# EUR-Lex - 52014DC0216 - EN

*|*

# 52014DC0216

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The post 2015 Hyogo Framework for Action: Managing risks to achieve resilience /* COM/2014/0216 final */**

			*

			*

1- TOWARDS A POST-2015 HYOGO FRAMEWORK
FOR ACTION

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)
"Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters" is
a 10-year plan adopted by 168 UN Member States which voluntarily
committed to work on five priorities for action with the objective of
making the world safer from natural hazards and building
disaster resilience. Adopted in 2005, the HFA is due
to expire in
2015 and
a wide consultation process is taking place[1]
on shaping the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction that will be
endorsed
at the 3rd World conference for disaster risk reduction in Sendai (Japan) on
14- 18 March, 2015.

Disasters and climate risks have a major impact on
the economy as well as on the security and well-being of citizens. In recent
years, exposure to disasters has increased significantly due to climate change,
rapid and unplanned urbanisation, demographic pressure, construction and more
intensive land-use in hazard prone areas, biodiversity loss and eco-system
degradation.

Between 2002 and 2012, natural disasters have caused
the death of more than 100,000 people annually on average. In the past decade,
there has been an increasing trend in direct overall losses worldwide, with an
average annual economic loss of over €100 billion[2]. Impacts
vary across regions depending on the geographic exposure to risk as well as
level of socio-economic development. While fatalities tend to be higher in
developing countries and economic losses higher in developed economies, all
countries are vulnerable to disasters. The European Union is not spared, with
natural disasters causing 80,000 deaths and € 95
billion in economic losses over the last decade[3].

To address these
alarming trends, risk prevention and management policies are essential to
ensure sustainable development and economic growth, both within the Union[4] and
worldwide. Prevention
and risk management make strong economic sense in terms of avoiding losses with
a rate of return on every euro between 4 and 7 times[5]. Investments
in disaster risk management bring also extended economic benefits
and can
act as a means of promoting jobs and help to ensure structural sustainability
of public and private finances.

Against this background,
a renewed international framework for disaster risk reduction offers a unique
opportunity to build on the successes of the HFA to better
address future challenges.

The outcomes of initiatives such as the
Rio +20 Summit[6],
the UNFCCC[7]
and the extensive international support for the resilience agenda, show that
risk reduction and disaster management should become a priority for developing
countries, emerging economies and developed countries.

The revision of the HFA is also an
opportunity for the EU to take stock of the policies developed and progress
made in building resilience and disaster risk management through EU policies
and support provided through development cooperation and humanitarian aid.

The purpose of this Communication is to
set out the Commission's initial views on the shaping of the post-2015 Hyogo
Framework for Action building on the achievements of a range of EU policies
including civil protection, environmental protection, internal security,
climate change adaptation, health, research and innovation, as well as the
resilience agenda promoted through the EU external action. It analyses progress
made and addresses implementation gaps and emerging challenges of increasing
risks in the future.

2-
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES

Since its adoption in 2005, the HFA has
been instrumental in supporting global, regional, and national efforts for
disaster risk reduction. Despite positive developments, significant
implementation gaps remain and additional challenges have emerged.

Support to disaster risk management has
gained momentum and contributed to greater attention and investments in
disaster risk management by key stakeholders including the main development aid
donors. Self-monitoring
of the progress in implementation of the five HFA priorities for action[8] shows,
however, that most progress has been made for
priorities 1 (ensuring
that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation) and 5
(the improvement of the capacities to prepare and respond to disasters), while
there is a consistently lower progress in priority 4, which aims to reduce the
underlying risk factors[9].

