Urban Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and resilient cities

Progress of 121 local governments

Stockholm Environment Institute March 2014

Authors: se Johannessen, Guoyi Han, Arno Rosemarin Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Visiting address: Linngatan 87D, 115 23 Stockholm, Postal address: Postbox 24218, 104 51, Stockholm, Sweden

Table of contents

Table of contents ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Objective and target audience ................................................................................................ 7

1.2 The structure of this report ........................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2. The self assessment tool and methodology .......................................................................... 8 2.1 The self assessment tool ............................................................................................................... 8 Chapter .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3. Overall progress of the ten Essentials .............................................................................................. 10 3.1 Regional progress in DRR............................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 4. Specific progress by the ten Essentials ................................................................................ 12 4.1 Essential 1: Governance .............................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Essential 2: Finance ..................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Essential 3: Risk assessments ...................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Essential 4: Critical infrastructure ............................................................................................... 27 4.5 Essential 5: Schools, hospitals and health facilities..................................................................... 31 4.6 Essential 6: Land use planning & building ................................................................................... 35 4.7 Essential 7: Education and training and public awareness ......................................................... 38 4.8 Essential 8: Ecosystem management .......................................................................................... 43 4.9 Essential 9: Emergency management ......................................................................................... 47 4.10 Essential 10: Recovery and rebuilding communities ................................................................. 52 Chapter 5. Progress of reducing underlying risks .................................................................................. 56 References ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Annex 1: Additional information on methodology ............................................................................... 63 Annex 2: Scoring for all indicators ........................................................................................................ 66

Executive Summary
This study sets out to inform the post 2015 global risk agenda of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) of what enables action at the local level. It does so by analyzing local government progress in disaster risk reduction (DRR), and describing the existing trends and patterns. The focus of the analysis is the self assessment of 121 local governments that have scored their own progress on a scale of 1-5 for 41 indicators, and with some qualitative descriptions as complementary information. The result describes progress under the 10 Essentials which represent critical issues in DRR which local governments have signed up to improve. The five priorities of HFA can be mapped to these Essentials. Progress of priority four of HFA underlying risks was further compared to the other priorities and the progress recaptured to give a description of the critical issues. Overall progress by local governments is found in between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements (score 2.5 out of 5). Best progress is found in: governance capacity and the preparation of risk assessments, although the differences with other indicators are not substantial. Least progress is found in several of the indicators connected to the Essential area of Finance (2 out of 5 or incomplete achievements). Regional progress for all Essentials is higher in Europe, Americas and South East Asia, while Africa, Middle East, and South and Central Asia have progress below average.

Progress of the ten Essentials Essential 1: Governance most progress (score 2.6 out of 5) - Local governments are scoring relatively high on governance capacity for DRR. This indicates that a good basis is forming for local DRR as implementation of institutional and administrative framework has shown to be fundamental for successful implementation of other areas of DRR, such as finance and resources and risk assessments. Essential 2: Finance least progress (score 2 out of 5) - The majority of local governments are reporting low on Finance. Although there may be some resources available, the allocation of the resources is less satisfactory. There is an overall lack of micro finance mechanisms which target vulnerable people pre and post disaster. There is a big gap on economic incentives and support to business. This implies that the focus on private sector involvement and especially the insurance sector and socio-economic support is critical for future progress in DRR. Essential 3: Risk assessments good progress (score 2.6 out of 5) - Local governments are doing well on risk assessments for key vulnerable development sectors. However, they are doing well in the technocratic sense where assessments focus on the hazards and physical vulnerability, but not on the socio-economic, cultural and educational aspects of vulnerability. More focus on such aspects in 4

future disaster risk assessments would be desirable to address underlying risks. A less progressive area is how DRR assessments is be incorporated into all relevant local development planning on a consistent basis. This raises the question of how to prioritize DRR in competition with other development priorities, once risks have been assessed. Risk mapping may be outdated, which creates a false sense of security in areas with rapid urbanization. The way local governments link up to other neighboring local governments for risk assessments or management plans is also progressing. However, it is not clear what the governments find is most useful topic of collaboration, and what added value they see on a short to long term basis of this. Essential 4: Critical Infrastructure (score 2.4 out of 5) - Very few local governments report substantial or comprehensive achievements in Risk sensitized land use planning (score 2) which may be a sign that this is a difficult area of work in general for all countries. The DRR budgets seem heavily dominated by infrastructure posts and there is less mention of design principles in planning and construction; including buffer capacity, safe fail and to live with water. One challenge is that while post disaster situations can be an opportunity to invest in such design, the time limit for fund spending and material procurement is often very short, and can result in hasty and less optimal processes. It will be increasingly important that DRR considerations (and budgets) get incorporated into development planning through e.g. environmental impact assessments, monitoring and enforcement etc. Essential 5: Schools, hospitals and health facilities (score 2.5 out of 5) Progress is overall reported as incomplete achievements, such as implementing the all hazard approach, and some areas are with lower progress, such as carrying out regular drills. Many schools are upgraded after learning from previous incidents, often used as shelters. In many places schools, hospitals and health facilities have been rebuilt to cope with extreme events. Drills and assessments are carried out, but in some places it is unclear how effective these precautions are. Sometimes risk assessments are not enforced and drills will not prepare for the emergency situation. Essential 6: Urban planning and building good progress (score 2.6 out of 5) - Local governments report more progress in strength of regulations (3 out of 5 ) compared to the enforcement of them across all development zones and building types (2 out of 5). The interpretation of this is that progress in strong regulations does not mean that they are being well enforced. The issue of land use planning and building and the integration of DRR have been raised by many in a recent survey conducted by UNISDR as one of the top priorities for the future. Essential 7: Awareness, education and training (score 2.5 out of 5) This area is progressing in between incomplete and not substantial achievements. There are indications that schools and community awareness have been a successful ways of conveying the DRR message, but that other groups are less easy to target, such as local officials and community leaders. It is also more difficult to create awareness of drills with citizens. Essential 8: Ecosystem management (score 2.5 out of 5) - Many cities recognize that maintenance of ecosystem services, often as part of urban land use planning and building (Essential 6), help building resilience to hazard impacts. However the awareness of ecosystem services and their role is very limited. Much of the DRR activities require the engagement of sectors that have the relevant environmental expertise and political interest to ensure adequate cross-sectoral coordination, including civil society. The private sector engagement in participation in implementation of environmental systems management is scoring the lowest of the indicators of this Essential, however this is also an area which displays optimism for future initiatives. 5

Essential 9: Emergency management (score 2.5 out of 5) Many times the resources for effective disaster response are still perceived as incomplete. Instead resources are often pulled together through pooling, e.g. cross-sectoral cooperation and joint funding sources. About 17% of local governments seem to have an emergency operations center and communications system fully operational. Emergency management in the form of emergency supplies, emergency shelters, identifying evacuation routes and contingency plans is standing out as progressing above average. Essential 10: Recovery and rebuilding (score 2.3 out of 5) - The goal to build back better and to equip vulnerable populations to build resilience is often at odds with the urgent need for immediate shelter in the aftermath of a disaster. Many local governments are lacking planning for recovery and rebuilding in their contingency plan (64% score minor and incomplete achievements i.e. between 1-2). Some local governments mention that the risks are not high enough to grant such preparedness, and a disaster is considered unlikely. The local governments from the Middle East have the lowest score of all for Recovery and rebuilding but the data is not sufficient to provide an answer for that. Underlying risks - A bundle of indicators across the essentials are characterized as underlying risks (Priority 4 of HFA). Underlying risks include aspects of socio-economic development, land use (environmental, urban planning, and food security, transport, energy etc) regulation, planning and enforcement, critical infrastructure (schools and hospitals) and building back better. The difference in average progress of all Priorities and the average progress for Priority 4 is about 3% which shows that it is lagging behind, which is consistent with the situation at the national level. This implies that underlying risks need to be especially promoted and integrated across sectors in the post 2015 agenda as a means to reduce disaster risk. However, underlying risks is often embedded in other schemes which make it difficult to assess how DRR is being addressed, and it may not be reflected adequately by the self assessments. The lagging behind can also be explained by the fact that many of the lowest scoring indicators from the finance Essential are included here.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) refers to systematic efforts to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness (UNISDR 2007). Natural hazards do not by themselves lead to disasters. Extreme rainfall, floods and earthquakes translate to disasters only to the extent which human society is unprepared for them; when infrastructure and planning has not been designed to withstand or buffer against them, and if society cannot respond adequately. Human action or inaction therefore determines the level of robustness or resilience of human society to the impact of natural hazards. Local action is fundamental to successfully reducing disaster risk. Local governments are the last mile authorities where ultimately the decisions and enforcements for implementation of risk reduction policies are made (UNISDR 2013c). Local governments are many times in charge of critical development functions to reduce disaster risks, such as land use planning, urban development planning, public works, construction safety and licensing, social services and responding to the need of the poor and the under privileged and implementation and strengthening of the decentralization process 6

(UNISDR 2012). DRR is especially enabled by well-capacitated local governments where the community is engaged and has ownership of the resilience-building efforts (UNISDR 2013b). For example, local authorities involving themselves in a range of different activities and projects are seen as a way to trigger local action. However, in the opposite case, there can also be a widespread reluctance from local decision makers to take responsibility or act, unless there is a problem or crisis. Investments in DRR do not necessarily show immediate results and that could be a reason for lack in political interest (UNISDR 2013c). The imperative to address urban disaster risk is growing. In 2011 more than half of the population in the world live in cities and is projected to reach 70 % in 2030. To address urban risk issues the UNISDR campaign My city is getting ready (hereafter referred to as the Resilient City campaign 1) was launched in Bonn in May 2010. The Resilient City campaign aims to achieve resilient, sustainable urban communities through actions taken by local governments 2 to reduce disaster risk, mainly focusing around: 1) Know More 2) Invest Wisely 3) Build More Safely. The local governments sign up for different reasons. Not dealing with risks properly can be a political risk, which politicians are painfully aware of, for example seen by the recent resignation of the Japanese Prime Minister as a result of the Fukushima nuclear and tsunami disaster. The campaign offers a way for Mayors and their councils to show leadership to save lives and property, protect environment, and work on climate change adaptation and sustainable development in practice. There are also opportunities for highvisibility through media events and communication tools, and attracting business and investment to a safe city. Signing up is also a way to access a network of knowledge and partners, getting invited to policy dialogues, learning workshops, and other campaign-related events at the global and regional level. The network consists of local governments and partners with technical expertise, training centres/academia, city-to city cooperation, learning and tools. Partners are encouraged to join to support local governments, such as global regional and national ISDR partners (e.g. National Platforms), urban/local partners (National Associations of Local Governments), to support technical needs and provide training and learning1.

1.1 Objective and target audience

This study was commissioned by UNISDR and was co-funded and developed in collaboration with SEI. It sets out to analyze some of these cities or local governments progress in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), and looks at the current status at local level, and if there are any trends and patterns. One factor in particular focus is the progress of addressing underlying risks. This study builds on previous qualitative evaluations of the campaign (UNISDR 2012) and is part of an ongoing effort led by UNISDR to understand what enables DRR at local level. The conclusions coming from the analysis in this report aims to inform the process forward, including the continued Resilient Campaign, targeting local governments, as well as to inform the future development of the global agenda for DRR activities post 2015, referred to as Hyogo Framework for Action 2 (HFA2). The audience of this report is UNISDR, partners in the campaign, persons working to develop the HFA2 and the post 2015 agenda in general, local governments and their partners and associated research or implementing organizations
1
2

www.unisdr.org/campaign The local assessments analyzed in this report are not only from cities but from local governments, so we will refer to local governments instead of cities when this is more appropriate.

etc. In a first instance a summary of the findings was be presented at the UNISDR Global Platform for DRR in May 2013 to local government leaders, and the results will also feed into a larger study on local DRR which will be pursued by UNISDR and published in time for the next Global Platform in 2015.

1.2 The structure of this report

After this introduction the methodology of the analysis is described in Chapter 2, then in Chapter 3 the results is presented starting with overall progress, and regional differences. Chapter 4 lays out the details about the progress of each Essential. In Chapter 5 the overall progress of underlying risks (HFA Priority 4) is described. In Chapter 5 the conclusions are presented. The appendixes describe the detailed results of the analysis of the self assessments and some more detail from the methodology.

Chapter 2. The self assessment tool and methodology

2.1 The self assessment tool
Based on the five priorities of the global action plan for DRR, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), a ten-point checklist was developed called the ten Essentials, which local governments commit to implement when they become part of the campaign. See box 1 below for a complete overview of the ten Essentials. To understand how the local governments are progressing according to the Essentials, a self assessment tool was developed with 41 progress indicators. The indicators were developed in a consultative process between UNISDR, governments and other stakeholders. Each indicator can score 1-5 to describe progress towards DRR: Score 1: Minor achievements few signs of planning or forward actions Score 2: Incomplete achievements achievements are incomplete and there are signs of improvements but limited commitment and capacities Score 3: Not substantial achievements some institutional commitment and capacities for achieving DRR Score 4: Substantial achievements there are some deficiencies in commitment Score 5: Comprehensive achievements sustained commitments and capacities

The self-assessment tool is aimed to serve as a reference and starting point for managers, planners, engineers, architects and economists at local governments. The self-assessment tool has been helpful to understand and recognize for example priority areas for action (UNISDR 2012). When local governments report on progress (online or manually) they can use the HFA as a base or the ten Essentials, which are mapped against the same 41 indicators3. In this way the results can be described from the point of view of HFA or the ten Essentials (UNISDR 2013).

2.2 Methodology

The indicators are referred to in terms of their Essential, for example 1.1 is the first indicator under Essential 1.

This study is an analysis of data from self assessments of 121 local governments. 121 was the number of available self assessments at the time of analysis, available online at the LGSAT website. These self assessments contain data from the 41 indicators (scores 1 to 5), which mark the level of progress in DRR. These indicators can either be sorted as part of the 10 Essentials or the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). The descriptions which also form part of the LGSATs have been a qualitative source of information for this report, complementing the numeric data with examples to illustrate a point. Not all cities have contributed with lengthy descriptions, and therefore some local governments may be overrepresented in the examples. Numeric data was also obtained from the National HFA self assessments to analyze progress in Priority 4. The scores from the self assessments were inserted in a master matrix. Two values for the ten essentials as well as for each of the 41 indicators were calculated: the average and median. The average is derived from adding all values together and dividing them by the number of values. The median is the middle value if all numbers are put on a row. This comparison between average and median is useful to assess how representative the average is. If the median is larger than average, this indicates that the majority of the local governments are doing better than average. If the median is smaller than average, this indicates that the majority of the local governments are doing worse than average4. The analysis tried to find any patterns in the data. The analysis focused on: Overall progress Specific progress by Essentials (1-10) and the indicators (41) Regional differences Progress of HFA Priorities and especially Priority 4 (Underlying risk factors) for methodology see annex 1. The scoring is also presented as a pie chart showing what proportion of the local governments reported in the different scores (from 1-5). Input into the qualitative information in the study has also come from literature review, aimed to give context to some of the results, including UNISDR consultations, dialogues and surveys and synthesis reports. These were carried out to specifically to give feedback from local governments and cities on the post 2015 DRR framework (or HFA2).

For example, if the average age of a school class and the teacher is calculated, the average value is then not representative of the majority of the persons in the group, where instead the median will give a better idea of the age of the majority, who are the schoolchildren.

