Local Level Action- Key Area 3

Prepared by ADRRN Secretariat

Process :

Contributions :

KEY AREA 3

1 UNICEF, EAPRO and Save the Children

3 Received from Save the Children

2 DiDRRN- Disability Secondary Contribution on 3

Received

3 FAO – DRR in Agriculture

3 Inputs on DRR & Agriculture

4 ACF – France 3 Received

5 RMIT 3 Inputs by March

6 Peace Boat – Disaster Relief Volunteer Center

3 Received

7 NARBO , Japan Water Agency -IWRM

3 Case Study received

8 NCA – Norwegian Church Aid

3 Received

KEY AREA 3 :

National Consultations

1 Afghanistan 1,2,3,4 Complete

2 Bhutan 1,3,5 Complete

3 Indonesia 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Complete

4 Sri Lanka (MFCD) 3 Completed report awaited (ADRRN)

5 Bangladesh (COAST Trust)

3 Underway (ADRRN) by 10th Feb

Local Level Action:

Local Level Action towards DISASTER RISK REDUCTION (DRR) will help in enhancing local understanding, mapping local vulnerabilities and strengths, developing integrated local approaches, building local capacities, promoting local ownership and facilitating multi- stakeholder partnership.

Context :

• All consultations suggested that HFA2 considers increasing the emphasis on building local skills and capacities, especially to deal with local issues (Asia Pacific synthesis report on post 2015 frame work on DRR)

• Disasters happen locally and solutions are to be found locally. This does not relieve

national governments of their responsibilities to establish a framework and enabling environment for local action. (Chair’s summary Global Platform 2013)

• There is a continuing gap between national DRR policies and local-level practices (GNDR VFL 2009/2011/2013)

• The brief review of national-level progress suggests that action at local level was consistently noted as in need of improvement, especially under Priorities for Action 1 to 4. (HFA mid term review 2005-2015)

Cont:

• Give more attention to local level implementation of national polices and priorities. Strengthen local government capacity and build a culture of safety among disaster-prone communities (The Hyogo Framework of Action in Asia-Pacific 2011-13)

• Studies show that disaster databases under-report ‘everyday’ disasters by as much as 400%. Local level monitoring of everyday disasters is essential.” (Views from Frontline beyond 2015)

• Promote an inclusive multi-hazard approach that considers socio-economic

vulnerability and exposure in risk assessments and reduction measures, gender, disability and age capacities and cultural diversity in planning and programming at all levels, and community and volunteer participation in national and local level actions. (Yogyakarta Declaration on Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia and the Pacific 2012)

Community Resilience Survey 2013:

What is the biggest hurdle you are facing in understanding and responding to disasters?*

How can you minimize your losses from disasters?*

* Out of 952 Respondents

In your opinion, what is the most important action that can reduce losses from disasters?*

What kind of resources can be generated locally to strengthen Disaster Risk Reduction?*

* Out of 952 Respondents

In what ways do you think communities can participate in local level prevention & preparedness for disasters?*

What hurdles do you face while availing support from the local government?*

*Out of 952 Respondents

Decentralized Action with various Stakeholders:

Key Components of Local Level Action :

1. Local Hazard Assessments: Of Risks, Hazards and disasters at the local level for any Local Level Action to be strategized.

2. Vulnerability Mapping: to include the most vulnerable within the poverty and development agenda

3. Developing Local Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR Strategies):Participation of various stakeholders and institutionalization of DRR at the local government level.

4. Facilitating Robust Local action groups: Proactive engagement with youth groups, women, marginalized sections for effective local leadership.

5. Strengthening Local Government : Citizen Interface: Campaigns on DRR & advocacy strategies need to be developed to strengthen the local govt- citizen interface.

6. Inclusiveness of the vulnerable and marginalized in decision making processes: Seminal for any local level action towards DRR

Best Practices:

• Disability Inclusive DRR Network (DiDRRN)• FAO – DRR in Agriculture• Peace Boat- Disaster Relief Volunteer Center• NARBO , Japan Water Agency- IWRM• Japan CSO Coalition

Findings from Good Practices:

• Disability is included as a cross cutting issue and make it essential for people with disability to be acknowledged and to be included as proactive participants towards DRR policy and frameworks post 2015 in HFA 2.