Most countries continue to have
difficulties integrating risk reduction into public investment planning, urban
development, spatial planning and management, and social protection. There
is still the need to translate policies and institutional strengthening into actual
implementation and more resilient societies. Current
investments and policy responses are insufficient to effectively address
existing risks, let alone to keep pace with emerging challenges, including:

Effects of the changing
  climate and continued environmental degradation will lead to more intense
  and frequent extreme natural events, including floods, droughts, and
  cyclones; 
 Climate change is also a
  threat multiplier for instability, conflict and state fragility leading to
  migration and displacement, weak governance and geo-political instability;
 Conflicts and fragility also
  further affect the vulnerability to disasters; 
 Population growth, primarily
  in poorer countries and households, as well as rapid urbanisation will
  increase pressure on natural resources and on economic activities in
  disaster prone areas; 
 Rapid urbanisation leading
  to the concentration of population and investment in hazard and risk prone
  areas is also a trend that increases significantly vulnerability (it is
  estimated that by 2050, 60 to 70 % of the world's population will live in
  urban areas)[10];
 Demand for energy and food
  is growing and puts pressure on resources like land and water. Water
  scarcity is projected to become a major problem with almost half the
  world's population living in areas of high water stress by 2030[11];
 New risks are emerging with potentially
  highly disruptive consequences (space weather related events, multi-risk
  events such as the 2011 Fukushima triple disaster, risks in a digital and
  high-tech era, including cyber risks); 
 Extensive risk events (small
  scale, highly frequent, and localised events such as flash floods, fires
  and landslides) are often underestimated and under-reported but they
  nevertheless undermine local development as well as national
  competitiveness; 
 Economies are globalised and
  increasingly structured around complex global supply chains; as
  demonstrated by the 2011 Floods in Thailand the economic shock of a
  disaster can ripple out to economies and businesses on the other side of
  the world;  
 Economic and financial
  downturn puts pressure on national budgets to secure disaster risk
  management funding.

3- EU DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
AND RESILIENCE AGENDA:  A VITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HFA

Enhancing the EU's resilience to crises,
as well as its capacity to anticipate, prepare and respond to risks, especially
cross-border risks, is amongst the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy[12]:
competitiveness and sustainability depend upon effective disaster risk
management which helps to avoid losses and strengthens resilience to increasing
global shocks and threats. Investing in disaster risk prevention and management
is a strong driver of innovation, growth and job creation, opening also new
markets and business opportunities.

Significant achievements have been made
both through Union policies and financial support. These present important EU
deliverables towards a coherent policy on disaster risk management that can be
shared and underpin the new international framework on disaster risk management.

3.1. Policy
achievements related to disaster risk management in the EU

The new provisions in the revised EU
civil protection legislation[13]
set the framework for implementation of a cross-sectoral disaster risk
management policy, promoting a holistic approach for all natural and man-made
risks throughout
all phases of the disaster management cycle (prevention, preparedness,
response).

Building on the new legislation and
earlier Communications and Council Conclusions, key actions to
support the implementation of the EU disaster risk management framework include:

· 
Risk
assessment and analysis: Building on the available national
risk assessments, the Commission has prepared a first cross-sectoral overview
of risks in the EU, taking into account, where possible and relevant, the
future impact of climate change and the need for climate adaptation; following
a consistent approach, multi-hazard national risk assessments are to be
produced by Member States by end 2015 and followed up by assessment of national
risk management capabilities and improved risk management planning.

· 
Encouraging
learning and exchange of experience to improve governance - promotion
and support for lessons learnt and peer reviews (such as the 2012 United
Kingdom and 2013 Finland peer reviews[14])
to encourage learning across Member States and steer progress in further
developing and implementing risk management policies and practices;

· 
Furthermore
guidance
for disaster prevention based on good practices is currently
under preparation on cross-cutting themes (governance, planning, data, risk
communication and information, research and  technology);

· 
Data
availability, accessibility, sharing and comparability, including
ongoing
work with Member States and international partners (including UNISDR and IRDR[15])
towards establishing European standards and protocols for recording disaster
losses[16];

· 
Mainstreaming
of disaster risk management: risk prevention and management
considerations have been integrated in a number of key EU policies and financial
instruments to support resilient
investments (i.e. cohesion policy, transport and energy, research and
innovation, critical infrastructure protection, cross-border health threats,
environmental impact assessment, green infrastructure, integrated coastal management,
agriculture, food and nutrition security, water, flood risk management, major
industrial accident prevention);