Box 1: Overview of the 10 Essentials Essential 1: Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk, based on participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role to disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Essential 2: Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses and public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. Essential 3: Maintain up-to-date data on hazards and vulnerabilities, prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions. Ensure that this information and the plans for your city's resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. Essential 4: Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. Essential 5: Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary. Essential 6: Apply and enforce realistic, risk compliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for low-income citizens and develop upgrading of informal settlements, wherever feasible. Essential 7: Ensure education programmes and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and local communities. Essential 8: Protect ecosystems and natural buffers to mitigate floods, storm surges and other hazards to which your city may be vulnerable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. Essential 9: Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills. Essential 10: After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the survivors are placed at the centre of reconstruction with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods.

Chapter 3. Overall progress of the ten Essentials

Local governments are overall assessing themselves between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements (scoring on average 2.44 out of 5). There are minor differences between progress in different areas, where the local governments are reporting relatively good progress on Governance (Essential 1 scores on average 2.63) and Data on hazards and vulnerabilities and the preparation of risk assessments (Essential 3 scores on average 2.57) and Land use planning & building (Essential 6 scores on average 2.57). The lowest score is found in the area of Financing with not more than incomplete achievements (Essential 2 scores on average 1.98 which is the result of lack of resources, but also the lack of good mechanisms to allocate the existing resources for different purposes, e.g. to vulnerable populations and business.

10

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 Overall

Figure 2: Progress of the ten Essentials (E1-E10) and overall result (Overall). The graph shows that governance (Essential 1) is progressing best together with risk assessments (Essential 3) and land use planning & building (Essential 6). The least progress is found in finance (Essential 2). Most Essentials are reporting progress in between incomplete achievements" and not substantial achievements (or 2.44 on average). Each Essential is represented by two bars, where the first bar shows the average score and the other the median score which more represents the scoring of the majority of local governments.

3.1 Regional progress in DRR

Progress on Governance (Essential 1) is high in Europe and Americas (on average 3.5 and 4 respectively); Finance (Essential 2) is lagging behind in most regions, but most significantly in relation to progress in other areas in Americas and Europe. Africa scores relatively high (3.1 on average) on Urban planning and building (Essential 6) compared to its progress in other areas. The absolutely highest score (4.2 on average) is on Risk assessments (Essential 3) in Europe. The lowest score (1.48 on average) is for Recovery and rebuilding (Essential 10) in the Middle East (see figure 3).
5 4 3 2 1 0 Africa Americas Europe Middle East South and Central Asia Southeast Asia

The Figure 3 shows the regional differences for all essentials. It is clear that progress on governance is high in Europe and Americas; finance is lagging behind in most regions, but most significantly in relation to progress in other areas in Americas and Europe. Africa scores relatively high on urban planning and building 11 highest score is on risk assessments in Europe. The compared to its progress in other areas. The absolutely lowest score is for recovery and rebuilding in the Middle East.

Chapter 4. Specific progress by the ten Essentials

The following section will present progress in the 10 Essentials and their 41 indicators.

4.1 Essential 1: Governance

Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk, based on participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role to disaster risk reduction and preparedness. General progress Most progress is on the capacity building of local organizations i.e. knowledge, experience, official mandate for climate and disaster risk reduction (indicator 1.1), where progress is not substantial achievements (score 3) for the majority of local governments. For progress on partnerships (indicator 1.2) and involvement of vulnerable populations (indicator 1.3) or participation in national DRR planning (indicator 1.4), there is lower progress or incomplete achievements by the majority of local governments (score 2 out of 5). For the indicator on national-local coordination the scoring is a little better; in between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements on average (score 2.6). See figure 4 below.

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E1.1 E1.2 E1.3 E1.4 E1.Avg

Figure 4: The figure shows the progress of the four different indicators for governance (Essential 1). Local governments score relatively well on (indicator 1.1) or not substantial achievements (score 3) for the majority (median). For all the other indicators, there is progress in between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements on average. However, for most indicators the majority of local governments are not represented by the average but a lower score.

Governance has been highlighted in previous evaluation of local government progress, as one of three most important factors for resilience building, derived from interviews of local government actors 12

(UNISDR 2012). It is a prerequisite for many of the other actions which the following Essentials describe. An interdependency analysis by Karlsson & Nilsen (2013) shows that governance, finance and risk assessments (Essentials one, two and three) serve as prerequisites for other progress in DRR. Hence, the implementation of institutional and administrative framework, finance and resources and risk assessments, are fundamental for successful implementation of other areas of DRR. For example, some of the successful local governments report that a base of good governance and financial accounting and the presence of educational excellence enable local action (LGSAT Sleman in Indonesia). Making DRR a core function of local governments (i.e. legal, capacity and financial provisions) was also raised by the recent online survey as one of the key critical areas to prioritize in future work.

Indicator 1.1 Local governance capacity How well are local organizations (including local government) equipped with capacities (knowledge, experience, official mandate) for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation? This is an area which is progressing best of all 41 indicators in the local government self assessments with "not substantial achievements" on average (score 2.8 out of 5) and by the majority (score 3 out of 5). See figure 4 and annex 2. As much as 8% of the local governments report comprehensive achievements (score 5) but also a large number (28%) report substantial achievements (score 4) see figure 5.

4 28%

5 1 8% 21% 2 23%

3 20%

Figure 5: Percentage of cities and their scoring for Essential 1.1: How well are local organizations equipped with capacities for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation? Over >50% of the cities scores their progress between 3 and 5. 8% of the cities score themselves as having comprehensive achievements (5).

Governance refers to the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Good governance includes the participation of citizen groups and civil society and private sector often through local alliances. The Regional analysis of the self assessments shows that generally in the Americas and Europe, progress is very high. The self assessment does not describe why this is so. However, some examples may give some indications, such as the Swedish city of Jnkping, which mentions that the law requirement for a detailed process to assess risks and vulnerable sectors is actually implemented in the municipality (Jnkping LGSAT). The many qualitative elements of governance capacity for DRR would benefit from further in depth study. In about 44% of the local governments carrying out a self assessment there is no sufficient capacity (knowledge, experience, official mandate) for climate and disaster risk reduction (See figure 6 below). These are local governments predominantly from Central Asia (e.g. Pakistan and some Indian local governments, and Kathmandu in Nepal) but also some local governments from Middle 13

East and Africa. Enhancing the quality of governance is also needed in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which reveal the most severe governance deficits of all countries worldwide, without which the region will neither attract investors nor achieve sustainable economic growth (OSullivan et al 2011). This reflects e.g. on both financial resource and organizational operability. For example, according to the local government law in Pakistan, 2% of the total district government budget has to be allocated for DRM activities, but it is not practiced. In Jordan, some substantial achievement is reported by establishing a DRR unit within its governmental structure. The unit has been staffed and training is in progress since 2010. However, there is some deficiency with regard to the legal framework and mandates of this unit, in order to work collectively and coordinate properly with other organizations and stakeholders (Aquaba LGSAT). An issue for those of the countries in Middle East (that have filled out the self assessments) is a high dependence on fuel and food imports generating extensive exposure to commodity price volatility. However, for Lebanon and Jordan tourism remains a sector for much opportunity. Given that these challenges are both structural and interconnected, they can be addressed only through a coordinated and comprehensive strategy that involves governments, the private sector, civil society, and the international community (OSullivan et al 2011). Such efforts clearly goes beyond the mandate of a DRR unit exemplified above, but remains a central challenge to a comprehensive effort to address DRR in these and other countries.

Governance capacity per region (indicator 1.1)

5 4 3 2 1 0 Africa Americas Central Asia Europ Middle East South East Asia 1.9 2.0 3.8 3.0 4.5 3.5

Figure 6: The figure shows progress per regions for governance capacity (indicator 1.1). Europe scores 4.5, Americas just under 4, South East Asia 3.5, Middle East scores 3, Central Asia and Africa scores about 2 (out of a comprehensive score of 5).

However, progress in governance can also be driven from the local level, where for example West Sumatras health sector contingency plans have been used as example at the national level (West Sumatra LGSAT). In Pakistan, The District Sialkot scores relatively well compared to the other local governments (on indicator 1-1) which could be explained that it is the first District of the Province to produce a District Risk Management Plan5 (Sialkot LGSAT, UN Habitat 2012).

Disaster Risk Management is encompassing several aspects inclusive of Disaster Risk Reduction, Response and Recovery aspects. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is referred to in terms of prevention, mitigation and preparedness ideally in place before a disaster.

14

Indicator 1.2 Partnerships To what extent do partnerships exist between communities, private sector and local government to reduce risk? For progress on partnerships there is incomplete achievements for the majority (score 2 out of 5) and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.66), see figure 4. The proportion of comprehensive achievements (score 5) is almost the same as previous indicator, but less governments report substantial achievements (18% score 4) and more local governments report incomplete achievements (score 2) see figure 7. Some local governments report that community empowerment, facilitated by local leaders, has created a strong and active civil society, where female volunteers and community participation has an important role. Seen as politically independent, community organizations are seen to be better able to deliver key services on the ground (LGSAT Sleman in Indonesia; LGSAT Petra in Jordan). Cape Town reports that partnerships are key to reducing risk and building resilience between communities, private sector and local government (LGSAT Cape Town, South Africa). In Johannesburg they have encouraged a broader stakeholder engagement through establishing a standing Stakeholder Working Group. This was done with representatives from private and public sector institutions within the inner city. In such partnerships a trusting relationship was found to be very important to enable a twoway exchange of information and opinions (LGSAT Johannesburg, South Africa).

4 18%

5 1 7% 14%

3 22%

2 39%

Figure 7: Indicator 1.2: To what extent do partnerships exist between communities, private sector and local government to reduce risk? About 53% of the responses are minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and about 47% have some but not substantial to substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Different actors can contribute with their specific capacities, for example, collaboration with universities has lead to the integration of DRR into the curriculum in Padang (LGSAT Padang in Indonesia). Collaboration has also lead to more integrated outcomes. For example in Aquaba (LGSAT Aquaba, Jordan), guided by a DRR master plan, multi-stakeholder and interagency committees with members from all the utilities companies and civil defense, carry out more integrated review of all infrastructure plans and projects. Stakeholder involvement and progress at the community level is driven by NGOs, in some specific places, and not everywhere by local government, which means that all citizens do not benefit from the support as it is not evenly distributed (LGSAT Bantul in Indonesia). In many cases there is reported insufficient private sector participation in DRR forums (e.g. LGSAT West Sumatra in Indonesia) where the private sector has not prioritized DRR (LGSAT Padang, Indonesia). However, in some places there is good engagement by private sector, for example in Macae (LGSAT Macae, Brazil).

15

Indicator 1.3 Vulnerable people How much does the local government support vulnerable local communities (particularly women, elderly, infirmed, children) to actively participate in risk reduction decisionmaking, policy making, planning and implementation processes? For progress on involvement of vulnerable populations there is incomplete achievements by the majority (score 2 out of 5) and in between incomplete and not substantial achievements on average (score 2.46), see figure 4. Compared to previous indices there is now a considerable increase in responses reporting minor achievements (score 1), see figure 8, which indicates that 28% of local governments identify serious gaps in this area. In addition to partnerships, specific projects have identified the need to reduce risk amongst the more vulnerable sectors within society such as the aged, children, the infirm or compromised by health (LGSAT Cape Town, South Africa). This can include making inventory of the needs of children (under the age of five), women, and the elderly (LGSAT Sleman in Indonesia). In the same vein, there are programs for women empowerment, however in some local governments womens active participation and decision making has been only minimal due to cultural factors in the society, and their involvement has been limited to their attendance in meetings but they have not been active in expressing their opinions. The disaster-related programs of the private sector are mostly in the form of emergency response and not disaster risk reduction (LGSAT Yogjakarta in Indonesia). Even in local governments that do report some progress, funding is still a constraint, facilities and infrastructures are still inadequate and human resources are not in accordance with the needs. A reason is perhaps that in many places disaster management are not being treated as priorities (LGSAT Padang in Indonesia). One way to overcome that in Johannesburg has been to point to the critical importance of the city to the ongoing daily functioning of the national economy (LGSAT Johannesburg in South Africa).
5 7% 4 16% 3 20% 1 28%

2 29%

Figure 8: Indicator 1.3: How much does the local government support vulnerable local communities (particularly women, elderly, infirmed, children) to actively participate in risk reduction decisionmaking, policy making, planning and implementation processes? About 57% of the cities report minor or incomplete achievements (1-2). About 43% of the cities report some but not substantial to substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 1.4 National-Local coordination To what extent does the local government participate in the national DRR planning? For progress on participation in national DRR planning, there is progress in between incomplete and not substantial achievements on average (score 2.60) and by the majority (score 2.50), see figure 4. While some local governments report minor achievements (29% of governments score 1) the same proportion report substantial achievements (25% score 4) see figure 9).

16

This combination of high and low progress is reflected in the qualitative assessments as well. Progressive local governments, for example Thimpu (LGSAT Thimpu, Bhutan) reports that the small disaster management focal office works in consultation with the Department of Disaster Management under the Central Government. For Macae (LGSAT Macae, Brazil) this link is described in only terms of Local Civil Defense following the national guidelines on planning processes. On the other end of the scale, almost all the cities in Pakistan, municipal authorities and communities report that they are not even involved in national risk reduction decision making, policy making, planning or implementation (UN Habitat 2012).

4 25%

5 7%

1 29%

Figure 9: Indicator 1.4: To what extent does the local government participate in the national DRR planning? About 50% of the responses are minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 50% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

3 18%

2 21%

4.2 Essential 2: Finance

Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses and public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. General progress Financial progress is on average incomplete achievements (score 1.7 out of 5) with signs of improvements but with limited commitment and capacities. See figure 10. The majority of local governments score even less than the average which means that some local governments drive up the average (score 1.5). Indicator 2.1 is the highest scoring indicator in this Essential which tells us that there is some level of access to resources for DRR, in many local governments or incomplete achievements (scores 2.37 on average), although the allocation of these resources scores lower (2.04 on average) similar to providing financial services both before and after disasters (such as micro insurance illustrated by indicator 2.3 and 2.4). The biggest gap seems to be on economic incentives for households and businesses (indicator 2.5 scores 1.68 on average) as well as support from business associations to small enterprises during and after disasters (indicator 2.6 scores 1.78 on average). Looking at the progress for the majority of local governments for these two indicators the score is the lowest possible (score 1 out of 5). Given this result, the area of finance seems to be the most critical of all Essentials to address, a conclusion which is supported by a previous evaluation of the resilient city campaign (UNISDR 2012). The online survey also concluded that financial provisions need to be made a core function of local governments along with an appropriate legal framework and capacity (UNISDR 2013e).

17

Average Score 5 4 3 2 1 0 E2.1 E2.2 E2.3 E2.4

MEDIAN Score

E2.5

E2.6

E2.Avg

Figure 10: The figure shows the progress of the six different indicators for finance (Essential 2). General progress is very low (on average 1.7). Local governments score best on indicator 2.1 with incomplete achievements (score 2.37). For all the other indicators, there is less progress. Lowest scores are for indicators on economic incentives (2.5) and support to business (2.6), where the majority report minor achievements (score 1 out of 5).

