Emerging Trends in Disaster Risk Reduction Investments from HFA Monitor

1. Emerging Trends in Disaster Risk Reduction Investments from HFA Monitor John Harding, UNISDR

2. Hyogo Framework monitoring Currently, 133 countries are reviewing their progress towards the objectives and goals of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) for 2009-2011. - Global and regional progress status - Strengthen national planning and capacity building - Complemented by regional and local monitoring processes

3. HFA Monitor Indicators on DRR Financing • Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction activities at all administrative levels Dedicated resources refer to funds that are allocated specifically for disaster risk reduction actions. Resource allocation that embeds disaster risk reduction into an institution’s day-to-day business is necessary. When risk is considered in development investment decisions and in the design of projects, the cost of disaster risk reduction is lower. Level of Progress The levels of progress will enable a self-assessment of the extent to which the policies, programmes and initiatives are sustainable in achieving the indicated risk reduction objectives. • 1 – Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy • 2 – Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment • 3 – Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial • 4 – Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources • 5 – Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels

4. Sub-indicators • % allocated from national budget • USD allocated from overseas development assistance fund • USD allocated to hazard proofing sectoral development investments (e.g Transport, agriculture, infrastructure) • USD allocated to stand alone DRR investments (e.g. DRR institutions, risk assessments, early warning systems, …) • USD allocated to disaster proofing post disaster reconstruction

5. 2009 - 2011 Findings • 27 of 69 countries accord themselves scores of 4 and 5 towards core indicator on financing. • 49 of 79 indicate specific allocations for DRR • Of the 49 - 16 make no reference or description in narrative. • Only 14 make reference to specific to budgetary arrangement for DRR

6. 2009 - 2011 Findings • 25 countries indicate insufficient funding on DRR • Several indicate no financial resources (Burundi, Comoros, Madagascar, Nepal) with 12 countries referring to insufficient funding

7. 2009 - 2011 Findings 44 out of 76 countries - some form of national contingency funds for disaster response purposes. 34 out of 76 countries reported that post-disaster recovery programmes explicitly incorporated and budgeted for DRR.

8. 2009 - 2011 Findings • Some 32 out of 76 countries indicated in their HFA monitoring reports that their country had some form of catastrophe insurance in place. • 8 countries had issued catastrophe bonds, including one low income country and one lower-middle income country. • A number of countries indicated that they should explore the introduction of insurance mechanisms to improve the financial management of disaster risk reduction.

9. Local Government Responsibility /Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) • In the 2009-2011 HFA progress reports, 48 out of 76 countries reported that local governments have the legal responsibility to allocate funds for disaster risk reduction. • Out of the 76 countries, only 25 reported that they make specific allocations to local government for disaster risk reduction purposes. 8 indicated that the funding is inadequate. • A 2009 survey of 67 PRSPs found that 20% devoted a whole chapter or section to disaster risk; 55% mentioned the relationship between disaster risk and poverty.

10. Conclusions • Explicit disaster risk reduction budgets very limited and general government spending on disaster risk reduction is probably very low • There are issues in being absolutely definitive on this because DRR spending is not effectively monitored • Lack of methodology, standards and capacity – maybe not sufficiently engaging right ministries?