· 
Insurance used
as a tool for disaster management – the Green Paper on the insurance of
natural and man-made disasters[17]
aims to involve the private sector and explore ways to effectively use
insurance as an incentive for risk awareness, prevention and mitigation;

· 
Strong
synergies with adaptation to climate change as outlined by
the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change[18], on
cross cutting areas such as sharing of data and knowledge, assessment of risks
and vulnerabilities, urban resilience, development of European
standards for climate resilient infrastructure, coherence
between national adaptation strategies and risk management plans, tracking of
resilient investments[19];

· 
Science
and innovation for disaster risk management: In 2013, the
Commission launched an initiative with EU Member States to explicitly map and
improve approaches to science-based advice for risk reduction and emergency
response. Furthermore, the Horizon 2020 research programme will support challenge-oriented
approaches for improving disaster resilience (such as monitoring, prevention,
prediction, early warning, awareness raising, and climate change mitigation and
adaptation, crisis communication, technology transfer, pre-standardisation);

· 
Address
cross-border impacts (through macro-regional projects and
strategies such as the Baltic Sea strategy, Danube Strategy or regional
maritime strategies) and cooperation activities with candidate,
potential candidates, and other neighboring countries.

· 
Enhanced
preparedness for response through the development of voluntary
pool of pre-committed disaster response capacities, better response planning, a
training network, and reinforced cooperation among authorities in the field of
training and exercises[20],
strengthened early warning systems[21].
New
operational
emergency management services are also provided worldwide through
EU space
programmes such as Galileo and Copernicus.

3.2. EU
support to developing countries with a focus on building resilience in crisis
prone countries

Based
on the
2012 Communication on Resilience[22]
and subsequent Action Plan[23],
the EU is committed to reducing vulnerability and building resilience to future
stresses and shocks as pre-requisites for poverty reduction and sustainable
development. Risk management approaches will be an integral part of all EU humanitarian
aid and development assistance programming within all sectors and contexts. This
work will further build on the 2009 EU Strategy on Disaster Risk
Reduction in Developing Countries[24]
and the 2011 Implementation Plan[25].

The EU
resilience approach calls for multi-sectoral and multi-level approaches (local,
national, regional, global) that address the interlinked and causal dynamics of
vulnerability and fragility, whilst optimising capacities from each level or
sector. The leadership role of local, national and regional institutions is
strongly emphasized.

Significant
progress is already being made. The recent initiatives SHARE[26], AGIR[27] and
GCCA[28],
are already contributing to building the resilience of the most vulnerable.  In
the same line, the Intra-ACP Strategy[29]
is supporting regionally-owned disaster risk reduction and climate change
strategies and action plans in Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific”.

The Disaster
Preparedness ECHO programme (DIPECHO) that enabled the piloting and replication
of community based approaches and proven good practices to risk reduction
(including promotion of safer schools, hospitals, and urban resilience) will be
further disseminated to feed into government policies.

Progress
has been also made in crisis and vulnerability assessments
through the development of a common, transparent science-based humanitarian
risk index (InfoRM[30])
based on open data and aimed at harmonizing disaster risk management across
humanitarian actors (a joint initiative of the UN Inter-Agency Standing
Committee and the European Commission as well as donors, NGOs and Member States).

These
initiatives would also inform the wider EU external policy, including the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (e.g. work on conflict prevention and
development of a conflict early warning system).

4- PRINCIPLES FOR THE NEW FRAMEWORK

In a global context of increasing needs
and new challenges, the successor framework to the HFA has to identify and
implement approaches and practical means to reduce
disaster risks and strengthen resilience more
effectively. Building on successes and lessons learnt under the current HFA, the
following principal elements need to be included in the post-2015 HFA framework:

(i) Improving accountability,
transparency and governance

The current framework is voluntary,
based on self-assessments. While it is expected to remain non-binding, the
negotiations on the future framework should develop a set of standards and
mechanisms to ensure that different actors can be held accountable for their
actions (or lack of action). It should provide
incentives for commitments to be met while ensuring ownership of
the implementation process.