Indicator 2.1 Access to resources How far does the local government have access to adequate financial resources to carry out risk reduction activities? There seems to be some level of access to resources for DRR in many local governments as they report on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievement (score 2.37 out of 5). For the majority of local governments there is however incomplete achievements (score 2), see figure 10, which means that a few local governments drive up the average. Several participants in the online dialogue stated that lack of financial resources at local level is a major cause for ineffective DRR implementation. The lack of adequate financial resources in the local government to carry out the activities related with risk reduction is explained for example in Kathmandu by the low priority which disaster risk reduction activities have had in the past. The low prioritization has consequently created insufficient allocations in the budget. However, due to increase of awareness of the importance of the issue, more funding will be allocated in the future budget for the Disaster Management Department which is to be created within Kathmandu Metropolitan City (LGSAT Kathmandu). This shows the critical role of local commitment and prioritization. In the online dialogue it was suggested that rather than providing 100% requested funds, national authority (and donors) should instead ask local governments to contribute a portion of the desired amount from their accounts (by including an element of risk reduction and resilience public works, transport, landuse/building permits, emergency management which are funded under existing service lines). This would ensure the necessary level of commitment, accountability and sustainability (UNISDR 2013c). But not only resources seem to matter, as for example in Quezon City, The Philippines, a challenge is that the smallest unit of governance at local level (called the barangay) seems to have inadequate 18

knowledge on how to access the available funds (LGSAT Quezon City). Other challenges reported are limited human resources which create difficulties in program implementation (LGSAT West Sumatra).
5 4% 4 18% 3 18% 2 32% 1 28%

Figure 11: Indicator 2.1 How far does the local government have access to adequate financial resources to carry out risk reduction activities? About 60% of the responses report minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 40% report some but not substantial substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 2.2 Allocating budgets To what degree does the local government allocate sufficient financial resources to carry out DRR activities, including effective disaster response and recovery? For progress on this indicator there are incomplete achievements by the majority (score 2 out of 5), and on average (score 2.04), see figure 10. Compared to access to resources (indicator 2.1) there is an increase of the local governments reporting minor achievements (score 1), and reduction in local governments reporting incomplete achievements (score 2) see figure 11 and 12. This indicates that allocating budgets is more difficult than having access to the resources. According to the local government regulations in Pakistan a certain percentage of the total district government budget has to be allocated for DRM activities, but a challenge is that it is not practiced (UN Habitat 2012). How budget allocations are distributed is done through a diversity of models, where the most common is to have a municipal control of the distribution (UNISDR 2012). Most local governments in this sample seemed to have an allocated fund for DRR programmes, but how they are being used is another matter. For example, in Makati as much as 5% of their total revenue is earmarked for DRR, where thirty percent (30%) of this is allocated for quick response while the remaining 70% is allocated for disaster preparedness (LGSAT Makati, The Philippines). Indicator 2.3 Financial services What is the scope of financial services (e.g. saving and credit schemes, macro and microinsurance) available to vulnerable and marginalized households for predisaster times? For progress on financial services, local governments report incomplete achievements on average (score 1.86) and by the majority (score 2), see figure 10. Almost half of the local governments report minor achievements (score 1) see figure 13, which displays an alarming low level of service for the most vulnerable in these local governments. In many high income countries, a healthy domestic insurance market is a conduit into the international reinsurance market, allowing countries to tap into a pool of over US$400 billion of capital to aid recovery in the aftermath of a disaster. However, weak non-life insurance penetration in most developing countries, particularly low-income countries, means that private insurers shoulder little to none of the losses in terms of a disaster. One explanation why Chile proved to be resilient in face of 19

the February 2010 earthquake was that domestic carriers passed on 95 percent of the insured losses to the international reinsurance market. The fraction of insured losses coming from the reinsurance market over the last ten years is around 35 percent (World Bank 2011). Many local governments mention the importance of having the presence of a multitude of funding sources at their disposal to individuals and communities including from local businesses (LGSAT from Municipio de Pasto in Colombia; Dagupan in India; Sleman in Indonesia; and Tevragh Zeina in Mauretania). However, a challenge is that even though there may be extensive resources there needs to be adequate knowledge on how to access these funds. For example in Quezon City there are departments that were created for the purpose of providing services for the marginalized, especially victims of calamities/disasters. However, information on the micro insurance and other financial services offered by the local government still has to be disseminated further to local communities (LGSAT of Quezon City in The Philippines).

4 5 6% 3% 3 14% 2 31% 1 46%

Figure 13: Indicator 2.3 What is the scope of financial services (e.g. saving and credit schemes, macro and microinsurance) available to vulnerable and marginalized households for predisaster times? Essential 2-3: 77% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 23% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 2.4 Microfinance To what extent are micro finance, cash aid, soft loans, loan guarantees etc available to affected households after disasters to restart livelihoods? For this indicator local governments report incomplete achievements for the average and majority (both score 2), see figure 10, which is also illustrated by the large proportion (36%) of local governments that report with this score, see figure 14. It is clear that the there is an overall lack of microfinance mechanisms which target vulnerable people pre and post disaster. Comparing the pre disaster (indicator 2.3 which scores 1.86) and post disaster indicator (this indicator, which scores 2) it shows that although both are inadequate, there is more progress on average for the support available after a disaster than compared to before a disaster. Cash aid or soft loans can often be provided to people in need, including the elderly and the disabled by an emergency fund. However, after a great disaster these means may not be enough. For example, after the tsunami disaster in 2004 the emergency aid relief did not reach all eligible recipients in Patong, Thailand due to (among other things) insufficient amounts available to cover the amount of eligible claims (Larsen et al 2011). Since then, the availability of funds has increased; and now 1.41% of total expenditure of the municipal budget is assigned for disaster prevention, and the municipality is reporting relatively good progress in the self assessments (LGSAT Patong, Thailand 2013).

20

In light of expected increasing extreme events, it will be more important to further develop pre and post disaster support. There are however many challenges in developing this field as institutional empowerment and investment in micro financial services are needed. Local and international partners, needs to be enlisted, and experienced actors involved (such as established microfinance networks) and attracting additional capital from other investors (IADB 2013). Additional challenges exist in creating financial support programs for people who are part of the informal sectors. Limited access to information has led to hideous practices of financial services that have disadvantaged vulnerable groups (LGSAT Indonesia). Also, an important challenge is the issue of trust. For example, Pakistan reports that banks do not provide loans to low income families to invest in DRR, due to a lack of trust with the low income segment of society (UN Habitat 2012). In post-disaster environments, Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) can serve as a critical and immediate vehicle to provide much needed financing for community members to repair damage to businesses, homes, and family assets, as well as deal with injury and trauma to family members. This will allow disaster-affected MFI clients to access much-needed savings during that critical period, while enabling the MFI to expand lending in its community to support recovery efforts. As the short-term deposits are repaid after the crisis passes, they will form a long-term emergency liquidity facility for supporting MFIs following subsequent disasters. Among the countries scoring very low on this particular indicator there are ongoing efforts to improve. For example, Mercy Corps has worked in Indonesia (Jakarta; Yogyakarta, Central Java; and Padang, West Sumatra) following the Yogyakarta earthquake in 2006 to help key MFIs prepare for emergencies and provide stabilizing liquidity and product support immediately after disasters strike. Plans for the future include creating insurance programs for people working in informal sectors and to make government regulations for micro financial services for the vulnerable and to create insurance schemes for the public in time of disasters. However, there is still a long way to go before progress in this area can be noted (LGSAT for West Sumatra in Indonesia). In the Americas, Argentina and Jamaica are among some of the frontier markets where microfinance is least developed and where financial institutions are reaching less than 20 percent of the potential market for microfinance services (IADB 2013).

5 2% 3 17% 4 7% 1 38%

2 36%

Figure 14: Indicator 2.4: To what extent are micro finance, cash aid, soft loans, loan guarantees etc available to affected households after disasters to restart livelihoods? 74% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 26% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 2.5 Economic incentives for investing in DRR How well established are economic incentives for investing in DRR for households and businesses (e.g. reduced insurance premiums for households, tax holidays for businesses)?

21

For this indicator the majority of local governments report minor achievements (score 1 out of 5) and the average report in between minor and incomplete achievements (score 1.68), see figure 10. There are a very large proportion of local governments scoring minor achievements (54% score 1) see figure 15. There are indications that this area of DRR has not been addressed in some countries although there are resources and capacity to do so. For example, Gothenburg in Sweden has assessed their progress as 1 out of 5. The confusion is perhaps that an already existing social security system may cover this aspect. Or alternatively, this indicator has managed to point to a gap which is prevalent across very different contexts. It would be interesting to hear more on how the different local governments have been thinking when they assessed themselves on this indicator.
4 5 5% 1% 3 10% 1 54%

2 30%

Figure 15: Indicator 2.5 How well established are economic incentives for investing in DRR for households and businesses (e.g. reduced insurance premiums for households, tax holidays for businesses)? 84% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 16% are some but not substantial substantial to comprehensive achievements (34-5.)

Indicator 2.6 Support to business continuity To what extent do local business associations, such as chambers of commerce, support efforts of small enterprises for business continuity during and after disasters? For this indicator there is minor achievements by the majority of local governments (score 1 out of 5) and on average in between minor and incomplete achievements (score 1.78) see figure 10. Here, the proportion of local governments reporting minor achievements is also large (55%), see figure 16. Support to business is mentioned in some local government reports as a way to enable local action (LGSAT from Petra in Jordan; Sleman in Indonesia), and to raise private interest to invest (LGSAT of Tevragh Zeina in Mauretania). One local government reports that ensuring business continuity during a disaster, where business support DRR joint actions and encourages a risk culture, creates jobs and contributes to sustainable development (LGSAT Santa Fe in Argentina). In one instance, coordination with the private sector and the banking sector has provided waivers of loans for disaster-affected people and assistance for livelihood activities (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia). Another local government mentions that agreements between the district government and small business associations can contribute to the sustainability of small businesses (LGSAT Padang in Indonesia). Networks can also play a supportive role. The Mayor of Chacao has created the "business of the Chacao Municipality Network," to strengthen the work of the municipality and serve well as supporting body in case of any adverse event (LGSAT Chacao, Venezuela). After the Tsunami in 2004, the Patong Municipality gave incentives to the business sector. At the same time, experience shows that it is

22

important to make sure that all types of businesses are covered by such a scheme, for example Patongs tourism sector was less favored above other more traditional livelihoods (Larsson et al 2011).

4 4% 3 17% 2 22%

5 2%

1 55%

Figure 16: Indicator 2.6: To what extent do local business associations, such as chambers of commerce, support efforts of small enterprises for business continuity during and after disasters? 77% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 23% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Transparency Although some local governments report good progress, transparency and corruption is unfortunately an important factor to be addressed. This has not been evident from the self assessments, which mostly do not mention transparency issues. For example in terms of the emergency aid relief (such as cash aid or soft loans) it is still unclear how these mechanisms will be free from corruption and nepotism which has misappropriated the available funds in the past. In the case of the Patong Municipality on Phuket's west coast in Thailand that was hit by the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, one study reveals that a portion of the aid was being routinely and illegally absorbed by those responsible for distributing the money, namely village elders, and did not benefit the most vulnerable (Larsen et al 2011). However, this was not mentioned as an issue in the self assessment of Patong. Another form of corruption/lack of transparency is favoritism, i.e. tendency to provide preferential treatment to friends and relatives. In the MENA countries, favoritism is often referred to by the Arabic word wasta, which means relation or connection. A study by Loewe and others in Jordan (2007), show that the widespread use of wasta adversely affects the business climate by making state-business relations inefficient and unfair. For Jordan, it has been recommended to make the fight against favoritism a top priority on their agenda. Although people associate wasta partly with tradition, there are many negative consequences for the public interest (Loewe et al 2007). In general the crisis of governance and trust in regions like the Middle East and North Africa, comes from when businesses do not trust officials, and officials do not trust businesses. Business managers in the whole region rank corruption, anticompetitive practices and regulatory policy uncertainty high on their list of concerns. And the same goes for public officials who perceive the private sector as rent seeking and corrupt. Banks cite lack of corporate transparency as among the main obstacles to extending more nance to small and medium-size enterprises (World Bank 2013). The implications of this for DRR are not entirely clear, but they are surely having a profound reduction of the effectiveness of public-private efforts. It is therefore clear that issues of transparency need to be openly addressed in the process of reducing disaster risks.

23

4.3 Essential 3: Risk assessments

Maintain uptodate data on hazards and vulnerabilities, prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions. Ensure that this information and the plans for your city's resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. General progress Along with governance and financial capacity, risk assessments are progressing relatively well in between "incomplete achievements" and "not substantial achievements" (score 2.54). Particularly well is progress on how the local government conducts thorough disaster risk assessments for key vulnerable development sectors (for Indicator 3.1 the majority score 3) and communicates about local hazard trends and risk reduction measures regularly to the community (Indicator 3.3 scores 2.68 on average). Although progress is evident, there seems to be a need to improve further, which was raised as a caution by the online dialogue, because not enough local governments currently take risk sensitive decisions. This is to a certain extent caused by a lack of information and/or understanding of the issues. Conducting risk assessment is best applied as a precursor for any DRR related decision, which in most of the urban local governments is not yet a priority (UNISDR 2013c).
Average Score 5 MEDIAN Score

1 E3.1 E3.2 E3.3 E3.4 E3.5 E3.Avg

Figure 17: The figure shows the progress of the five different indicators for risk assessments (Essential 3). For all the indicators, progress lies in between "incomplete achievements" and "not substantial achievements" (score 2.54 on average). The highest scoring indicator is about risk assessments (indicator 3.1) where the majority of local governments report "not substantial achievements" (score 3 out of 5).

24

5 8% 4 27% 3 21% 1 22% 2 22%

Figure 18: Scoring in indicator 3.1 : To what degree does the local government conduct thorough disaster risk assessments for vulnerable development sectors? 44% of local governments score between 1 and 2, and 46% score 3-4-5.

Indicator 3.1 Disaster risk assessments To what degree does the local government conduct thorough disaster risk assessments for key vulnerable development sectors in your local authority? There is relatively high progress in the indicator for risk assessments where the local governments report not substantial achievements (score 3 out of 5) for the majority and on average (score 2.77) see fig 17. Quite a large proportion (27%) of the local governments have reached substantial achievements (score 4); see figure 18. The progress in this area may be explained by the fact that risk assessment is a vital tool and are usually one of the first actions which a local authority undertakes with the aim to inform and strategize around DRR. Disasters can also trigger an increased interest in risk assessments. For example, in Patong (Thailand), the impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami is in strong memory which has put risk assessments high on the agenda. Tools can also be used such as vulnerability assessment software for buildings, people and infrastructure (LGSAT from Kerman in Iran). From the self assessment form it is not required to explain the scope and the approach of the risk assessment. An observation from this study is that there seems to be a tendency to focus on the hazards and physical vulnerability and the exposure and the fragility of the exposed objects and what threat it poses to the local society. This has demanded the expertise of architects, engineers, economists and planners. However, this approach is still technocratic in the sense that it focuses on the hazard and not on other conditions, including vulnerability such as social economic, cultural and educational aspects. Social scientists have started to show renewed interest in the DRR field which

25

could contribute to an improved understanding of risk (Cardona 2008). It seems important to continue to stress the importance of including social vulnerability into the disaster risk assessment processes. Indicator 3.2 Updating the risk assessments To what extent are these risk assessments regularly updated, e.g. annually or on a biannual basis? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements by a majority of local governments (score 2 out of 5) and in between incomplete and not substantial achievements on average (score 2.49), see fig 17. This means that for most local authorities the critical task of ensuring that the risk map is 'live' and continually updated is a challenge. Using outdated information as the basis for decisions in a local government is an issue in places with rapid urbanization and changing urban conditions. Having a monitoring system in place ensures updated information. For example some local governments have monitoring systems for risks (LGSAT Campinas in Brazil), and some for housing within a web based information system available to the public (LGSAT Chacao in Venezuela). Indicator 3.3 Communication How regularly does local government communicate to the community, information on local hazard trends and risk reduction measures (e.g. using a Risk Communications Plan) including early warnings of likely hazard impact? The majority of local governments report incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) and on average a bit higher towards not substantial achievements (score 2.68). See figure 17. There is a good proportion of local governments scoring fairly high or low, see figure 19, which may be a reflection of different countries challenges depending on these communities vulnerability. Some of the local governments which are doing relatively well mention the importance of collaboration with media for reports on emergencies (LGSAT Cali, and Cartago in Colombia) in written press, radio, television and Internet (social networks, online media), which keeps the community aware of the risks in the municipality (LGSAT Cartago in Colombia; Chacao in Venezuela). Furthermore local governments stress the importance of involvement of stakeholders and community members in all aspects of risk assessments (LGSAT Manchester in Jamaica). The community can be alerted of the main threats and a culture of risk prevention can be promoted. Stakeholders such as relief agencies can for example be called to monthly coordination meetings to address concerns and receive reports to prevent and mitigate risk (LGSAT Cali in Colombia).