• Involvement and participation of the people with disabilities in Disaster Management Committees with other stakeholders.

• Developing digital database of the vulnerable and marginalized communities.

• Cross sectoral integration of DRR in development is important.

• Child Centered Curriculum on DRR has led to favorable policies & improving school facilities.

• Training of communities and volunteers for relief and recovery efforts.

Strengthening Local Level Action; Enabling factors

• Institutional Capacities: The capacities of local administration are very low and the inadequate capacities become starker when DRR issues need to be addressed. Strategies for improving local capacities through technical assistance, training, exposure programmes and civil society interfaces.

• Inclusion: All relevant stakeholders across the local community and social sectors, inclusive of most vulnerable & marginalized are included DRR process

• Volunteer networks: Invest in volunteers and their capacities and proactively engage with them to assist affected communities and involve them in DRR

• Resource/ Fund Allocation (Budgets): Incorporate finances for DRR across all the areas of local budget rather than concentrating DRR as a separate fund.

People’s/ Local Participation: Clear Strategy to ensure people’s engagement. Local level participatory action plan needs to be facilitated to enable an effective environment for DRR.

Accountability & Transparency: Roles & responsibilities of decision makers at all levels. Clear DRR legislations need to be framed at local levels and a robust audit mechanisms, performance indicators need to be in place.

Convergence, Partnerships and linkages: Need to converge and mainstream CCA, SD and DRR policies into local level operational plans. All interest groups at the local level need to come together for building capacities for DRR through a integrated framework.

Communication & Advocacy: An effective communication & advocacy strategy is necessary for institutionalizing & mainstreaming DRR approach in local plans and National Development Agendas

Enhanced Monitoring Systems: Need for integrating indicators of local level action with Sustainable development goals.

HFA2 organized in four indicator families :

Disaster Loss and Damage metrics

Country’s management of underlying risk drivers and

linkages to MDGs and UNFCC

Effective public policies by countries in favour of prospective

and anticipatory risk management , corrective , risk management and

resilience strengthening

Resilience of country’s economy to probable

losses

Indicators for Local Level Action are integrated in the Sustainable Development goals

Sustainable Development Goals: • Move from reducing to ending extreme poverty, in all its forms. • Put Sustainable Development at the Core.• Transform Economies for Jobs and Inclusive Growth. • Build Peace and Effective, Open and Accountable Institutions for All. • Forge a New Global Partnership.

Towards an Integrated and Sustainable Habitat – A Convergence Framework:

The post‐2015 framework for disaster risk reduction cannot be considered as a stand‐alone, technical and sector specific agreement.

Proposed Indicators :

1

Disaster loss and damage indicators

– Availability of system to record loss and damage at local level and frequency for recording data

– Linkages with national and local loss and damage assessment – Destruction of informal market places – Decline in indigenous knowledge – Loss of livelihood – Level of innovations for risk reduction

2Risk and resilience indicators

– Primary occupation of communities and probability of losses after disaster – Social security and social cohesion among the communities – Availability of contingency mechanism in terms of food grain storage– Probability of extensive risk in the area – Presence of multi stakeholder forum in the area – Active and informed citizen group presence in the area – Availability of resources to local governments

3

Underlying risk driver indicators – Culture of savings in local communities – Literacy rate in local areas – Number of children, older people and women in the area – Number of poor people in the area – Accountability mechanism at local government level – Strict implementation of building codes – Level of corruption at local level – Awareness level about various risks – Strong last mile system of early warning

4Disaster risk management policy indicators

– Autonomy for local level disaster risk management within national law – Availability of resources at local level for disaster risk reduction – Inclusion of disaster risk reduction within development works at local level – Acknowledgment of indigenous know how within various standards at the local

level

– Sufficient capacity and know how available at local level

Next Steps:

1. Completion of Background Paper

2. Editorial Review

3. Following up on remaining contributions