Periodic peer review
mechanisms, including voluntary peer reviews (as successfully piloted in the United Kingdom and Finland in the context of the EU cooperation on disaster risk management and HFA),
should be established as helpful instruments for improving policy-making,
sharing experience and increasing accountability.

To improve transparency, the new
framework should lead to the collection and sharing of sound and comparable data
on disaster losses, hazard
and vulnerability in an open data policy, including the development of common
and interoperable data and risk assessment protocols and public risk registers
and databases. Standardisation efforts should also
cover the overall actions relevant to risk management. This should be
supported by systematic actions
to raise public awareness of risk and improve risk and crisis communication
(education, involvement of media, networks).

The new framework should further
contribute to enhance governance for disaster management at all levels and
across all sectors, building effective coordination mechanisms and sustainable
partnerships between different
public
authorities and relevant stakeholders (civil society, academia and research
institutions, private sector). Involvement of relevant actors and communities in
decision-making processes should be ensured through inclusive participatory
mechanisms and the promotion of a right-based approach[31]. Strong local structures and enhancement of local authorities'
capacities are essential to improve planning and resilience of cities and
ensure local political commitment and effective implementation of existing
legal and policy frameworks.

Regional inter-governmental organisations
should play an important role in the implementation of the new framework and in the Regional Platforms for Disaster
Risk Reduction as integrated regional disaster risk management strategies are
being developed in several regions, including within the EU. More effective
regional mechanisms and programmes for cooperation and capacity development
should be also encouraged, in particular to address common and trans-boundary
risks. Regional risk assessments and more efficient planning should be promoted.

(ii)
A framework to deliver results – role of targets and indicators to measure
progress and encourage implementation

Existing priorities for
actions and indicators[32] under the current HFA consider the
extent to which countries have put in place the policies and institutions
needed to reduce disaster risk. However, self-monitoring of the progress
in implementation of the five HFA priorities has not resulted yet in a
consistent effort by countries to monitor disaster risk and resilience. In addition, there were no links between the monitoring of
progress under the HFA and the mechanisms to monitor progress under the MDGs[33]
and the UNFCCC. A simplified new monitoring system should address these gaps to
become a more effective tool for measuring progress made, encouraging
implementation at different levels and sharing successes.

Action-oriented
targets should be further developed to effectively measure the implementation of
the new framework and to encourage stronger accountability.
They should address the essential components of disaster resilience and
encourage countries to put in place and effectively implement the necessary
policies and tools to prevent risk generation and accumulation in order to
reduce disaster risks and strengthen resilience.

Targets
will need to be politically acceptable and operationally feasible and
measurable, achievable and result–oriented, and with a clear timeframe. Possible
areas could cover commitments by a certain date to develop and implement
integrated risk assessment and assessment of risk management capabilities (as
already envisaged in the EU civil protection legislation) or other result
oriented actions (making sure that all citizens, including vulnerable people have
access to early warning and risk information, that newly built infrastructure,
including hospitals, health facilities, schools can withstand disaster; that the
percentage of the people and infrastructure exposed to hazards is reduced).

Setting
up universal targets could facilitate a more integrated approach to compare
worldwide the results from the implementation and exchange good practices
between developed and developing countries.

However,
due to very different risk profiles of different countries and regions, setting
more specific targets and indicators is likely to be more appropriate at
national or regional level.  Building on the regional strategies that have been
developed by several regions, a regional approach to targets should be
supported, considering specificities to hazards and progress made in HFA
implementation as well as existing mechanisms for regional cooperation in
disaster management.

Furthermore,
indicators measuring the changes in the impact of disasters over time could
contribute to the tracking of progress towards building resilience to disasters.
This could be measured for example by indicators such as the frequency of
disasters, direct economic losses as a % of GDP per country, number of victims
and injured persons, the percentage of insured losses as compared to total
losses, percentage of private and public budget allocated to disaster risk reduction
and preparedness (e.g. measured through a reliable disaster risk management tracking
system[34]).