5 9% 4 25% 3 16% 1 25% 2 25%

Figure 19: Scoring in indicator 3.4. 50% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 50% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-45) (community communication)

26

Indicator 3.4 Linking to neighboring local governments How well are local government risk assessments linked to, and supportive of, risk assessments from neighboring local government and state or provincial government risk management plans? The way local government link to other neighboring local governments in terms of risk assessments or management plans show incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) for the majority of local governments, and on average improving towards not substantial achievements(score 2.39), see figure 17. The self assessments does not provide much information on what areas the local governments find is most useful to collaborate about, and what added value they see on a short to long term basis. Collaboration between different authorities can provide much added value over the long term. For example, linking to other local governments is crucial if they are part of the same river basin and where upstream actions can cascade to become downstream flood risk (UNESCO 2009). Indicator 3.5 Integration into development planning How well are disaster risk assessments incorporated into all relevant local development planning on a consistent basis? There is incomplete achievements in integrating risk assessments into local development planning (score 2 out of 5) for the majority of local governments and in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.39) for the average local government, compared to carrying out risk assessments (indicator 3.1), see figure 17. This result shows that although there is a risk assessment done, its recommendations are not acted on in full by incorporating it consistently into development planning. This points to the challenge of convincing decision makers of the importance of DRR in competition with other development priorities. Some local governments have facilitated this by institutionalizing the integration of DRR considerations. For example, Campinas has an organized system where risk assessments, standards and instruments for implementation are an integral part of a planning process. Databases are used to inform about risks and are consequently considered in the local urban development plan (LGSAT Campinas in Brazil). In Chacao (LGSAT Chacao, Venezuela) construction companies are asked to comply with zoning based on the recommendations from seismic micro-zoning maps, to receive a building permit.

4.4 Essential 4: Critical infrastructure

Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. General progress Investment and maintenance of critical infrastructure that reduces risk has progress in all indicators on average between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2-3). The majority of local governments have a lower score than the average, reflecting that most local governments perform with incomplete achievements (score 2 ) and a few local governments drive up the average. See figure 20.

27

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E4.1 E4.2 E4.3 E4.Avg

Figure 20: The figure shows the progress of the three indicators for critical infrastructure (Essential 4). Both median and average scores are low, around incomplete achievements (score 2), while the averages are slightly higher, moving towards not substantial achievements (i.e., score 3).

Indicator 4.1: Risk sensitized land use planning How far do land use policies and planning regulations for housing and development infrastructure take current and projected disaster risk (including climate related risks) into account? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) by the majority of local governments and in between incomplete and not substantial achievements on average (score 2.54), see figure 20. Very few local governments report substantial or comprehensive achievements (21% score either 4 or 5) which may be a sign that this is a difficult area of work in general for all countries, see figure 21. The progress of risk considerations for land use policies and planning regulations for housing and developing infrastructure is difficult to interpret. Because even if a certain land use policy is performing well, its approach can make all the difference. Some argue that to build resilience; hazards need to be allowed to affect society from time to time. Through learning to deal with (adapting to) smaller disturbances, large vulnerabilities are not built behind protections and this reduces risk for catastrophic consequences over the long term. (Walker et al 2004). Multiple risks complicate the situation, where society may be well adapted to some risks but not others. The perception of what is the biggest risk plays a key role in a societys preparedness for disaster and effectiveness of the DRR in place. For example, the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan in 2011 was caused by a situation where sensitive infrastructure was considered safe behind such protections which in the end did not hold for the tsunami. This is in a country which ranks among the highest in the world on progress in risk reduction. The myth of absolute safety of nuclear installations, which had been nurtured over the years, instead became one of the vulnerabilities, leading people to believe that such an accident would never occur. While the evacuation from the tsunami can be characterized as an evacuation with warning, preparation and knowledge. Given its geological conditions, Japan has developed an advanced system of disaster prevention and coping mechanisms against earthquakes and tsunamis over the years. By contrast with the evacuation triggered by the tsunami, the evacuation from the nuclear

28

accident can be described as an evacuation without warning, preparation or knowledge (Hasegawa 2013). Using principles of buffer capacity, safe fail and to live with water puts other demands on the design principles of planning and location of critical infrastructure (Nienhuis & Leuven 2001; Vis et al 2010). For example, Sendai in Japan reported that in the future, plans for the construction of new facilities will have a larger buffer to the sea to make them (more) tsunami-proof, including construction of facilities at higher elevations relative to the height of tsunami recorded after the earthquake, and the installation of covers over the facilities (LGSAT Sendai, Japan). This is not new knowledge but a rediscovery of traditional practices. In Japan, in the hamlet of Aneyoshi, a 100 year old inscription on a stone slab was found with an appeal to the people not to build in the tsunami affected area: High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants. Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point." Hundreds of such markers dot the coastline, some more than 600 years old (Huffington Post 2011).

5 4 8% 13%

1 22%

3 27%

2 30%

Figure 21: Indicator 4.1: How far do land use policies and planning regulations for housing and developing infrastructure take current and projected disaster risk (including climate risk) into account? 52% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 48% are some but not substantial substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

The multiple risks of critical urban services, which inter-connects in a dynamic way, needs to be examined more closely. For example, damaged power utilities can trigger failure in water management systems which has in turn other cascading effects (UNISDR 2013d). Local governments that offer basic services accessible to all citizens, regardless of income, such as healthcare, education, rule of law, and environmental standards to protect health, are generally more resilient to natural hazards. Also, the extent to which infrastructure such as drainage systems and paved roads exists and is well maintained is also a measure of the local government resilience (UNISDR 2012). For example, Thimpu in Bhutan, have installed proper drainage to take care of the surface water during heavy rains as a means to resilience. In addition, they also construct river embankment to control flooding and the river running through the city (LGSAT Thimpu, Bhutan). The implementation of comprehensive land use plans and relevant national land use and development laws are critical to address this interconnectedness. For example in Dagupan (The Philippines) substantial initiatives have been undertaken in this area, although many challenges remain. The establishment of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office (CDRRMO) is one big step towards institutionalizing the efforts (LGSAT of Dagupan in The Philippines). Index 4.2 Public facilities and infrastructure How adequately are critical public facilities and infrastructure located in high risk areas assessed for all hazard risks and safety?

29

For this indicator there is incomplete achievements (score 2) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.44), see figure 20. With rapid urbanization, the development of infrastructure for DRR is central to budget expenditure. The DRR budget is also heavily dominated by infrastructure posts. For example, Indonesia, the main costs of the total budget for DRR (estimated at 0.12% of GDP in 2012) for the central government is infrastructure projects for flood control facilities (UNISDR 2012). Many countries have an infrastructure deficit, for example India, Brazil, China, Indonesia and Russia that will need to spend more on infrastructure in the near future, to support the growing economy (Mc Kinsey 2013). Given this background, it will therefore be critical that these infrastructure investments will be integrating DRR considerations; otherwise these investments may be increasing risk. An important risk which is often not assessed or factored into DRR planning is the exposure to unsanitary health risks. In local governments with unplanned environments, one problem area is the lack of safe water and sanitation. A challenge is often that these facilities can become exposed to manmade hazards from rapid urbanization, and as such transmit diseases through leakage and contamination of potable water sources. These areas can be quite extensive, for example, a flood exposure analysis in Kigali disclosed that 27% of buildings were located in flood prone areas involving vulnerable infrastructure, buildings, population and economic activities (Bizimana and Schilling 2010). Rural-urban migration and urban expansion via informal settlements on peri-urban boundaries means high and increasing exposure for such city dwellers. There are other strong drivers motivating migration to these areas (e.g. opportunity for income), as in spite of the various (health) risks, human settlements continue to develop in flood-prone areas (Gupta 1994). Patong (Indonesia) mentions the important task of maintenance of sanitation and drainage and ditches annually. This includes cleaning up and removing all waste that could clog the canals. Without such action, an area quickly gets waterlogged, contributing to contamination and transfer of disease and a very unsanitary environment (LGSAT of Patong in Indonesia).

5 7% 4 15% 3 23% 1 28%

2 27%

Figure 22: Indicator 4.2: How adequately are critical public facilities and infrastructure located in high risk areas assessed for all hazard risks and safety? 55% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 45% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 4.3 Protecting from damage during disasters How adequate are the measures that are being undertaken to protect critical public facilities and infrastructure from damage during disasters? For this indicator, there is incomplete achievements by majority of local governments (score 2 out of 5) and on average (score 2.31), see figure 20. It seems like there has been more progress in 30

assessing damage (previous indicator) rather than on introducing the measures described here (see figure 22 & 23). In the assessments, the mention of measures to protect facilities and infrastructure is often on a response basis when critical infrastructure needs repairing after a hazard event. This is a way of providing replacement costs for infrastructure, as this is often not factored into budgeting for running costs and revenues (Fonseca et al 2013). For example in Petra, the local government relates to DRR activities when it has paid the costs of repairing the sewer line and water in some areas of the region and carried out the work for a utility company.

5 3% 4 13% 3 22% 2 34% 1 28%

Figure 23: Indicator 4.3: How adequate are the measures being taken to protect critical public facilities and infrastructure from damage during disasters? 62% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 38% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

It will be increasingly important in finding ways how DRR can become integrated in urban planning processes. Some local governments mention environmental impact assessments as a way to do this, (e.g. Patong in Indonesia; Tevragh Zeina in Mauretania; Makati City in The Philippines). Others go even further, for example; Makati Citys Flood Mitigation Programs include a preventive maintenance program for all year around. This includes relocation of informal settlers along waterways, upgrading of water system and creeks, demolition of private structures encroaching along waterways and land acquisition for staging area of debris and silt. Makati's Department of Engineering and Public Works also conducts an annual inspection of buildings to assure the safety of all buildings, located on or not in high risk areas, where some high risk buildings have been retrofitted (LGSAT of Makati City in The Philippines).

4.5 Essential 5: Schools, hospitals and health facilities

Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary General progress The progress is between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements (on average the score is 2.5 out of 5) for all the indicators in this Essential. The majority score lower in general with incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) which means that a few local governments drive up the average. See figure 24.

31

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E5.1 E5.2 E5.3 E5.4 E5.Avg

Figure 24: The figure shows the progress of the four different indicators for schools, hospitals and health facilities (Essential 5). Average progress is in between "incomplete achievements" and "not substantial achievements" (score 2.50) . For all indicators the median value is lower, or incomplete achievements (score 2) showing that most local governments perform worse than the average, and a few local governments drive up the average.

Indicator 5.1 All hazard risk assessment To what extent have local schools, hospitals and health facilities received special attention for "all hazard" risk assessments in your local authority? Progress for "all hazard" risk assessments is by the majority of local governments incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.53), see figure 24. The development of the all hazards risk assessment recognize that risks often cross boundaries and mandates, and that an effective means to deal with them is through a horizontal approach. In Canada, the approach is based on four components: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. When viewed from this perspective, the ownership of risks is often shared across the mandates of Ministers, or even across jurisdictions. Therefore, a coordinated approach is required to manage risks effectively by assessing them using the same methodology and then treating them through a collaborative approach that recognizes the interdependencies amongst ministerial mandates (Canada Public Safety 2012). Learning from previous incidents is an important motivation. For example in Patong, (Indonesia) before the Tsunami in 2004, schools were only one-story buildings. From the lessons learnt from the 5-6 meter high Tsunami, now every school has three- or four story levels and classrooms are assigned to upper rather than first story for avoiding damage of a future tsunami (LGSAT of Patong in Indonesia). However, assessing risk is not a one-off exercise, but should be carried out at a regular basis. For example, all school buildings and hospitals in Makati City (The Philippines) go through annual building inspection. All buildings which need to be rehabilitated are given notice for priority rehabilitation (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines).

32

5 3% 4 21% 3 22% 1 23%

2 31%

Figure 25: Indicator 5.1: To what extent have local schools, hospitals and health facilities received special attention for "all hazard" risk assessments in your local authority? 54% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 46% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 5.2 Remaining operational How safe are all main schools, hospitals and health facilities from disasters so that they have the ability to remain operational during emergencies? Progress in the ability to remain operational during emergencies is for the majority of local governments incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.5), see figure 24. Schools, hospitals and health facilities play a critical role in disaster response. Manchester in Jamaica report that as schools are often used as shelters, they have to be structurally sound, and located in areas that are easily accessible and safe. Hospitals and other types of health facilities are prepared to respond (LGSAT Manchester, Jamaica). According to the Safe Hospitals Indicators developed by the Philippines Department of Health, the cityowned hospital is generally safe; meaning, it has contingency plans in place and health personnel trained to keep the network operational. Furthermore, it will not collapse in a disaster, but it will continue to function, and provide critical services in emergencies. in a similar way, based on the Safe School Indicators provided by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council and Department of Education, Makati public schools are safe (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines).

5 6% 4 15% 3 27% 1 21%

2 31%

Figure 26: Indicator 5.2: How safe are all main schools, hospitals and health facilities from disasters so that they have the ability to remain operational during emergencies? 52% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 48% are some but not substantial substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

33

Indicator 5.3 Special programmes to assess compliance To what degree do local government or other levels of government have special programs in place to regularly assess schools, hospitals and health facilities for maintenance, compliance with building codes, general safety, weather related risks etc.? Progress in this area is by the majority of local governments incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.5), see figure 24. Some of these activities /programmes are stipulated by law, where responsibility and resources are delegated to the local level. For example, Arvika of Sweden, reports that the local Fire and Rescue Services organize continuous inspections of all schools and health facilities. These supervisory inspections are stipulated by Swedish laws (The Swedish Planning and Building Code, The Law of Extraordinary Events, The Law of Protection against Accidents). The Fire and Rescue Services also hold courses on fire safety for the staff of these public premises. In addition to supervisory inspections made by the Fire and Rescue Services, the safety in schools and health facilities is assessed in the Risk and Vulnerability Analysis. The office for Health and Safety/Environmental Protection also constitutes a supervisory function since they can force managers of the businesses/premises in question to remedy deficiencies pertaining to inadequate maintenance, etc. In many other countries the formal system is designed in the same way, however, since many local governments does not have the capacity to enforce this system, there are many law violations. For example in Patong, some families are found to build their house in the restricted areas (LGSAT Patong, Indonesia).

5 6% 4 21% 3 17% 1 26%

2 30%

Figure 27: Indicator 5.3: To what degree do local government or other levels of government have special programs in place to regularly assess schools, hospitals and health facilities for maintenance, compliance with building codes, general safety, weather related risk. 56% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 44% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 5.4 Regular drills How far are regular disaster preparedness drills undertaken in schools, hospitals and health facilities? Progress in undertaking regular drills is incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.48), see figure 24. There are more local governments reporting comprehensive achievements (score 5) than compared to previous indicators (see figure 28). Drills need to engage a variety of stakeholders to be effective. In Cali (Colombia) various institutions make up the risk management office: the municipality, central government agencies, municipal entities, authorities and relief agencies. Other actors are also involved, for example earthquake drills are done

34

in collaboration with the Municipality of (Santiago de) Cali, State enterprises, private companies, shopping centers, clinics and hospitals (LGSAT Cali, Colombia).

