One of the defining features of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is that it establishes global targets for disaster risk reduction. There are seven targets: the first four relate to reduction in losses (mortality, number of affected people, economic losses, and infrastructure losses); and remaining three related to enhancement of capacities through plans and strategies, greater access to early warning systems, and international cooperation.
After the adoption of the Sendai Framework, in Jun 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) established an Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group (OIEWG) comprising experts nominated by the UN Member States and supported by the UNISDR, for the development of a set of possible indicators to measure global progress in the implementation of the Sendai Framework. The UNGA also called for the work of OIEWG to be coherent with the work of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators.
India participated actively in the OIEWG to shape the indicator framework for the Sendai Framework. In February 2017, the UNGA endorsed the indicator framework recommended by the OIEWG. Some Sendai Framework indicators are also measuring progress against the Sustainable Development Goals. The list of indicators for all the seven targets is included in Annex ! of this concept paper.
The first monitoring cycle of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction will be rolled out in January 2018. To prepare for the reporting process, countries will undertake a data readiness review. This will entail a review of data availability to report against the indicators, and preparation of a baseline covering the ten-year period January 2005 – December 2014, for all natural and man-made hazards, as indicated in the Sendai Framework for DRR. The Readiness Review will assist countries to determine existing data gaps, and will assist stakeholders to tailor support to countries data capacity towards specific country needs.
At the global level, the Sendai Framework has established qualitative targets. For example, Target 1, is to “substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030.” No specific percentages for reduction in mortality have been set at the global level. However, some countries, and in case of India some states, have already committed to quantitative targets. For example, Bihar has set a target of 50% reduction in mortality by 2030. At the national level, it is important to establish specific quantitative targets to galvanize and focus the efforts of different departments and agencies of the government and its auxiliary agencies, civil society organizations, academia and the private sector.
In the Indian context, we can anticipate following major challenges in monitoring progress against the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction:
There are two principal challenges in setting quantitative targets:
At the national level as well as at the state level, setting up of specific quantitative targets would need to be informed by an analysis of past disaster loss data. Such an analysis would indicate existing trend in losses and help set targets that would represent meaningful progress. For example, if the existing trend indicates that decadal reduction in disaster mortality is 10% then the target should be higher than this.
Under the Sendai Framework, for loss reduction targets 2005-2015 is the baseline period, and 2020-2030 is the target period where loss reduction has to be achieved. In essence, we are observing progress during the 25-year duration (2005-2030). If low-frequency, high impact events such as a catastrophic earthquake, or a rare tsunami similar to the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 occurs during this period, it may lead to very high losses, in spite of the progress made on various fronts. Should the quantitative targets exclude such rare or outlier events?
Although data is collected after every disaster, it may not be available for all the indicators under the Sendai Framework. Consistency over time and across different administrative units is also a major issue. In some cases, relevant data may be dispersed across different departments and agencies. Level of disaggregation -- age and sex in case of mortality, sectors in case of economic losses – may also be not consistent across states.
Capacity to collect and manage data for all the Sendai indicators is limited. This will need to be scaled up very quickly. It will require involvement of departments and agencies outside of the disaster management institutions including the statistical organizations. At the same time, the systems that are developed, particularly at the district level will have to address dual needs: data for informing the immediate response to disasters; and for long term archiving and analysis.
Although not strictly under the Sendai Framework, there are numerous other ongoing initiatives in the country to measure risk and resilience. Wider consultative process is needed to evolve indicators for other initiatives as well. It will be important to ensure that these efforts complement each other and do not represent duplication of efforts.
In addition to providing an overview of the Sendai Framework monitoring system, the session will address the challenges outlined above.