The
targets and their indicators must translate into tangible reductions of losses
and risks where they matter most.

iii) Strengthening the contribution to
sustainable and smart growth

The new framework should
promote disaster proofing in economic and financial decisions and strategies, in
both public and private sectors. Special attention should be paid to cost
benefit analysis of disaster prevention measures also to help support resource
allocation. All major infrastructure and projects should be risk
sensitive and climate and disaster resilient.

It is essential that the new
HFA is developed and implemented in close partnership with the private
sector, international financial institutions such as the EIB[35]
and the EBRD[36] and major investors. New initiatives
for engagement of all businesses should be promoted, including the development
of partnerships across public, private and other stakeholders. Insurance/reinsurance
value chain, including (re-)insurance intermediaries, insurance and re-insurance
undertakings, but also market-based instruments should play a key role in
helping countries and regions that are particularly vulnerable to disasters to
create effective financial contingency mechanisms and discourage risky behavior.

Innovative technologies and
instruments to support disaster management should be further encouraged (ICT,
early-warning systems, resilient infrastructure and buildings, green infrastructure,
climate and integrated disaster risk modelling, ecosystem-based approaches,
communication, knowledge management). This will also lead to increased business
opportunities and contribute to green growth.

The new framework should
reinforce the science-policy interface, capitalizing on knowledge including
innovation and technology. More effective use of science and research in both physical
and social science is needed to systematically inform policies and operations. This
should include a foresight comprehensive multi-hazard approach (covering both
natural and man-made risks, including industrial and chemical accidents) and
solution driven research to better address future risks and societal challenges.
Close international collaboration in this area is essential.

Joint approach with climate
change adaptation and a strengthened focus on reducing the underlying risk
drivers in ecosystem management, resource efficiency, land use and
urban planning, environmental monitoring and impact assessment are essential conditions
for ensuring long term sustainable growth.

(iv) Addressing vulnerabilities
and needs in a comprehensive framework

The new HFA should be more inclusive and
gender-sensitive. A better targeting and empowerment of particularly vulnerable
persons (children, elderly people, persons with disabilities, homeless, poor
and food insecure people, etc.) and civil society are needed. This should
include effective use of appropriate social safety net mechanisms and social
protection systems responsive to disaster risks. The role of women in building
resilience in households and communities should be promoted.

Particular attention should
be paid to building resilience in all urban and vulnerable rural settings as
well as coastal areas, including through integrated planning. In this respect, comprehensive
risk assessments, strong coordination mechanisms between local and national
administration with active engagement of civil society and awareness raising
initiatives (such as twinning of cities) are instrumental.

Globally, disaster risk is highly
concentrated in poorer countries suffering from weaker governance. In many cases
this vulnerability is compounded by political instability and conflict. Equally,
a resilience approach that works well in a stable, well governed country will
not be directly applicable to one which is in a conflict situation.

The new framework should therefore
factor in state fragility and conflict when it considers the most appropriate
ways to reduce disaster risks. A comprehensive international framework should
also address other forms of violence and fragility as well as technological
risks alongside natural hazards, including everyday small local disasters and
global shocks and stresses such as food and nutrition insecurity and epidemics.

(v) Ensuring
coherence with the international agenda

Integrating disaster risk
management and climate change adaptation policies into the international sustainable
development agenda is essential. Disaster resilience and its related risk
factors outlined above are already featuring as important issues in the
international preparations for the post-2015 development framework addressing
poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Furthermore, the design of
the 2015 agreement on climate change provides for another opportunity to
enhance adaptation efforts and integrate disaster risk management. This should
build on and be coordinated with related processes under the UNFCCC, such as
the National Adaptation Planning process, the adaptation window under the Green
Climate Fund, and the Warsaw International Mechanism on loss and damage.
Initiatives like the Joint National Action Plans (JNAPs) in the Pacific region
are combining efforts in climate change adaptation and disaster risk management
and should be promoted in other regions.