4 17% 3 15%

5 9%

1 29%

2 30%

Figure 28: Indicator 5.4: How far are regular disaster preparedness drills undertaken in schools, hospitals and health facilities? 59% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 41% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

In Dagupan and Makati City (The Philippines) schools and hospitals are important institutions on the disaster management agenda. Over the years, the local government has institutionalized partnerships with them. On a biannual basis, they conduct drills and simulation exercises to keep schools and hospitals updated and ready. For the structural component, all public buildings are safe according to Makati City Department of Engineering and Public Works. Operability during extreme catastrophic situations is, however, still much to be desired (LGSAT Dagupan, the Philippines).

4.6 Essential 6: Land use planning & building

Apply and enforce realistic, riskcompliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for lowincome citizens and develop upgrading of informal settlements, wherever feasible. General progress On average this essential performs well (score 2.57 out of 5). The majority of local governments report "not substantial achievements" (score 3 out of 5) for strength of regulations (indicator 6.2). At the same time, the majority report less progress, or incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) on how well they are enforced across all development zones and building types (indicator 6.1), see figure 29. Local governments are also more prone to score comprehensive achievements (score 5) in strength of regulations, see figure 31, rather than on enforcement of them, where there are more scores of 4 or substantial achievements, see figure 30. The conclusion is that although the regulative framework may be in place (as illustrated by indicator 6.2), there are barriers to its implementation for different reasons (as illustrated by the lower score in indicator 6.1). The issue of land use planning and building and the integration of DRR have also been raised by many in the recent survey conducted by UNISDR as one of the top priorities for the future (UNISDR 2013e).

35

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E6.1 E6.2 E6.Avg

Figure 29: The figure shows the progress of the two indicators for land use planning and building (Essential 6). General progress is on average in between "incomplete achievements" and "not substantial achievements" (score 2.57). For the majority of local governments the two indicators reveal incomplete achievements (score 2) for enforcing DRR (indicator 6.1) and not substantial achievements (score 3) for strength of regulations (indicator 6.2).

Indicator 6.1: Enforcing DRR in land use planning and building How well are risk-sensitive land use regulations and building codes, health and safety codes enforced across all development zones and building types? For indicator 6.1 there are incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.54), see figure 29. Local governments are more prone to score substantial achievements (score 4), see figure 30, than comprehensive achievements (score 5) compared to the indicator 6.2 on strength of regulations, see figure 31. The need for enforcement is confirmed by many local governments who also argue for strong (or even aggressive) sanctions for controlling certain development activities in case of violation of the law (LGSAT Indonesia and Dagupan in The Philippines). Local governments invest in different ways of enforcements, for example, Quito has launched the Greater Control Agency, an agency dedicated to technical assistance, where one of their activities will be reviewing compliance with regulations such construction, land use, etc (LGSAT Quito, Ecuador). 36

5 4% 4 24% 1 26%

3 20%

2 26%

Figure 30 above: Indicator 6-1: How well are risk-sensitive land use regulations and building codes, health and safety codes enforced across all development zones and building types? 52% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 48% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Violations of laws by certain government officials or by community members, inaction of the government, vested interests and conflicting regulations, hamper the enforcement of the regulations (LGSAT Indonesia). The strong action of exploitation for economic benefit is a great reason for lack of progress in integrating DRR in land use planning and building, where some local governments report that merely economic interests are prioritized (LGSAT Hue in Vietnam). The economic interests in rapidly expanding urban areas are great, and diligent civil servants and urban planners have little to set against these drivers of economic opportunity. In places with good progress, transparency of land use planning to the public is therefore an important tool (LGSAT Metchosin in Canada; Sendai in Japan). At the same time, strengthening existing control measures need to enable improvements to deliver desired results as many residents are unemployed so their negative economic situation precludes them from complying with building, health and safety codes (LGSAT Durban in South Africa). Indicator 6-2: Strength of existing regulations How strong are existing regulations (e.g. land use plans, building codes etc) to support disaster risk reduction in your local authority? For this indicator there is not substantial achievements (score 3 out of 5) by the majority of local governments, and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.6), see figure 29. Local governments are more prone to score comprehensive achievements (score 5) in strength of regulations, compared to the previous indicator, see figure 31 and 30. The assessment shows that the regulatory system is in place in many local governments. However, in many places, such as in Kampala, Uganda, land use building byelaws, zoning maps and building codes were prepared a long time ago and need to be reviewed and updated, not only to meet the urban growth challenges but also to cope with the existing requirements (LGSAT Kampala in Uganda; Kathmandu in Nepal). This may be a reason behind the weak enforcement displayed in the previous indicator, and a sign that formal urban planning processes, standards and regulations are becoming part of the problem. Often the institutional and technical setups are poorly developed in mapping, land title registration, surveying etc. and need to be updated and capacitated. Adding more regulatory burden to integrate DRR assessments is not the way forward, but instead increasing the capacity for efficient management of land, reducing procedural complexity and establishing efficient urban land tenure arrangements (Fekade 2000). Integration with existing tools is one way. For example, in Indonesia disaster risk analysis has been integrated as a part of the Environment Impact Analysis (EIA) regulation that also include regular monitoring of activities that may create adverse impacts on the environment. In Durban, all developmental initiatives are now subject to environmental risk assessments. In Johannesburg, is considering integrating risk and climate change considerations into sectoral planning processes, such as infrastructure design and maintenance codes and standards (LGSAT Johannesburg, Durban in South Africa).

37

5 8% 4 17% 3 26%

1 26%

2 23%

Figure 31: Indicator 6.2: How strong are existing regulations (e.g. land use plans, building codes etc) to support disaster risk reduction in your local authority? 49% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 51% are some but not substantial substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Informal areas The rapid spread of slums and squatters is a gigantic issue, where urban planning is out of control. This is rapidly increasing the amount of vulnerable communities located in unsafe places. In the reporting it is mentioned for example that development along rivers and drains is most vulnerable to floods, and living besides rail tracks risk the loss of life (Pakistan in UN Habitat 2012). In Quezon City, The Philippines, land use plans try to prevent informal settlements from putting up structures on natural floodplains. A five meter buffer zone along the earthquake fault line is also enforced. Opinions have also been voiced about the need to improve innovation and flexibility, especially in the provision of shelter/affordable housing, otherwise urbanization will further proceed in the `informal or `illegal way without the involvement of formal planning processes (LGSAT Quezon City, The Philippines). In Pakistan, some local governments have a problem of lack of staff or the lack of capacity to implement or enforce plans and regulations, and some face challenges that land use plans are not even prepared (UN Habitat 2012). Decentralization of the planning system could further help in the future. Lack of clarity in decentralization and regional autonomy regime has shown to prevent more local implementation of spatial plans made at the provincial level in Indonesia (LGSAT Indonesia).

4.7 Essential 7: Education and training and public awareness

Ensure education programmes and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and/or local communities. General progress The general progress of Education and Training is on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2-3 out of 5). There is higher progress or "not substantial achievements" (score 3 out of 5) with the majority of local governments in terms of regular awareness building programmes for local communities (indicator 7.1). The same is the case for the inclusion of training in DRR in local schools and colleges in the education curriculum (indicator 7.3), but in other indicators (7.2 assessing training for local officials and community leaders and 7.4 awareness of drills with citizens) the majority scores lower than the average or incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5). See figure 32. This result indicates that schools and community awareness have been a successful ways of conveying the DRR message, but that other groups and purposes are less easy to target.

38

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E7.1 E7.2 E7.3 E7.4 E7.Avg

Figure 32: The figure shows the progress of the two indicators for Education & Training (Essential 7). General progress is in between "incomplete achievements" (score 2) and "not substantial achievements" (score 3) on average. In terms of awareness building for local communities (indicator 7.1) and inclusion of DRR school curricula (indicator 7.3) the majority of local governments are doing better than the average.

Indicator 7.1: Local communities How regularly does the local government conduct awarenessbuilding or education programs on DRR and disaster preparedness for local communities? For this indicator there is not substantial achievements (score 2.9 out of 5) by the majority of local governments and in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.7 out of 5) on average. See figure 32. A conclusion is that awareness building with the local communities is something which many local governments score relatively well on in this area. Knowledge building and empowerment is key to ensure that community members can cope with the adverse effects of natural hazards. It can be described as having three key elements: self-help, cooperation, and education (Cardona 2008). The motivation of local government leaders to introduce DRR is usually triggered by awareness of the local communities, citizens and their demand for risk reduction. At the same time, informed and aware citizens provide an opportunity for greater cooperation between the civil society and the government. Citizens are the first responders and their engagement is key to successful preparedness. Participants of the online survey strongly stressed the importance of national and local governments to communicate risks, impacts and solutions to the public (UNISDR 2013c). Community empowerment for disaster risk management demands their participation in risk assessment, mitigation planning, capacity building, participation in implementation and development of system for monitoring which ensures their stake (Cardona 2008). For example, the online survey also recommended that citizen groups should be engaged in collecting data to enable informed decisions on mitigation strategies and to ensure that future land use decisions do not worsen an existing situation (UNISDR 2013c). Many local governments, who perform relatively well, report on how awareness building is done on regular and extensive basis, through education and awareness programmes, community meetings and 39

through committee meetings with various stakeholders (LGSAT Manchester in Jamaica). An example of an approach to mainstream gender is the "Pink Mountain" of Chacao local government which is a group of women that are being trained and supported to carry out environmental management activities. The "Failsafe Citizen" is the focus of programs of public awareness (LGSAT Chacao in Venezuela). Social networking media has been used to inform and educate people in Dagupan City, The Philippines, where technical data/information have adapted so that it becomes useful and understandable to people.

4 24%

5 9%

1 25%

3 18%

2 24%

Figure 33: Indicator 7.1: How regularly does the local government conduct awarenessbuilding or education programs on DRR and disaster preparedness for local communities? 49% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 51% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 7.2: Local officials and community leaders To what extent does the local government provide training in risk reduction for local officials and community leaders? The majority of local governments report incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) while the average local government reports progress in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.44) in providing training in risk reduction for local officials and community leaders. See figure 32. There is quite an increase in local governments reporting minor achievements (score 1), compared to the previous indicator, see figure 34. This result shows a relative gap in the means of training for local officials and community leaders to make them aware of DRR, compared to the community level. Such training has for example shown to improve building codes and their implementation in the municipal corporation of Bhubaneshwar, India. There, engineers, architects and planners has been trained in earthquake vulnerability and response in order to implement better building codes, which can withstand hazards in new and existing structures. NGOs have been trained for the same purpose in hazard mapping (UNISDR 2012). Such training has also shown to encourage participation in DRR programmes in Dagupan City. Here, an aggressive information and education campaign has carried out regular training workshops (for community leaders and third sector organizations; i.e. NGOs, cause oriented groups). This has ensured moderate to high level of awareness, a sense of ownership and subsequent participation of the people to the DRR and disaster preparedness programs. At present, the campaign is encouraging schools to include climate change and DRR modules in their curriculum (LGSAT Dagupan City, The Philippines).

40

4 23% 3 12%

5 8%

1 37%

Figure 34: Indicator 7.2: To what extent does the local government provide training in risk reduction for local officials and community leaders? 57% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 43% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

2 20%

Indicator 7.3: Schools and education curriculum To what degree do local schools and colleges include courses, education or training in disaster risk reduction (include climate related risks) as part of the education curriculum? The majority of local governments score incomplete achievements (score 2 out of 5) and on average local governments score in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.57). See figure 32. Quite a large proportion (29%) of local governments report not substantial achievements (score 3), see figure 35. People often cite friends and family as their most trusted resource for information on risks, which is one of the reasons why working with childrens awareness is so important in DRR. Trust judgments are more intuitive than based on carefully reasoned arguments and evidence. Educational programmes which focus on children and students thus makes use of the effective approach of addressing children and the power they have on influencing their parents and extended family (Mitchell et al 2008). It is important not to view this group as passive victims but as crucial actors. For example, in a study by Mitchell et al (2008) in El Salvador, children showed that they could understand and could respond constructively and communicate effectively about the risks they recognized and identify actions. Involving children is also important as they are disproportionately affected by disasters (as goes for women) for example in the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami the largest numbers of fatalities were women and those under the age of 15 (Mitchell et al 2008). Out of the local governments carrying out the self assessments, Bhubaneshwar (India) stands out as scoring relatively high in DRR progress on education and training. This probably is due to the evident priority of training in schools and colleges, where for example 3000 students from 35 schools and 600 college students have been trained in disaster management planning and safety tips (LGSAT Bhubaneshwar, India). In Johannesburg that also scores very well in this area, community based adaptation and early warning systems for schools, community leaders and communities at large are championed by the Provincial Disaster Management Centre as part of ongoing on disaster management (LGSAT Johannesburg, South Africa). DRR and climate related risks can also be pushed at the primary and high school level through environmental clubs and teachers (LGSAT Manchester in Jamaica). Chacao in Venezuela scores comprehensive achievements (score 5 out of 5) on all indicators of Essential 7 and is a local government which has prioritized DRR especially in its educational programmes. Schools located in the Chacao municipality go to training in the "SelfDefense School" including evacuation drills and other educational activities in DRR. The program Ecolescuelas, is the emblem for training of municipal school students in sustainability, where risk management is one of the cornerstones (LGSAT Chacao, Venezuela). 41

5 6% 4 20% 1 31%

3 29%

2 14%

Figure 35: Indicator 7.3: To what degree do local schools and colleges include courses, education or training in disaster risk reduction (including climate related risks) as part of the education curriculum? 45% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 55% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 7.4: Awareness of drills How aware are citizens of evacuation plans or drills for evacuations when necessary? For the indicator on awareness of evacuation plans or drills there is "incomplete achievements" (score 2 out of 5) by the majority of local governments, and on average there is in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.41). See figure 32. Quite a large proportion of local governments seem to report incomplete achievements (39% score 2) compared to the other indicators of the same essential, see figure 36. Dagupan in The Philippines, is one of the local governments which on a bi-annual basis conducts drills and simulation exercises to keep citizens updated and ready (and scores well: 4). However, although drills are conducted, regarding operability during extreme catastrophic situations much is still desired (LGSAT Dagupan, The Philippines). The self assessments do not in general require any information which segregates data on gender and because of this valuable information may be left out. Gender inequality results in vast differences between men and women, which for example can have tremendous consequences during emergency and evacuation. Seeing disaster through a gender lens can help identify how to involve everyone better and make e.g. women aware of where evacuation shelters are located (WHO 2013).

5 4% 4 14% 3 22% 1 21%

2 39%

Figure 36: Indicator 7.4: How aware are citizens of evacuation plans or drills for evacuations when necessary? 60% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 40% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

42

4.8 Essential 8: Ecosystem management

Protect ecosystems and natural buffer zones to mitigate floods, storm surges and other hazards to which your city may be vulnerable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. General progress The majority of local governments report incomplete achievements" overall (score 2) and towards not substantial achievements (score 2.39) on average. This means that there are a few local governments driving up the average in this Essential. See figure 37.
Average Score 5 MEDIAN Score

1 E8.1 E8.2 E8.3 E8.4 E8.Avg

Figure 37: The figure shows the progress of the four indicators for ecosystem management (Essential 8). General progress is in between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements (score 2.39) on average. For all indicators the median value is however lower only incomplete achievements (score 2) showing that local governments perform worse than the average, and a few local governments drive up the average.

