|
|
| |
|
| |
| Introduction |
| |
| This dialogue will feed into arises from the Hyogo Framework
which identified the value of having indicators with which
to measure progress towards disaster risk reduction. In particular
the 5 priorities for action are areas for which indicators
may be useful.
These Priorities for Action are:
- Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national
and local priority with a strong institutional
basis for
implementation.
- Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and
enhance early warning.
- Use knowledge, innovation and education to build
a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels.
- Reduce the underlying risk factors
- Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective
response at all levels.
A principal purpose of this dialogue is to provide commentary
towards and examples for a set of practical guidelines
for governments to use in monitoring their progress and
in particular to enable them to enhance their own capacity
for self-assessment as a means of improving their own performance.
As part of this process, but also as an outcome in itself
we hope that this dialogue will generate a common understanding
of the processes and priorities in developing indicators,
applying indicator s and, most importantly, showing what
is needed to support national governments in measuring
their progress in disaster risk reduction.
This online dialogue is an opportunity for all interested
parties to contribute to a debate on what types of indicators
may be useful, how they may be collected and how they may
be applied. The intention is that, in the first instance,
indicators could be applied and used at national level,
though they may be useful at regional and local levels.
They may also be useful in providing data to international
levels.
This is not an academic exercise and the emphasis therefore
is on applied and achievable processes, not on finely tuned
discussions or definitions of terminology.
Any development of a set of indicators and particularly
the application of those indicators will in the end be
a matter for the national governments themselves and any
use of indicators will need to take account of local circumstances
and conditions; that is, the local context.
Indicators may be useful at international levels but any
transposition of data from national level, or any comparison
of individual countries, will be a sensitive and complex
task which will need to take account of the starting point,
priorities, resources and risks faced of each nation and
their communities.
The tangible outcome of this dialogue will be a guidance
document which will suggest tools that may be used\to monitor
progress towards disaster risk reduction.
In many instances we know what to do technically to reduce
risk, and often are working towards this, but the public
and transparent description and measurement of risk reduction
has not been attained. We know what to do, but we do not
know how well we are doing.
The tools that are derived from this dialogue may include
the following:
- Checklists
- Principles of assessment,
- Strategies for monitoring and evaluation,
- Setting targets and goals (progressive and final desired
results)
- Means of identifying and acquiring cost effectively data
and,
- Methods for developing and applying the above.
Data itself may be quantitative or qualitative and we
particularly encourage the submission of case studies,
examples, anecdotes and illustrations of good practice.
In some sense we may be asking participants to discuss
how to ‘measure the immeasurable’, how for
example to develop measures or indicators of values,
culture, intangibles items, social networks and items
and processes
that have personal and social significance but are not
easily described numerically.
Other questions we will be asking participants to comment
on include:
-
What is achievable in agreeing indicators and in measuring
progress over the period 2005 – 2015.
- How indicators and goals should be expressed, for example,
should they be prescriptive, should they be common across
all countries or may some indicators be descriptive and
subjective.
- What baseline data is needed, and what benchmarks are appropriate
as part of the process of measuring progress.
- Why measure at all, and what the process of measurement
should or should not include.
Queries or suggestions on specific questions or matters
for discussion can be posted or send to the moderators.
|
|
Purpose of the on-line dialogue:
The
dialogue will explore the views on how to identify, apply
and use tools such as indicators to monitor progress
towards disaster risk reduction outcomes identified in
the Hyogo Framework.
A set
of tentative benchmarks and expected results have already
been identified in discussions at the World Conference
on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) and will be used as background
material. The result of the on-line discussions
will constitute the basis to help develop indicators
and guidelines to support the progress of assessment,
reporting and priority setting at the national level
to monitor disaster risk reduction over the period 2005 – 2015.
How to participate:
Please
register by clicking here or
send a message to HFdialogue@un.org
The
discussion will take place via email. The moderators
will receive the messages and they will pass them on
for circulation to all participants as comments on each
topic. The messages will be posted on the website, but
no inter-active discussion will take place there. The
role of the moderators will be to prompt discussion,
ensure comments are relevant and to seek clarification
from contributors where comments are unclear.
You
will find guidelines for participants on the website
address indicated above. Those who wish to contribute
to the discussion are welcome to contact the moderators
for advice on the form and content of their contributions
Target audience:
This
on-line dialogue seeks to involve people from different
areas and levels of responsibility who contribute to disaster
risk reduction activities; however the primary focus is
on the use of reporting and indicators at national level.
We encourage and welcome participation from a range of entities, including
Governments, national platforms , staff from disaster management and development
agencies, Task Force members, UN agencies, programme officers and project managers,
national societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, non-government
organizations, and wherever possible community based organisations, private
enterprise, experts and others interested in sustainable development and disaster
risk reduction.
Expected
results
- A
common understanding on ways forward to measure progress
towards disaster risk reduction as set out in the Hyogo
Framework.
- A
summary report of the key issues and input for guidelines
to develop disaster risk reduction indicators and benchmarks
at national scale.
- A
network of interested professionals to continue in
contact for further trend analysis and progress reporting.
|
|
|
| |
Background: The starting point
The Hyogo
Framework
specifically expressed the need for establishing guidance at
the international level to provide assistance to the national
players in creating measures of progress against goals, objectives
and key activities.
This current requirement to identify appropriate indicators that
builds on the work of people involved at the national, regional
level on disaster risk reduction, follows from several previous
efforts. Two proceeding on line dialogues:
helped define
the basis for the current Hyogo Framework. This current
dialogue builds on the previous focusing on the monitoring
and reporting
tools. The preparatory process leading to the WCDR,
the Thematic Segment held in Kobe and the Inter-Agency
Task Force on Disaster Reduction (IATF/DR) Working Group 3: Risk,
Vulnerability and Disaster
Impact Assessment, contributed in focusing
on methodologies and in developing a list of possible
benchmarks and indicators.
To address the needs of reporting and “developing generic,
realistic and measurable indicators, keeping in mind available
resources of individual States” as requested in
the Hyogo Framework, a group convened by the ISDR secretariat
met during
the Eleventh
Session of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction.
The group stressed the importance for indicators to be
established by people working directly with disaster
risk reduction programmes.
The international community involved in disaster risk
reduction issues can help by developing guidelines to
support this
process at national level. The process of developing
the guidelines should
be a bottom-up exercise involving actors within Governments,
national disaster risk reduction programmes and experts,
NGOs and the international
community. It should be complemented by consultations
linking indicators related to disaster risk reduction
to internationally
agreed development
goals. The process of developing the guidelines is a bottom-up exercise
involving actors within, Governments, national disaster risk reduction
programmes and experts, NGOs and the international community. It
will be complemented by consultations linking indicators related
to disaster risk reduction to internationally agreed development
goals.
|
|
