaster
losses. Whilst the SFA aims to achieve a substantial reduction in disaster risk, the purpose or
reason for the SFA is to reduce disaster losses and the required outcome (result) is a substantial
reduction in losses.
To achieve the expected outcome the framework states that the following goal must be pursued;
“prevent new and reduce existing risk (goal) through implementing a range of integrated and
inclusive social, economic and environmental measures (activities) that prevent and reduce
exposure and vulnerability (outcomes), and thus strengthen resilience “ (outcome). This is a
complex poorly-structured statement that combines a number of different but related elements.
Further, the preamble states that the expected outcome and goal have to be addressed with a
renewed sense of urgency “in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”.
However, this contextual framing is not present in the SFDRR goal, outcome or targets.
In light of this the SFDRR goal, outcome, objectives and activities would benefit from reformatting
into a simpler framework:Figure 1. Example reformatted SFDRR 2015-2030
Development Goal:
Enhanced resilience-based
sustainable development and poverty
alleviation
Results:
 Resilient persons, businesses, communities and countries
 Protection and enhancement of lives, livelihoods and assets of
persons, businesses, communities and countries
Framework Goal:
A substantial reduction of disaster
risk
Expected Outcome:
A substantial reduction in disaster losses in lives, livelihoods
and health, and in social, economic and environmental assets
Specific Goals:
 Prevent new disaster risk
 Reduce existing disaster risk
Global Targets: Substantially reduce in global disaster mortality by 2030
 Substantially reduce number of affected people globally by
2030
 Reduce direct economic losses in relation to global GDP by
2030
 Substantially reduce damage to critical infrastructure by 2030
 Substantial increase in number of countries with national and
local DRR strategies by 2020
 Substantial increase in international cooperation to
developing countries by 2030
12
09 February 2016

Substantially increased access to multi-hazard early warning
systems and disaster information by people by 2030
Strategic Priorities (objectives):
Results:
1. Understand disaster risk
 Reduction in hazard exposure
 Reduction in vulnerability
2. Strengthen disaster risk
governance
3. Investment in DRR for resilience
4. Enhance preparedness, response,
recovery capacities
Key Activities (actions):
Global / Regional / National / Local
Levels
2/ Development of national targets, indicators and baselines: The incorporation of seven global
targets in the SFDRR is a positive development. Targets can raise levels of ambition, support the
mobilization of resources, influence investments decision, support the assessment of progress,
increase accountability and thus political commitment.
Notwithstanding the above, the seven global targets, including key words ((substantial; reduce;
affected; enhance) are non –specific and ambiguous which can weaken accountability. For
example; how is “affected people” defined – does it include people who have had their property,
health, livelihoods and productive assets impacted as per the guiding principle?
As the SFDRR indicates, additional work is required to establish disaster loss database that include
both large and small-scale disasters, can disaggregate data and develop additional SMART
national and local targets, indicators and baselines. The development of national and local targets
is important as national governments have the primary responsibilities to reduce disaster risk and
the well-documented challenge of getting adequate resources down to local level.
In addition to “trailing indictors” focused on disaster losses, global and national targets would
benefit from additional forward-looking targets focused on resilience outputs and outcomes,
strategically connected to resilience targets and indicators within the sustainable development and
climate change frameworks. It is also noted there whilst there are targets for social and economic
losses there is no equivalent target for environmental losses.
3/ Timeframe: It is encouraging to see the SFDRR timeframe has been synchronised with the SDG
and Climate Change timeframes. This should help strengthen coherence of planning, coordination
and implementation activities including measuring and reporting.