Indicator 8.1: Integration in planning How well integrated are local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans with existing environmental development and natural resource management plans? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements (score 2), for the majority, and slightly higher but still incomplete achievements on average (2.42) see figure 37. Quite a large proportion of the local governments report minor achievements (32% score 1), see figure 38. The progress in environmental management relies much on the measures used to implement urban land use planning and building (Essential 6). Capacities in this area determine if there are enough planning for buffer zones, where for example estuaries or associated mangrove forests have been allowed to remain. Urban policies on green growth and green cities can provide DRR contributions to urban and land use planning and urban ecosystem management and vice versa. For example, the 43

Earthquake Preparedness Program of the Quezon City determines the fault line and dangerous areas. Quezon City has also identified and alerted the 594 lot owners of properties living in or near this fault line. No new structures are allowed in this earthquake buffer area, which shall gradually be transformed into green linear parks (LGSAT Quezon City, The Philippines). In Makati City, the local government has embarked on various initiatives relating to climate change mitigation. These include proper solid waste management as supported by the Solid Waste Management Code, relocation of informal settlers along creeks, rivers and estuaries in some places, urban greening, adoption of environmentfriendly technologies and GHG emission reduction. While the local government is doing its part, coordination needs to be strengthened with adjacent local governments as disasters do not recognize political boundaries (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines). Johannesburg scores very well in this area and will develop a wetland protection and management plan within the Metropolitan area (LGSAT Johannesburg, South Africa).

5 7% 4 17% 3 17% 1 32%

2 27%

Figure 38: Indicator 8.1: How well integrated are the DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans of local government into existing environmental development and natural resource management plans? 59% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 61% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 8.2: Maintenance of ecosystem services To what degree does the local government support the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystem services? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements (score 2) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.52), see figure 37. Quite a large proportion of the local governments (26%) report substantial achievements (score 4), but the same amount report minor achievements (score 1) see figure 39. An emerging area of DRR concern the smaller but more frequently recurring crises, which puts focus on e.g. small floods and seasonal factors that lead to chronic food stress and that do not elicit a humanitarian response (Christoplos et al 2012). Ecosystem services play an important role in this, for example, the Johannesburg (South Africa) wetland audit will help to identify critical buffers, linkages and/or feeder systems that need to be protected or restored (e.g. Groundwater systems, perched aquifers, seeps zones, springs and etc.). Ensuring the viability of citywide sustainable wetland systems can provide environmental goods and services facilitating the adaptation to climate change and building resilience to its impacts and related hazards (LGSAT Johannesburg, South Africa). Drought is a risk which is in existence for several years, and which can impact a community especially on meeting their needs for food and other economic goods. Yogyakarta local government has identified the need to address drought, where DRR is seen as a way to do this, but that not many people understand how to do it (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia). Similarly, rising demand for 44

agricultural commodities will place a growing strain on both land and water resources. For example, it is expected that by 2021, 107120 million hectares of new land in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America will have to be incorporated into agricultural production, much of it in areas which are already water stressed and which suffer land-degradation. Several comments in the HFA consultations focused specifically on the limited progress in tackling HFA Priority Area 4 addressing the underlying causes of disasters with a focus on planning processes with greater attention to implementing measures linked to land-use planning, building codes, agricultural and ecosystem management, water management and drainage (UNISDR 2013d). Local government has a key role to play here, for example in Makati City the barangays (the smallest local government units) has been recognized to be the champions in implementing programs and projects for ecosystem management (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines). However, in other places they report that there is not much awareness of ecosystems services and that more information is needed to understand the subject and take necessary steps (LGSAT Banki in India). Given this, better understanding of the incentives to maintain ecosystem services is needed, as well as building capacity to integrate these factors in the urban risk assessments, so they do not disappear in the scramble for short term economic opportunities.

5 4% 4 26% 3 17% 1 27%

2 26%

Figure 39: Indicator 8.2: To what degree does the local government support the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystems services? 53% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 47% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 8.3: Civil society participation How much do civil society organizations and citizens participate in the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystem services? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements (score 2) by the majority of local governments, and on average there are in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.56). See figure 37. As ecosystems can provide valuable services to reduce disaster risks, there needs to be mechanisms as to how different stakeholders involved with ecosystem management, can participate. For example, Makati City deliberately maintains strong ties with various civil society organizations for this purpose (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines). The Agenda 21 provides a vehicle to implement ecosystem management in participation with local stakeholders. For example this is done in Lisbon Municipality, which has implemented in five communities the Local Agenda 21 Action Plans, developed with local stakeholders and the University of Lisbon (LGSAT Lisbon, Portugal).

45

5 5% 4 21% 1 23%

3 23%

2 28%

Figure 40: Indicator 8.3: To what degree do civil society organizations and citizens participate in the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystems services? 51 % of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 49% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 8.4: Private sector participation How much does the private sector participate in the implementation of environmental and ecosystems management in your local authority? For this indicator there are incomplete achievements by the local governments by majority (score 2) and on average (score 2.34) See figure 37. There is a higher proportion of local governments reporting minor achievements compared to the other indicators in this essential (34% score 1), see figure 41. This seems to be an area of some gaps, but with a lot of optimism about the opportunities. In Kathmandu which report relatively good progress (scores 4), private sector initiatives contribute towards environmental improvement and ecological management (LGSAT Kathmandu, Nepal). Cali in Colombia (scores 4) reports that the private sector supports municipal initiatives, joining in the efforts of socio-economic development and environmental projects that greens inner city areas and improves the urban landscape (LGSAT Cali in Colombia). In Sendai, many private businesses in the city cooperate on ecosystem preservation initiatives, for example, they participate in tree-planting and forest-conservation activities, make donations to urban-greening and greenery conservation funds, and promote green awareness and education (LGSAT Sendai, Japan). A local government which scores very badly in this area (score: 1) still reports that there are many private enterprises that have shown concerns over disaster-affected people, so opportunities are abound to engage them in DRR. There, private sector's corporate social responsibility is mostly focused on emergency response and post disaster interventions, with limited activities in DRR (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia). Figure 41: Indicator 8.4 To what degree does the private sector participate in the implementation of environmental and ecosystems management plans in your local authority? 58% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 42% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

5 2% 4 23% 3 17% 1 34%

2 24%

46

4.9 Essential 9: Emergency management

Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills. General progress Overall, the average progress is incomplete achievements both by the majority and on average on emergency management. In terms of individual indicators there is relatively good progress or not substantial achievements for the majority in key resources for effective response by the majority (score 3 in indicator 9.6), and for the presence of an emergency operations center or emergency communication system the average progress is also relatively high or almost not substantial achievements, (score 2.75 for indicator 9.4). In terms of the other indicators they score less; i.e. financial reserves (indicator 9.1), early warning centers (indicator 9.2), warning systems involving the community (indicator 9.3), or regular training drills (indicator 9.5). For these indicators, the majority of the local governments have a lower score or incomplete achievements (score 2) compared to the average local government. See figure 42.

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E9.1 E9.2 E9.3 E9.4 E9.5 E9.6 E9.Avg

Figure 42: The figure shows the progress of emergency management (Essential 9). General progress is incomplete achievements on average, but some indicators progress better. Indicator 9.4 is the third highest scoring indicator of all indicators looking at the average values (score 2.75 ).

Indicator 9.1: Financial reserves for effective disaster response To what degree do local institutions have access to financial reserves to support effective disaster response and early recovery? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements by local governments (score 2 out of 5) by the majority and on average (score 2.39), see figure 42. Quite a large proportion of the local governments (59%) report minor and incomplete achievements (score 1-2), see figure 43. 47

These results speak of a relative low level of financial reserves available for effective disaster response. In high-income countries, governments are typically financially equipped with reserves and quick budget reallocations to cover their legal and social post-disaster responsibilities. In developing countries on the other hand, governments often rely on humanitarian assistance and financial aid to respond to disasters. In many countries there are emergency resources at the regional and national level which municipalities affected by disasters have access to. This is for example the case in Municipio de Pasto, where the Mayor also has legal right to allow the transfers across budget lines if required (LGSAT Municipio de Pasto in Colombia). Funding can also be accessed through crosssectoral collaboration. The Province of Yogyakarta in Indonesia is able to get access easily to funding sources due to the high profile of DRR and cross-sectoral cooperation contributed to joint funding of activities. There are also sector specific links to national level. For example, local hospitals, coordinates with the Central Hospital and Health Office in dealing with a disaster situation (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia). In general inter-agency collaboration has been built through the contingency planning process, but this is not a binding scheme. Media in Yogyakarta has also provided a strong support in providing information about access to funds. A challenge has been that there has not been any legislation on cross-sectoral collaboration that is binding to all actors and parties, so people and organizations tend to move on their own initiatives (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia).
5 5% 4 16% 3 20% 1 27%

2 32%

Figure 43: Indicator 9.1: To what degree do local institutions have access to financial reserves to support effective disaster response and early recovery? 59% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 41% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 9.2: Early warning centers established To what extent are early warning centers established, adequately staffed (or oncall personnel) and well resourced (power back ups, equipment redundancy etc.) at all times? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements by the majority of local governments (score 2 out of 5) and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.59), see figure 42. Early warning centers are reported in many places, for example, Campinas (Brazil) report good progress in that they operate a center for disaster management which runs uninterruptedly 24/7 including among other things a Service System Phone. These services coordinate the efforts of several government agencies: such as the Military Police, Supervisory Soil Municipal Guard and the Civil Defense (LGSAT Campinas, Brazil). At the same time these centers have to manage a multitude of hazards with their own warning scheme. For example Yogyakarta (Indonesia) has early warning systems for contagious disease and epidemics such as dengue fever. For volcanic eruption hazards, in addition to monitoring of volcanic activities in the caldera, cameras have been set up in rivers to monitor potential flooding. Detecting instruments have also been installed to anticipate strong wind. 48

All these instruments naturally need continuous improvement and regular maintenance. A challenge is the limited budget to expand early warning system in terms of its coverage and system upgrading (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia).
5 7% 4 22% 3 18% 1 22%

2 31%

Figure 44: Indicator 9.2: To what extent are early warning centers established, adequately staffed (or oncall personnel) and well resourced (power back ups, equipment redundancy etc.) at all times? 53% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 47% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 9.3: Warning systems involving the community How much do warning systems allow for adequate community participation? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements, (score 2 out of 5) for the majority and on average (score 2.20), see figure 42. A very high proportion of the local governments here report minor achievements (47% score 1) see figure 45. The high number of responses which scored 1 could be interpreted as a negative response (no) to the indicator question. Early warnings are first and foremost depending on the authorities willingness to release the necessary information. In the Fukushima disaster, no information on the gravity of the accident was communicated to the residents at the time of their displacement. Thus, the residents were forced to flee without any idea of how long their displacement would last or how far they should go. Nor were evacuees informed about the risk of radiation exposure or instructed on how to protect themselves against irradiation during their flight. The central government later admitted that it had had such information from the outset, but did not disclose it to the public in order to avoid panic among the population. In addition, loudspeakers did not function because the earthquake had knocked down the speaker poles or because transmission had been disrupted by the power cut following the earthquake (Hasegawa 2013). Having had recent experience with the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, Patong (Thailand) has improved their early warning through community radio and amateur radio to ensure that local communities are kept informed. Moreover, the municipality established CCTV to monitor the situation so that decision making for assistance can be properly made. The Municipal Division of Public Relations uses vehicles with a loud speaker to promote information on disasters. The hotels and tourism association helps in this dissemination work to tourists. There are also signs with hazard information, evacuation routes and sites for tourists and residents. In the future plan, the municipality will coordinate with the private hotel to set up warning calls directly to guests rooms (LGSAT Patong, Thailand). In Cali (Colombia) a network operated by the University of Valle, ensures community participation. In addition, local watchmen and guards and community leaders voluntarily participate in this process, with the idea is to extend this support, by calling on environmentalists and youth groups, athletes and the public general in the event of a disaster (LGSAT Cali, Colombia).

49

In Yogyakarta (Indonesia) awareness has been high in certain communities who participate in Early Warning Systems where instruments have been installed that reach out to the community level. Community organizations have played a significant role in Early Warning systems such as community radios that have been effective in for example the Mount Merapi eruption. A challenge is that regular maintenance and funding is needed to ensure that it will function properly in times of disaster. An Early Warning System in Yogyakarta includes education and training for community members for disaster preparedness. The local government conducts continuous socialization for community members in areas prone to hazards; with specific information relevant to the characteristics of the hazards. The conclusion is that the approach to reach out to communities needs to be improved to nurture awareness that disaster preparedness is for their own sake (LGSAT Yogyakarta in Indonesia). In terms of reaching out to communities, there is no mention in the self assessment of gender-specific constraints, such as a lack of decision-making authority, a lack of capital in various forms (financial, physical, human, social) and socio-cultural norms on mobility. For example, this means that especially women may need additional support to be able to effectively act on early warnings. To establish an effective early warning system requires understanding and knowledge of the reasons why some groups are worse affected than others in times of disasters, often linked to the fact that women and men and girls and boys from different cultures and religions have different areas of responsibility, tasks, degrees of freedom of movement, dress codes, education, and so on (Carson et al 2014).

5 4% 4 23%

1 47%

3 10%

Figure 45: Indicator 9.3: How much do warning systems allow for adequate community participation? Essential 9-3: 63% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 37% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

2 16%

Indicator 9.4: Operating center To what extent does the local government have an emergency operations centre (EOC) and/or an emergency communication system? For this indicator there are incomplete achievements (score 2.33) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.74), see figure 42. Very many local governments have reported comprehensive achievements (17% scored 5), see figure 46. This is probably a sign that this score has been used as a positive reply (yes) to the question that such a center has been established. In Yogyakarta an operations center is reported at the provincial level under an agency, and not as an independent unit. The center is manned by personnel working 24 hours x 7 days with sufficient facilities (e.g. buildings and instruments) (LGSAT Yogyakarta, Indonesia). In Makati City there is a similar Command, Control and Communication Center (Makati C3), with a real time video 50

surveillance system, and serves as a liaison between national government agencies and the communities for early warnings and emergency responses prior, during, and after disasters. Makati C3 is operating 24/7 wherein staffs are divided in shifts (LGSAT Makati City, The Philippines).

5 17% 4 21% 3 11%

1 31%

2 20%

Figure 46: Indicator 9.4: To what extent does the local government have an emergency operations centre (EOC) and/or an emergency communication system? 51% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 49% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 9.5: Training drills How regularly are training drills and rehearsal carried out with the participation of relevant government, nongovernmental, local leaders and volunteers? For this indicator there are incomplete achievements (score 2) by the majority of local governments, and on average (score 2.33) see figure 42. Quite a high proportion of the local governments reply minor or incomplete achievements (61%), see figure 47. In spite of these low figures, drills are prioritized in some places. In Yogyakarta disaster exercises are being done at least 10 times in one year (at the sub-village, village, district and province levels) and they include exercise in flooding disaster, volcano eruption, tsunami, landslide and river flooding. These exercises are organized with the engagement of the private sector, government and communities. The health sector is also conducting routine disaster drills in health facilities (LGSAT Yogyakarta, Indonesia).

5 4% 4 18% 3 17% 1 32%

2 29%

Figure 47: Indicator 9.5 How regularly are training drills and rehearsal carried out with the participation of relevant government, nongovernmental, local leaders and volunteers? 61% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and39 % are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 9.6: Key resources for response How available are key resources for effective response, such as emergency supplies, emergency shelters, identified evacuation routes and contingency plans at all times?