Other related international high-level
events are also taking place in parallel, in particular on nutrition[37],
biodiversity[38], culture[39].
The United Nations Third Conference of Small Island Developing States and the United Nations General Assembly leaders' summit on climate
change are also both taking place this year.

Policies, goals, and targets,
and their monitoring that are discussed in each of these fora and the post-2015
Hyogo Framework should be mutually supportive and reinforcing.

The new framework should also
clarify the relationships between UNISDR and UNFCCC, as well as other UN bodies
responsible for framing the global and national response to the threats of
disasters and the impacts of climate change.

Finally, the progressive
recognition at international level that prevention is a legal obligation (duty
to prevent) through the development of international law by the
International Law Commission concerning the “Protection of persons in the event
of disasters” is also highly relevant and should be used as a vehicle to
improve the implementation of the post-2015 HFA.

6- MOVING FORWARD

A renewed post-2015 Hyogo Framework for
Action is a significant opportunity to advance disaster risk management across
the world.

The ideas presented in this
Communication should serve as basis for further dialogue with EU Member States,
European Parliament, Committee of the Regions, European Economic and Social
Committee, and other stakeholders (civil society, academia, private sector) as well
as international partners and the UN System on how to further shape this agenda
in the preparatory process to the Sendai Summit.

[1] The United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) has been requested (UNGA Resolution
66/199 of 22 December 2011) to facilitate development of a post-2015
framework for disaster risk reduction

[2] Centre for Research
on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)

[3] Centre
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) – the data covers EU-28
and the period between 2002-2012.

[4] As
envisaged in the Europe 2020 Strategy COM(2010) 2020

[5] "
Natural disasters, counting the cost " (World Bank, 2004)

[6] 2012
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

[7] United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

[8] Priorities
for action:  (1): ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local
priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation, (2) identify,
assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning, (3) use
knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels, (4) reduce the underlying risk factors, (5) strengthen disaster
preparedness for effective response at all levels.

[9] Implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action, Summary reports 2007-2013, UNISDR, 2013

[10] Global
Health Observatory, WHO

[11] United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)

[12] COM(2010)
2020,  3.3.2010

[13] Decision N°
1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism.

[14]  Supported by the
European Commission and developed in cooperation with UNISDR and OECD.

[15] Integrated
Research on Disaster Risk, http://www.irdrinternational.org

[16] De Groeve, T., K.
Poljansek and L. Vernaccini, 2013. Recording Disaster Losses: Recommendations
for a European approach. Publications Office of the European Union, Scientific
and Technical Research Reports EUR 26111. ISBN 978-92-79-32690-5, DOI:
10.2788/98653 (online),
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/29296

[17] COM(2013)213,
16.4.2013

[18] COM(2013)216, 16.4.2013

[19] Contributing to the EU
target for 20% climate-related investments of EU budget.

[20] Decision
N° 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism

[21] Such as the EFFIS (European Forest Fire Information System) or EFAS 5euroepan Flood Awareness System)

[22] COM(2012)586,
3.10.2012

[23] SWD
(2013) 227. 19.6.2013

[24] COM(2009)84. 23.2.2009

[25] SEC(2011) 215,
16.02.2011

[26] Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience

[27] Alliance Globale pour
l'Initiative Resilience Sahel

[28] The Global Climate
Change Alliance (GCCA) http://www.gcca.eu

[29] European Community –
ACP Group of States Intra-ACP Strategy Papers and Multiannual Indicative
Programme

[30] Index
for Risk Management (InfoRM), http://inform.jrc.ec.europa.eu

[31] Such as the rights to
be protected, informed or consulted.

[32] 22
core indicators under 5 priorities for action.

[33] Millennium
Development Goals

[34] Complementing
existing ones, including Rio-markers http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/rioconventions.htm.

[35] European
Investment Bank

[36] European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development

[37] UN
International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in November 2014.

[38] 12th
CoP of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2014 in Korea and the 1st MoP of the Nagoya Protocol.

[39] UNGA
Special Session in September 2014 on Indigenous People as well as a planned
UNGA high level meeting on culture and sustainable development.