Guiding Principles
The SFDRR provides a strong set of thirteen guiding principles to inform the framework’s overall
development and implementation:
a)
States have the primary responsibility to reduce disaster risk, supported by international cooperation
b) Risk reduction responsibilities to be shared with relevant stakeholders
c)
Aim is to protect lives, health, livelihoods and assets, while promoting and protecting all human rights
d) All-of-society engagement and partnership, particularly the inclusion, participation and
13
09 February 2016
empowerment of poor marginalized people disproportionately affected
e)
Coordination of relevant stakeholders based on an understanding of mutual roles, responsibilities
and accountabilities
f)
Empower local authorities and local communities (resources, incentives, responsibilities)
g)
Multi-hazard approach with inclusive risk-informed decision based on access to disaggregated
science-based information, complemented by traditional knowledge
h) Coherence across appropriate policies, plans and practices e.g. sustainable development; food
security; climate change; environmental management; DRR agendas
i)
Understand local characteristics of disaster risk
j)
Addressing underlying risk factors through private & public investments is more cost-effective than
response and recovery
k)
Build back better and increase public education in the recovery phase
l)
Effective global partnerships and strengthened international cooperation (including fulfilment of
ODA commitments)
m) Provision of adequate, sustainable and timely support (finance, technology, capacity building) for
developing countries, particularly LDCs and those facing specific disaster risk challenges.
Critical Analysis
STRENGTHS:
1. A strong set of guiding principles: Guiding principles are important as they provide the
underpinning philosophy to the framework and form the basis for action. In general the stated
principles fit well with issues identified in the preamble, particularly the need for stronger
stakeholder collaboration; international cooperation; understanding local risk context; engaging
local actors; the inclusion of people disproportionately affected. Principle C also includes an
explicit reference to “promoting and protecting all human rights” - human rights can provide a
social foundation and / or boundary for resilient societies.
WEAKNESSES:
1. Some gap and challenges; In general the SFDRR is weak on issues of accountability which
impacts on learning, political commitment and resource mobilization - all areas identified as
critical gaps from the HFA. Accountability is more easily enforced where legal obligations are in
place. In this respect the SFDRR would have benefitted from a legal principle that set out the
legal rights of citizens (as well as the legal obligation of states) for safety and protection from
disasters, underpinned by international law.
The framework would also have benefitted from a specific principle on environmental
integrity. In general, objectives, targets and principles to reduce environmental hazards are
missing in the SFDRR, despite increasing evidence that anthropogenic changes are increasing
the severity and frequency of extreme environmental hazards such as droughts, floods and
cyclones. Protection and restoring functioning ecosystems are critical for the regulation and
amplification of natural hazards. This omissions should be picked up when developing national
and local implementation strategies and plans, including appropriate targets and indicators.
14
09 February 2016
Priorities for Action
General
Drawing on the experiences of HFA and the critical issues outlined in the preceding sections the
SFDRR has identified key activities at national and local, global and regional levels under four
priority areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Understanding disaster risk
Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and recovery
These four priority areas broadly reflect the five priority areas in the HFA. Although all four priorities
are relevant to DRR it is not clear from the lessons learnt and gaps identified in the HFA why the
SFDRR has been organized around these particular thematic areas.
Under the priority areas, specific actions have been divided into different administrative scales (i.e.
local, national, global, regional levels) with the majority of actions undertaken at national and local
levels. This multi-scale approach is useful to differentiate between functions and responsibilities of
different actors at different levels. A multi-scale approach can also be useful when developing
actions to address risk drivers that impact at the local level yet originate at higher levels.
Critical Analysis
Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk
STRENGTHS:
1. References to investments in knowledge and information management capabilities;
Disaster risk knowledge is fundamental to understanding how to reduce risk. This priority area
outlines a range of mutually reinforcing actions designed to understand disaster risk in its
different dimensions, notably development of location specific risk information; risk
assessments and mapping; disaster loss databases; disaggregated information; civic and public
education and awareness.
WEAKNESSES:
1. Primacy of local knowledge and expertise is missing; All countries must capitalize on
existing resources, capacities, knowledge and practices and use these to the full, particularly in
relation to small scale disasters which seldom attract national or regional attention. A peoplecentered framework must build from an understanding of disaster risk from the perspectives,
needs and priorities of the primary bearers of risk i.e. affected populations, including those
disproportionately affected living in conditions of poverty, informality, fragility and insecurity.
This requires national governments and other stakeholders to invest in mechanisms that gather,
share and utilize local perspectives, indigenous knowledge, community-based capacities and
good practices that have evolved over time to cope with a complex uncertain risk landscape.