51

For this indicator there are not substantial achievements (score 3) by the majority of local governments and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements (score 2.65) see figure 42. A quite high proportion (27%) of the local governments also report substantial achievements, see figure 48. The results indicate that emergency response is an important area for the local governments. Progress is achieved through formal requirements, for example the Municipal Council Disaster Risk Management (CMGRD) in Cali (Colombia) met in 2012 with entrepreneurs in order to publicize a law by which companies must make contingency and evacuation plans, and carry out emergency drills in preparation of a disaster. The plan determines the quantity of supplies, emergency shelters and contingency plans for all major hazards (LGSAT Cali, Colombia). Campinas (Brazil) reports that they follow the minimum Sphere standards6 for effective response and supplies (LGSAT Campinas, Brazil). Figure 48: Indicator 9.6 How available are key resources for effective response, such as emergency supplies, emergency shelters, identified evacuation routes and contingency plans at all times? 46% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 54% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

5 4% 4 27% 1 23% 2 23%

3 23%

4.10 Essential 10: Recovery and rebuilding communities

After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the survivors are placed at the centre of reconstruction with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods. General progress Overall, the majority of local governments in the area of recovery and rebuilding have incomplete achievements (score 2). See figure 49. The average is slightly higher (score 2.3) which shows that some local governments drive up the average. From the regional analysis (figure 3) it is clear that the local governments in the Middle East lag behind in this area.

http://www.sphereproject.org/

52

Average Score 5

MEDIAN Score

1 E10.1 E10.2 E10.3 E10.Avg

Figure 49: The figure shows the progress of the three indicators for recovery and rebuilding of communities (Essential 10). General progress is on average incomplete achievements (score 2.3). For all indicators the median value is somewhat lower indicating incomplete achievements, (score 2.1) showing that most local governments perform just a little less than the average.

Indicator 10.1: Psychosocial assistance to victims How much access does the local government have to resources and expertise to assist victims of psychosocial (psychological, emotional) impacts of disasters? For this indicator there is incomplete achievements by the local governments by the majority (score 2) and on average (score 2.33). See figure 49. A high proportion of the reporting is minor achievements (36% score 1), see figure 50. In Indonesia, a challenge has been the inadequate number of assisting personnel where the regional government still relies on external parties for human resource. In Sleman District (Indonesia) where psychosocial service has been a priority for the Office of Health and the Office of Social Affairs a solution was found in terms of partnership building. These administrations engaged in a partnership with the Faculty of Psychology, at Gadjah Mada University, whose personnel was deployed to public health centers (LGSAT Sleman Indonesia). There are a number of international organizations such as the Red Cross/ Red Crescent society which engage in helping people affected by disasters, conflict and other dramatic events through reference centers which provide technical support and capacity building, including promoting knowledge sharing of psychosocial guidelines, strategies and programmes among National Societies. There is also a global psychosocial roster of trainers and experts, and supports the creation of regional networks7.

http://www.ifrc.org

53

5 3% 4 19% 3 21% 1 36%

2 21%

Figure 50: Indicator 10.1 How much access does the local government have to resources and expertise to assist victims of psycho - social (psychological, emotional) impacts of disasters? 57% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 43% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 10.2: Postdisaster recovery and rehabilitation How well are disaster risk reduction measures integrated into postdisaster recovery and rehabilitation activities (i.e. build back better, livelihoods rehabilitation)? For this indicator there are incomplete achievements by the local governments by the majority (score 2) and on average (score 2.36). See figure 49. There is a lower proportion of minor achievements (score 1) compared to the previous indicator see figure 50 and 51. This implies that of the two, focus of support by the majority lies in this area of post disaster recovery and rehabilitation. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, it is important to start planning for long term recovery and reconstruction as soon as possible. The integration of DRR consideration when awareness of the hazard and disaster risk is great can be seen as an opportunity, especially in terms of convincing politicians and citizens that these actions are motivated. For example, in Sleman, the local government has provided lands for housing relocation to safer zones, where the construction has been assigned to the community members. But a challenge is that some residents are still not willing to relocate to safer places. The plan forward includes socialization and discussion with community members to raise their awareness on the importance of having settling safe from hazards and to provide critical facilities such as schools and health clinics in safer zones (LGSAT Sleman, Indonesia). However, the biggest challenge is the urgency attached to providing new shelter and other services to those displaced. The goal to build back better and equip vulnerable populations to build resilience is often at odds with the urgent need for immediate shelter in the aftermath of a disaster (UNISDR 2013d). In many places commitment to DRR is lacking. This is attributed to the lack of major disaster events over the past years and decades. The population may have developed a sense of apathy towards DRR as a result (UNISDR 2013d). For example, Jnkping (Sweden) notes that such events are very rare and for that reason recovery and rehabilitation is largely planned to be conducted using the already established land use plan (LGSAT Jnkping, Sweden). However, a reflection is that this requires that the existing land use plan already has DRR considerations, if not; there is a risk of rebuilding the same risks, if allowing people to move back into the same area. Interesting to note is that Swedish cities in general (Jnkping, Arvika and Gothenburg) score relatively low on this indicator. This may be explained by the fact that much of the DRR activities in Sweden are more focused on response and not on rebuilding, together with the perception that there has been no need for recovery and rebuilding planning (LGSAT Jnkping, Sweden).

54

5 3% 4 17% 1 30%

3 25%

2 25%

Figure 51: Indicator 10.2 How well are disaster risk reduction measures integrated into postdisaster recovery and rehabilitation activities (i.e. build back better, livelihoods rehabilitation) Essential 10-2: 55 % of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 45% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

Indicator 10.3: Strategy for post disaster recovery and reconstruction To what degree does the Contingency Plan (or similar plan) include an outline strategy for post disaster recovery and reconstruction, including needs assessments and livelihoods rehabilitation? For this indicator there are incomplete achievements of local governments (score 2). See figure 49. There is quite substantial proportion of local governments (64%) scoring minor and incomplete achievements (score 1-2) see figure 52. A challenge in post disaster programmes is that the time limit for fund spending and material procurement is often very short, and can result in hasty and less optimal processes. For example Sleman district (Indonesia) has experienced these challenges in the post disaster recovery phase and beyond. Most public facilities, social facilities, and infrastructures were built soon after the recovery and post-disaster reconstruction process. Therefore, in a short time, they had to provide for these new settlements (houses and their surroundings) and certify them as being in a safe zone (LGSAT Sleman, Indonesia). This example illustrates that it is important that these time consuming processes are prepared beforehand as much as possible, for example that (gender equal) property rights, zoning maps and mapping of housing and existing infrastructure are in place.
5 3% 4 15% 3 18% 2 31% 1 33%

Figure 52: Indicator 10.3 To what degree does the Contingency Plan (or similar plan) include an outline strategy for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, including needs assessments and livelihoods rehabilitation? 64% of the responses show minor and incomplete achievements (1-2) and 36% are some but not substantial - substantial to comprehensive achievements (3-4-5.)

55

Chapter 5. Progress of reducing underlying risks

Of the five priorities in the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), priority 4 has been observed at the national level assessment of progress to be lagging behind (UNISDR 2013d). The five priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) are: 1. Ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority, with a strong institutional basis; 2. Identifying, assessing and monitoring disaster risks and enhancing early warning systems; 3. Using knowledge and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; 4. Reducing underlying disaster risk factors, whether social, economic, environmental or land use; and 5. Strengthening disaster preparedness to promote effective response at all levels.

Several comments in previous HFA consultations focused specifically on the limited progress in tackling HFA Priority Area 4, which is addressing the underlying causes of disasters. These underlying causes have a focus on planning processes with greater attention to implementing measures linked to critical infrastructure, land-use planning, building codes, agricultural and ecosystem management, water management and drainage (UNISDR 2013d). The analysis in this study shows that the local level Priority 4 is also lagging behind; (i.e. not only at national level) and that this is with about 3%. There are six core indicators for HFA Priority for Action 4 and here they are described with the conclusions from the local self assessments and their 41 indicators analysed in this report. Through this, some of the challenges in implementing the Priority 4 may be highlighted. One explanation is that the Priority 4 includes the indicators which score lowest of all indicators in the local government self assessment: indicator 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 (see Annex 2). The progress of the six core indicators for Underlying risks 1. Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment-related policies and plans, including for land use, natural resource management and adaptation to climate change; Relevant indicators: 8.1 How well integrated are local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans with existing environmental development and natural resource management plans? 8.2 To what degree does the local government support the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystem services? 8.3 How much do civil society organizations and citizens participate in the restoration, protection and sustainable management of ecosystem services? 8.4 How much does the private sector participate in the implementation of environmental and ecosystems management in your local authority?

Conclusions from this study: For the above indicators there is in between incomplete achievements and not substantial achievements. For underlying risks to be reduced, urban policies on green growth and green cities can provide DRR contributions to urban and land use planning and urban 56

ecosystem management and vice versa. Urban level programmes which address key environmental issues e.g. the Agenda 21 provide vehicles to implement ecosystem management in participation with local stakeholders. Private sector involvement seems to be an area of some gaps but lots of optimism about opportunities. Private enterprise can work closely with the municipal administration and can provide support in all subjects in an unselfish way and working towards the common benefit.

2. Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk; Relevant indicators: 2.3 What is the scope of financial services (e.g. saving and credit schemes, macro and microinsurance) available to vulnerable and marginalized households for predisaster times? 2.4 To what extent are micro finance, cash aid, soft loans, loan guarantees etc available to affected households after disasters to restart livelihoods? 2.5 How well established are economic incentives for investing in DRR for households and businesses (e.g. reduced insurance premiums for households, tax holidays for businesses)?

The progress in financial services and support available pre-disaster and post disaster (Indicator 2.3 and 2.4) is incomplete achievements (score 2) with a little more progress sin post disaster support. In pre-disaster settings, almost half of the local governments report minor achievements (score 1), in terms of financial services available to the vulnerable and marginalized households for pre disaster times. This displays an alarming low level of service for the most vulnerable. In terms of incentives for investing in DRR for households and businesses the majority of local governments report minor achievements which is the lowest score possible (1 out of 5) while the average report a little more progress (in between score 1-2). For financial services and financial support e.g. insurances, to target poor people it is important to for example conduct demand studies, and to properly understand the customer base and what low -income people want to buy. This is a gap, perhaps because many are unaware that the urban poor are both able and willing to pay for services and generally they do not recognize the potential economic and political benefits of serving the urban poor. For example, health insurance is the top priority of lowincome households, as one great risk is hospitalization, which happens suddenly and in most cases cash is needed for service. A challenge is that very few companies reach out to develop the kind of relationship of trust and direct contact (both physical and psychological) with potential clients, which is necessary for entering the low-income market directly. A challenge in terms of health insurances is that the poor are very much aware of the burden of low-cost, high-frequency events, but these are difficult for a health insurer to cover. The claim process produces high costs as it is difficult and expensive to obtain the information needed for claims verification. For a viable health insurance scheme, it is therefore recommended that the policyholders and the community be involved in the business process, thus mobilizing their social capital. The greater the degree of convergence of the interests of insured and insurer, the more viable the arrangement will be (Radermacher et al 2006).

3. Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities;

57

Relevant indicator: 2.6 To what extent do local business associations, such as chambers of commerce, support efforts of small enterprises for business continuity during and after disasters?

For this indicator there is minor achievements by the majority of local governments and o n average in between minor and incomplete achievements see figure 10. Here, the proportion of local governments reporting minor achievements is also large (55%). There are many examples from the self assessments on the benefits of supporting business continuity during and after disasters. It is reported as a way to enable local action, raise investment, creates jobs and contributes to sustainable development, provided waivers of loans for disaster-affected people and assistance for livelihood activities.

4. Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including enforcement of building codes; Relevant indicators: 6.1 How well are risk-sensitive land use regulations and building codes, health and safety codes enforced across all development zones and building types? 6.2 How strong are existing regulations (e.g. land use plans, building codes etc) to support disaster risk reduction in your local authority?

These indicators report by the majority of local governments incomplete achievements and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements. Local governments are reporting slightly lower progress on enforcement aspects than on the strength of regulations, which reflect perhaps the fact that regulations are in place but less successfully enforced. The issue of land use planning and building and the integration of DRR have been raised as one of the top priorities for the future (UNISDR 2013e). The need for enforcement is confirmed by many local governments and some have taken extra measure to reviewing compliance. Vested interests and focus on economic interests is noted by some as reasons behind this where even diligent civil servants and urban planners have little to set against these drivers, transparency of land use planning to the public is an important tool. Better understanding of the incentives to maintain ecosystem services is needed, as well as building capacity to integrate these factors in the urban risk assessments, so they do not disappear in the scramble for short term economic opportunities. Integration of disaster risk analysis has been addressed for example as a part of the Environment Impact Analysis (EIA) regulation or subjecting developmental initiatives to Environmental Risk Assessments. The rapid spread of slums and squatters is a gigantic issue which urban planning cannot control in many places. This is rapidly increasing the amount of vulnerable communities residing in informal settlements which often are located in unsafe places.

58

5. Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes;

Relevant indicators: 10.2 How well are disaster risk reduction measures integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation activities (i.e. build back better, livelihoods rehabilitation)?

Local governments report in general incomplete achievements (score 2) in post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation. One mentioned challenge is that some residents are still not willing to relocate to safer locations. A plan forward is to conduct socialization and discussion with community members to raise their awareness on the importance of having settlement areas safer from hazards and to provide facilities they need such as schools and health facilities in safer zones (LGSAT Sleman, Indonesia). However a bigger challenge is the urgency attached to providing new shelter and other services to those displaced. The goal to build back better and equip vulnerable populations to build resilience is often at odds with the urgent need for immediate shelter in the aftermath of a disaster (UNISDR 2013d). In many places commitment to DRR is also lacking due to the lack of major disaster events over the past years and decades. For example, Jnkping (Sweden) notes that such events are very rare and for that reason recovery and rehabilitation is largely planned to be conducted using the already established land use plan (LGSAT Jnkping, Sweden).

6. Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure. Relevant indicators:

4.1 How far do land use policies and planning regulations for housing and development infrastructure take current and projected disaster risk (including climate related risks) into account? 4.2 How adequately are critical public facilities and infrastructure located in high risk areas assessed for all hazard risks and safety? 4.3 How adequate are the measures that are being undertaken to protect critical public facilities and infrastructure from damage during disasters? 5.3 To what degree do local government or other levels of government have special programs in place to regularly assess schools, hospitals and health facilities for maintenance, compliance with building codes, general safety, weather related risks etc.?

Conclusions from this study: Apart from 4.3 which reports progress both on average and by majority incomplete achievements the other indicators report by the majority of local governments incomplete achievements and on average in between incomplete and not substantial achievements. It seems like there has been more progress in assessing damage (indicator 4.2) rather than protecting critical public facilities and infrastructure from damage during disasters (indicator 4.3). With rapid urbanization, the development of infrastructure for DRR is central to budget expenditure. It will be critical that these infrastructure investments will be integrating DRR considerations; otherwise they and the investment may be increasing risk. With increasing urbanization, risks such as localized flood 59

risk and consequently health risks are likely to be seen to increase. Smaller but more frequently recurring crises plays a role, which accumulate in risk-blind development without an understanding of e.g. the importance of critical buffers, linkages and/or feeder systems that need to be protected or restored (e.g. Groundwater systems, perched aquifers, seeps zones, springs and etc.); to ensure the viability of environmental goods and services. The implementation of Comprehensive Land Use Plans and relevant national land use and development laws are critical to address interconnectedness of risk.