National strategies should build from this bedrock of local expertise and experiential learning,
where appropriate blending local expertise with external scientific knowledge, and using this cocreated knowledge to inform the development and implementation of culturally appropriate
policies, standards and practices.
15
09 February 2016
2. Coping with multiple shocks and disturbances is absent; Building on the holistic
approaches that communities use to self-manage a complex array of risks, greater emphasis
should be given to working with at-risk groups, practitioners, scientific and technological
communities to develop holistic conceptual models, integrated risk management approaches
that understand and respect inter-dependencies, social-ecological boundaries and limits of
resilient communities and societies. Systems-wide perspectives that better reflect complex local
realities are essential to build shared vision and forge strategic coalitions to tackle underlying
risk drivers and manage multiple shocks.
3. Learning processes are not sufficiently included; In order to develop all societies must be
able to learn from when things go wrong. This requires a post-disaster learning process that
systematically captures lessons learnt and insights from disaster events to understand
development strengths and deficiencies; identify limits and thresholds; proximate and
underlying causes; critical inter-dependencies and feedbacks that can be used to reform and
enhance relevant socio-economic development pathways to prevent the future creation of risk.
Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance
STRENGTHS:
1. Strong emphasis on governance; Based on the experiences of the GNDR membership,
good disaster risk governance is the single most important factor in reducing disaster risk,
particularly risk governance at the point of implementation (i.e. sub-national, local levels). For
example, in many countries national land use and urban planning regulations, building codes
and safety standards do exist, but their compliance and enforcement at the local level is weak
compounded by issues of corruption and bribery - this represents a governance not a technical
deficiency. In line with these experiences, a substantial proportion of the challenges and
solutions outlined in the SFDRR are related to the need to invest and strengthen governance
capabilities, particularly at sub-national and local levels.
2. National and local legal frameworks referenced; Compliance and enforcement of regulations
and standards is easier where legal obligations are in place. The importance of establishing a
strong legal basis for DRR, supported by transparent monitoring and compliance mechanisms,
has been recognised and clearly stated in this priority area.
WEAKNESSES:
1. Weak and fragile states are ignored: The SFDRR places a strong emphasis on the ability of
state institutions to enable, guide, lead and coordinate actions to strengthen the resilience of
persons, communities and countries. In reality, in low income countries where the losses from
disasters are disproportionately higher, state institutions are often weak, dysfunctional or absent
(especially in areas of fragility and insecurity). In these situations effective strategies to
strengthen resilience should place more emphasis on building on and strengthening formal and
non-formal institutions and associations outside of the state.
2. Political economy is not taken into account; Mindful of the political economy of
development, particular attention should be given to addressing differential vulnerabilities
amongst different socio-economic groups – primarily related to structural inequalities, exclusion
and marginalisation within governance processes.
16
09 February 2016
3. A rights-based approach is missing; Although referenced in the guiding principles there is no
further guidance or actions connecting human rights and DRR. This would have been
beneficial, for example:
1/ Human rights can serve as a social boundary and/or limit below which persons,
communities and societies start to lose social resilience, characterised by an increase in
extreme and possibly anti-social behaviour;
2/ Human rights and entitlements, duties and obligations can help define the relationship
(social contract) between states and citizens. This can help formalise individual and
institutional responsibilities, accountabilities and liabilities;
3/ Human rights can provide an internationally recognised legal underpinning to domestic
legal frameworks.
Priority 3: Invest in DRR for resilience
General
Considered by some to be one of the most crucial sections of the SFDRR, this priority area would
have benefitted from being more clearly structured. As written, Priority 3 appears as an ad hoc
collection of actions rather than providing a logical connection between identified gaps, objectives
and corresponding activities. Strengthening resilience in complex societies will require changes in
the different interlocking parts of a society. Accordingly, this section focused on risk creation could
have been organised into a series of elements or sub-system to provide a more rational systemswide representation of society. For example, priority actions could be organised under simple
headings of economic; environmental, social; built environment; governance; and culture. The
interlocking nature of these elements means that changes in government policies on their own
cannot change society’s behaviour unless they connect with corresponding changes with other
economic, environmental and cultural elements.