Planning with adequate risk considerations is also an area of learning, perhaps in some places with a high price if the learning comes after the disaster event. For example, Sendai in Japan
reported that in the future, plans for the construction of new facilities will have a larger buffer to the sea to make them (more) tsunami-proof, including construction of facilities at higher elevations relative to the height of tsunami recorded after the earthquake, and the installation of covers over the facilities (LGSAT Sendai, Japan). Progress of HFA Priorities and Priority 4 - Comparing the priorities The Table below and the bar graph (figure 53) show the result comparing the Priority 4 with other Priorities. For both indexes, it is clear that Priority 4 progressed the least comparatively, although the difference is smaller if they are examined by the Median value.
Progress_index by AVERAGE 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% HFA-P1 HFA-P2 HFA-P3 HFA-P4 HFA-P5 All_Avg 51% 51% 43% 50% Progress_index by MEDIAN 51% 39% 40% 49% 42%

46%

46%

Figure 53: This shows that local progress of HFA P4 is lagging behind in comparison to the other Priorities. A progress index is used, which was derived by dividing the actual score (for example 2) with the perfect score (5) for both the average value and the median values from the local government self assessments (LGSATs).

The table below shows the progress indexes for HFA P4, calculated with all the indicators that are related to Priority 4. The result was compared with the overall average progress with that of the 41 total sub-questions. The results indicate a scope about 2% (if by Average) to 4% (if by MEDIAN) lagging of progress on Priority 4 comparing to the overall average level of progress. An average from that is 3% (3.05%) representing the lagging behind of HFA4. Table 2. Scope of lagging of P4 progress at local level
Avg_P4 Progress_index by AVERAGE Progress_index by MEDIAN 45.9% 38.9% Avg_All 48.5% 42.4% Diff Average of Diff -3.05% -2.6% -3.5%

60

References
Bizimana, J. P. and Schilling, M. 2010. Geo-Information Technology for Infrastructural Flood Risk Analysis in Unplanned Settlements: A Case Study of Informal Settlement Flood Risk in the Nyabugogo Flood Plain, Kigali City, Rwanda. Chapter 6. In: P.S. Showalter, Y. Lu (eds.), Geospatial Techniques in Urban Hazard and Disaster Analysis, 99 Geotechnologies and the Environment 2, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2238-7_6 Canada Public Safety. 2012. All Hazards Risk Assessment Methodology Guidelines 2012-2013. ISSN: 2291-3726 [online] URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt/ll-hzrdsssssmnt-eng.pdf Accessed 2014-02-21 Cardona, O.D. 2008. The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. Chapter 3. In: Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people, 2003 G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, D. Hilhorst (ed) Earthscan publishers, London [online] URL: http://www.lared.org/public/articulos/2003/nrcvrfhp/nrcvrfhp_ago-04-2003.pdf Carson, M., . Johannessen, A. Beyene, E. Remling, C. Ruben, and S. Peter. 2013. Institutionalising Gender Equality: DRR challenges and the impact on women and men, and girls and boys in the context of a changing climate. Report prepared for MSB. Stockholm Environment Institute. Final Report. Christoplos, I.,M. Novaky,Y. Aysan. 2012. Resilience, Risk and Vulnerability at Sida. Final report. Sida Decentralised Evaluation 2012:27 [online] URL: http://www.indevelop.se/files/344/2012_27_Resilience,%20Risk%20and%20Vulnerabality%20at%20 Sida.pdf. Accessed 2013-05-15 Fekade, W. Deficits of formal urban land management and informal responses under rapid urban growth, an international perspective, Habitat International, Volume 24, Issue 2, June 2000, Pages 127150, ISSN 0197-3975, [online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(99)00034-X. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for socialecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change Human and Policy Dimensions 16, 253267. Fonseca, C., Smits, S., Nyarko, K., Naafs, A., Franceys, R. 2013. Financing capital maintenance of rural water supply systems : current practices and future options. (WASHCost working paper; 9). [online] The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. http://washurl.net/6nm7ue Gupta, T.N., 1994. Vulnerability of Houses in hazard Prone Areas, The World Conference on the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), Yokohama, Japan; May 23 27, 1994. Hasegawa, R. 2013. Disaster Evacuation from Japans 2011 Tsunami Disaster and the Fukushima Nuclear Accident N05/13 MAY 2013. Institut du dveloppement durable et des relations internationals (IDDRI) [online] URL: http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/STUDY0513_RH_DEVAST%20report.pdf Huffingtonpost 2011, Japan Tsunami Warnings From Ancestors Were Forgotten. Web story by Jay Alabaster, 4/ 6/11 [online] URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/japan-tsunamiwarnings-fr_n_845818.html accessed 2013-08-29 61

Mc Kinsey 2013 Infrastructure productivity: How to save $1 trillion a year. McKinsey Global Institute. IADB Inter American Development Bank, 2013 Microfinance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Webstory. Accessed 2013-04-29 [online] URL: http://www5.iadb.org/mif/ProgramsandProjects/AccesstoFinance/Microfinance/tabid/243/language/en -US/Default.aspx Karlsson, H. & J. Nilsen, 2013. Manuscript. Building safer communities for a better tomorrow, LUCRAM Larssen, R.K., Thomalla, F., &E.L. Calgaro (2011) Governing resilience building in Thailands tourism dependent coastal communities. The role of stakeholder agency. Journal of Global Environmental Change 21 (2), 481-491. Doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.009 LGSAT, Local Government Self Assessments + Country). Available online on Preventionweb URL: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/progress/reports/local.php?o=pol_year&cid=0&rid=0&o 2=DESC&ps=100#f accessed 2014-02-22 Loewe et al 2007. The impact of favouritism on the business climate: a study on wasta in Jordan / Markus Loewe Bonn : Dt. Inst. fr Entwicklungspolitik, 2007 (Studies / Deutsches Institut fr Entwicklungspolitik ; 30) [online] URL: http://www.die-gdi.de/CMSHomepage/openwebcms3.nsf/(ynDK_contentByKey)/ENTR-7BMBLJ/$FILE/Studies%2030.pdf Accessed 2013-04-29 Mitchell, T., K. Haynes, N. Hall, W. Choong and K. Oven. 2008. The Role of Children and Youth in Communicating Disaster Risk. Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 18, No. 1, Children and Disasters (2008), pp. 254-279. [online] URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.18.1.0254 Nienhuis P.H. & R.S.E.W. Leuven. 2001. River restoration and ood protection: controversy or synergism? Hydrobiologia 444: 8599, 2001.

OSullivan, A., M.E. Rey and J. Galvez Mendez 2011. Opportunities and Challenges in the MENA Region [online] http://www.oecd.org/mena/49036903.pdf accessed 2014-02-21 Radermacher, R., I. Dror and G. Noble 2006. Challenges and strategies to extend health insurance to the poor. Chapter 2.1 in: Protecting the poor - A microinsurance compendium, Edited by Craig Churchill, Munich Re Foundation, CGAP working group on microinsurance, International labour office, Geneva
UNESCO 2009 Introduction to IWRM guidelines at river basin level. The United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. International Hydrological Programme (IHP), Network of Asian River Basin Organisations (NARBO) Dialogue Paper. UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2007 [online] URL: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology accessed 2014-02-23 UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2012. Making cities resilient report 2012. 110p. [online] URL: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/28240 accessed 2014-02-21 UNISDR. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2013. A practical guide to Local HFA: Local Self-Assessment of Progress in Disaster Risk Reduction, First Cycle (2011 2013) [online] 62

URL: http://www.preventionweb.net/applications/hfa/assets/lgsat/documents/GuidanceNote.pdf accessed 2014-02-22 UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2013b. Summary of Local Governments and Citys recommendation for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2) [online] URL: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/32618_02summaryoflgsrecohfa2.pdf accessed 2014-02-22 UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2013c. Summary and Closing Remarks of "Critical Issues and priorities needed to address urban risk and local governance for disaster resilience "Online dialogue. [online] URL: http://www.preventionweb.net/posthfa/documents/Summary-and-Closing-Remarks-LocalGovernance.pdf UNISDR 2013d Synthesis report: Consultations on a post-2015 framework on disaster risk reduction (HFA2). [online] URL: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=32535 accessed 2014-0222 UNISDR 2013e Results of "Local Governments and Cities" Feedback on the Post 2015 Disaster Risk Reduction Framework Global Survey conducted from 21 Feb 05 March 2013 (12 Days) with 1260 responses. and online dialogue 22 March 5 April 2013. [online] URL: http://www.unisdrapps.net/confluence/download/attachments/13107214/Results+of+Survey+and+on-line+dialogueHFA2.pdf?version=1 accessed 2014-02-22 UN Habitat. 2012. A resilient cities initiative, Urban Risk Reduction. Guidance to the Provincial and Local government authorities (in Pakistan), progress report. Vis, M., Klijn, F., De Bruijn, K. M., and van Buuren, M.: Resilience strategies for flood risk management in the Netherlands, International Journal of River Basin Management, 1, 3339, 2003. WHO 2013. Gender and disasters. Regional Office for South East Asia. Webpage. [online] URL: http://www.searo.who.int/entity/gender/topics/disaster_women/en/ accessed 2014-02-22 Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in socialecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ World Bank 2011. Innovation in Disaster Risk Financing for Developing Countries: Public and Private Contributions. [online] URL: http://www.ruralfinance.org/fileadmin/templates/rflc/documents/DRFI_WRC_Paper_FINAL_April1 1_pdf.pdf Accessed 2014-02-21. World Bank. 2013. Doing Business 2013: Smarter Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9615-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 [online] URL: http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2013 accessed 2014-02-22

Annex 1: Additional information on methodology

63

The data sample In total 121 local governments are analyzed in this report, covering 34 countries, predominantly from the global south. The table below summaries the geographic distribution of the local governments analyzed. It also describes some contextual indicators from the respective countries national level data. These are presented as an average for the region based on the local governments in the sample.

Table 1: Sample description

Sample description\Region Africa Americas Europe Middle East South and Southeast Central Asia Asia 3 5 5 9 9 48 14 40 31 33 12288 1088 2217 84 34 44 0.74 0.53 0.64 13 67 28 99 96 93 99 68 78

Number of countries 6 12 3 8 Number of local governments 15 27 8 Transparency Index 43 39 70 GDP per capita, current prices (USD) 1634 5910 36038 Population urban % 30 72 75 HDI 0.49 0.74 0.88 Child mortality no per 1000 62 18 3 Improved water urban ( % of total) 81 94 100 Improved sanitation facilities, urban 53 69 100 (% of urban population with access) Sources: Transparency index: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results; GDP per capita: IMF (2009) http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx; HDI: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/profiles/; Child mortality data is from Gapminder (2011)

Limitations of the data and challenges in interpreting the result The data has many limitations, mostly due to the fact that the self assessments are not mandatory and the analysis was done on existing material, where local governments had volunteered to make this assessment. Some observations regarding the sampling of the data are worth noting here, which provide bias and challenges to interpret the result: Those local governments who volunteer to do a self assessment provide a more biased sample then if the sample would be randomly or independently selected. For example they may from the beginning have a relatively higher progress than those not taking part in the self assessment. Skewed geographic representation: The sample has an uneven and indeed quite skewed geographic representation at regional scale. In addition to the limited amount of countries involved, the numbers of local governments from each country are highly uneven. For example, an absolute majority of the 48 sample local governments in South and Central Asia are from India and Pakistan only. Over representation of the less developed countries: About 67% of the sample is local governments from countries with HDI less than 0.7; and about 37% from countries with per capita GDP less than 1000 USD.

8 9

Including one city from Canada and the rest from central and Latin America. Including one city from Japan.

64

Disaster prone countries are not represented: Comparing our sample with disaster data from countries since 1950- 201310 and looking at the occurrence of natural disasters in EM-DAT there are many disaster prone countries which are not in our sample. It would therefore be interesting to encourage self assessments of local governments in countries like USA, China, Bangladesh, Mexico, Australia, Afghanistan, Russia, Turkey, France, Hong Kong, Democratic Republic of Congo, Korea Republic, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mozambique; just to mention the most relevant countries. However, it is not clear how the absence of these countries would have influenced the result, but perhaps it would have provided interesting solutions to coping and adapting to recurring disasters. Data from different assessment rounds: There are still missing data for some of the subquestions depending on different formats in the different assessment rounds. More specifically, the following sub-questions include missing data: E2.2, E3.5, E9.3 (18 data missing); and E8.1 (10 data missing).

Challenges also occur due to the subjectivity of the data. The self assessment data is a qualitative and subjective estimate by local governments, and as such they can only give an indication of relative progress. Our challenges in this matter include: Comparing low, middle and high income countries: there is a challenge in comparing data between low, middle and high income countries due to the fact that the scoring of progress is a described in relative terms. This is a result of the lack of benchmarks attached to each grade, which could provide a guideline to estimate local progress with an absolute measure. Sometimes a lower score is an indication of a higher risk awareness and understanding of the need for interventions. For example, in some high income countries like Sweden a few local governments reported low scores where they felt there was a need for improvement although progress is in relative terms very good. Comparing local governments with different DRR awareness: Some cities have taken part of two rounds of assessments and the impression from comparing these from the same city is that scores actually reduced the second time, because cities had learnt from engaging in DRR that there were larger gaps than they first assumed. Comparing relative progress and absolute progress: A high score in the self assessment can be assigned to local governments perception of high relative progress, although the absolute progress compared to other local governments may not be at the same level.

Inter-country or inter-income differences in perceptions are difficult to analyse and draw conclusions from, which is the case in this self assessment exercise. Instead the result must be interpreted just as a rough estimate, giving more or less indicative assessments on progress, and not giving too much attention to comparison of specific scores for specific countries. In the end the self assessment is supposed to be a tool to be used only as self assessment - to measure local progress. Having said all of the above; the data which the self- assessments provide remains a valuable source of information, in the sense that it attempts to measure, through a more or less similar methodology, progress in local DRR. As such it can give valuable insights, given that the mentioned precautions to the data are observed.

10

http://www.emdat.be/database

65

Annex 2: Scoring for all indicators

Progress of all 41 indicators - highest to lowest (average value)

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 E1.1 E3.1 E9.4 E7.1 E3.3 E1.2 E9.6 E1.4 E6.2 E9.2 E7.3 E8.3 E6.1 E4.1 E5.2 E8.2 E5.1 E5.3 E3.2 E5.4 E1.3 E4.2 E7.2 E8.1 E7.4 E3.4 E9.1 E3.5 E2.1 E10.2 E8.4 E9.5 E10.1 E4.3 E10.3 E9.3 E2.2 E2.4 E2.3 E2.6 E2.5 average

Progress of all 41 indicators - highest to lowest (median value)

4 2 0 E1.1 E3.1 E6.2 E7.3 E9.6 E7.1 E1.4 E9.4 E8.3 E1.2 E1.3 E2.1 E2.2 E2.3 E2.4 E3.2 E3.3 E3.4 E3.5 E4.1 E4.2 E4.3 E5.1 E5.2 E5.3 E5.4 E6.1 E7.2 E7.4 E8.1 E8.2 E8.4 E9.1 E9.2 E9.3 E9.5 E10.1 E10.2 E10.3 E2.5 E2.6 The figure 62 (top) shows AVERAGE values for all 41 indicators (ordered biggest smallest) and in the figure 63 (bottom) MEDIAN values for all 41 indicators. median

66

Progress of all 41 indicators (average and median values)

4 3 2 1 0 E1.1 E1.2 E1.3 E1.4 E2.1 E2.2 E2.3 E2.4 E2.5 E2.6 E3.1 E3.2 E3.3 E3.4 E3.5 E4.1 E4.2 E4.3 E5.1 E5.2 E5.3 E5.4 E6.1 E6.2 E7.1 E7.2 E7.3 E7.4 E8.1 E8.2 E8.3 E8.4 E9.1 E9.2 E9.3 E9.4 E9.5 E9.6 E10.1 E10.2 E10.3 median average

The figure 64 shows AVERAGE and MEDIAN values for all 41 indicators, ordered as they are presented in the essentials.

67

68