Moreover, identified challenges of political commitment, adequate resources, policy coherence,
stakeholder collaboration, accountability, inclusion, compliance are also mutually-reinforcing. A
global strategy framework designed to frame critical issues should provide guidance on how the
key issues and elements can be put together in a mutually-reinforcing programme of action based
on a proven theory of change. Guidance on mutual relationships; leverage d entry points;
sequencing, prioritisation, limits and thresholds of different actions is the essence of developing
effective strategies.
WEAKNESSES:
1. Cultural change not included; In general the SFDRR has few priority actions aimed at cultural
changes in individual behaviour, norms and attitudes based on an understanding of societal
norms and thresholds of “acceptable risk”. Because of the interlocking nature of these different
societal dimensions, actions should be designed to be mutually reinforcing - for example, supplyside actions to change government policies and procedures would connect with demand-side
culture actions to change individual values, norms and behaviour.
2. Inter-dependencies within complex systems are not adequately addressed; Many of the
actions in this priority area are similar to actions identified in the HFA Priority Area 4 Underlying
Risk Factors - where least progress was made. Progress in reducing the creation of risk will
17
09 February 2016
require building strong strategic alliances across a range of development actors to transition to
more resilient safer development pathways. This will require developing integrated approaches,
based on a more holistic socio-ecological system-wide perspective that conceptually link interdependent elements under a sustainable development framework to create mutuality,
complementarity and synergies. In turn this requires action to develop shared vision and political
leadership, supported by compelling evidence and connecting narratives.
Priority 4: Enhance preparedness, response and recovery capacities
STRENGTHS:
1. Better recovery planning; The SFDRR has a stronger emphasis on the importance of
preparing and planning for the recovery and reconstruction phase ahead of a disaster event.
2. Build back better; Related to the action above, the SFDRR seeks to use opportunities during
the recovery phase to “build back better”.
WEAKNESSES:
1. Actions not appropriate for local contexts; The majority of disaster losses are due to small
scale disasters, with the a substantial proportion of disaster losses occurring in areas of
informality, fragility and insecurity. The identified actions need to be made more applicable to
these local contexts.
2. Greater focus needed on disaster forensics; There is a need to systematically undertake
post-disaster forensic investigations (utilising common analytical tools) to identify underlying
causes and inform recovery processes.
Role of Stakeholders
STRENGTHS:
1. Strong reference to multi-stakeholder engagement; The SFDRR strongly supports an all-ofsociety and all-of-state engagement, including the meaningful participation of relevant non-state
stakeholders (civil society; science & academia; business; media) at appropriate levels in the
design and implementation of DRR policies, plans and standards.
2. Inclusion of vulnerable groups; The SFDRR provides strong endorsement of the need for
people in vulnerable situations who are disproportionately affected by disasters to be involved in
the design, resourcing and implementing of DRR policies, plans and programmes. There is
explicit reference to the role of women; children and youth; persons with disabilities; older
persons; indigenous peoples; migrants; and local communities.
WEAKNESSES:
1. The right to information and participation; The right of all stakeholder groups to have access
to information and to be able to participate in DRR decision-making, policy-setting, planning and
implementation should be explicitly recognized in policy, legal and institutional provisions, and
18
09 February 2016
the ways and means of participation are defined. Inter-governmental organizations (including UN
agencies and development banks) should promote and champion such approaches as
opportunities arise.
International Cooperation and Global Partnership
STRENGTHS
1. Different country capacities recognized; Greater recognition of the need for assistance to be
proportionate with the different capacities of high, middle and low-income countries, including
those with higher vulnerability and risk levels.
WEAKNESSES
1. Fragile States; According to the World Bank World Development Report 2011 one in four people
on the planet live in areas of fragility and insecurity, many of who are at higher risk to disasters.
The SFDRR does not recognize the special cases of fragile and failing states and the need for
enhanced support and attention in view of their higher vulnerability and risk levels.
2. No additional and predictable financial resources; Although recognizing that developing
countries require enhanced means of implementation (including adequate, sustainable and
timely resources) there is no commitment in the SFDRR for additional and predictable financial
resources through international cooperation to strengthen their DRR efforts.
3. Local level action not prioritized; Financial resources, technical expertise, capacity-building
assistance and enabling policy environment are particularly needed to strengthen local formal
and non-formal institutions, mechanisms and capacities to strengthen community resilience.
Community resilience is the foundation and basic building block of a resilient society.
4. Means of implementation is only narrowly discussed; The mobilisation of financial resources
will require public and private, domestic and international channels. The SFDRR narrative on the
means of implementation focuses on ODA international cooperation through bilateral and
multilateral channels. Although not stated, domestic public resource mobilisation to strengthen
resilience will be critical. Moreover, there is a strong case for an enhanced role of the business
and private sector in resource mobilisation given their pivotal role in both the creation and
reduction of disaster risk.
5. Need to build on local sources of resilience; Strategies to strengthen societal resilience must
take existing sources of resilience (particularly local capacities and know how) as the starting
point. This is particularly the case for small-scale disasters that do not attract national
government attention or international assistance. Accordingly greater emphasis should be placed
on accessing, developing and disseminating local knowledge and practitioner expertise in order
to utilise local resources and capacities to the full.
6. Stakeholder Advisory Groups are needed; To support a more balanced multi-stakeholder
approach to implementation, in addition to an enhanced Scientific and Technical Advisory
Group and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, UNISDR should establish equivalent advisory groups
for other critical stakeholder groups including civil society.
19
09 February 2016
Conclusion
This paper provides an analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the SFDRR from a
civil society perspective. Whilst the Sendai framework incorporates a wealth of good ideas to
reduce disaster risk including some welcomed additional elements (notably a broader scope; global
targets; guiding principles; more explicit recognition of the role of stakeholders) the SFDRR is in
essence a continuation of the HFA. However, the SFDRR is weak in drawing out the lessons learnt
and findings gained from the implementation of the HFA, particularly in relation to addressing the
critical issue of risk creation towards which the HFA made least progress. Like the HFA, issues of
culture and contextual appropriateness are also either missing or weak, for example the SFDRR
continues to ignore the effects of conflict and insecurity despite a recent statement (July 2015) by
the high-level political forum (HLPF) on sustainable development that “conflict is the biggest threat
to human development”, with fragile and conflict-affected countries often experiencing the highest
levels of poverty and vulnerability.
In this respect it remains to be seen if such incremental improvements to a “business as usual”
pathway will bring about the societal changes requires to reverse the continued upwards trend in
disaster losses around the world. Moreover, despite calls for enhanced work to reduce exposure
and vulnerability, including recognition of the need for strengthening international cooperation,
there were no concrete commitments for additional and predictable finance to implement the
framework.
Notwithstanding the above, the key in taking forward the identified strengths and addressing
weaknesses now depends on the implementation mechanisms and follow-up actions that are
currently under discussion by the different state and non-state stakeholder groups, particularly at
regional and national levels. These follow-up actions will need to be considered as part of an
integrated and coordinated response taking into account the results and recommendations of the
2015 United Nations conference and summits, notably the Sustainable Development Goals and
Climate Change agreements. The World Humanitarian Summit in April 2016 also provides an
opportunity to forge strategic relationships between humanitarian, DRR and development
interventions.
From a GNDR Secretariat perspective the next steps will involve a series of regional and national
consultations to discuss the role of the SFDRR and related post-2015 frameworks with the broader
GNDR membership and other stakeholder groups in order to identify ways forwards, including
global, regional and national priorities and actions. This should involve forging strategic alliance
with other stakeholders, for example; to undertake joint actions to assess risk and support the
implementation and monitoring of progress towards strengthening resilience based on alignment of
resilience indicators and baselines. This could include specific actions to measure the inclusion of
affected communities in planning and decision-making processes across the four priority areas.
The intention is that outcomes from these consultations with the GNDR membership, including the
identification of regional and national priorities and actions, will be taken into account in the
development of GNDR global five year strategic Plan 2016-2020.
20