Hyogo Framework

Natural disasters will strike at any time, any place and any manner be it of typhoons,
earthquakes, flash floods, drought, volcanic eruptions, harbor waves, tornadoes and the like.
Despite these, what must be done is to be prepared at all times to reduce risk and avoid casualties.
Through this, there are several ways to be prepared for various natural phenomena and one major
strategy of risk reduction that the government has come up with is called “Hyogo Framework for
Action.”

According to the site of The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Hyogo
Framework for Action is a 10-year plan specifically 2005 to 2015 to “assist the efforts of nations
and communities to become more resilient to, and cope better with the hazards that threaten their
development gains.” Moreover, it explains how to avoid casualties as natural calamities impend
on various countries. It was developed through various partners needed such as governments,
global institutions, disaster specialists and the like unifying them into a system of coordination to
reduce disaster risk. Its main goal is to “substantially reduce disaster losses by 2015 through
building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters – reducing loss of lives and
economic, social and environmental assets.” In addition, the framework of action also has guiding
principles such as (1) the primary responsibility of the state to ensure “sustainable development
and for taking effective measures to reduce disaster risks; (2) establishment of an integrated, multi-
hazard approach and gender sensitive framework taking into consideration cultural diversity age
and vulnerable groups in considering the state policies towards disaster rusk preparedness and
management; (3) empowerment of communities and local authorities in disaster risk reduction and
management and lastly (4) promotion of culture of prevention (Calde, 2013). Furthermore,
UNISDR also included 5 priority actions in this particular system. One is to ensure that the disaster
risk reduction is national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.
Second is to identify and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warnings. Third is to use
knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. Fourth
is to reduce underlying risk factors and last is to strengthen disaster preparedness for effective
response at all levels. This framework applies to all countries in the United Nations particularly
Australia and the Republic of the Philippines in which national governments will use this as an
advantage to reduce casualties.
Australia

The Australian Government was able to implement this strategy which made a huge
contribution to the country’s safety. They were able to apply the framework by the assurance of
following the list of priorities given by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Below will be discussed on how the Australian government were able to apply the framework
based on “The National Progress Report on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action (2013-2015).”

For priority action 1, the Australian government’s “national policy and legal framework
for disaster risk reduction exists with decentralized responsibilities and capacities at all levels”
(Rothery, 2014) in which “substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in key
aspect as financial resources and/ or operational capacities” (Rothery, 2014). Another core
indicator is that there are steadfast and passable assets accessible in order to create disaster risk
reduction plans and activities at all administrative levels.

For priority action 2, one core indicator is that “national and local risk assessments based
on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and include risk assessments for key
sectors” (Rothery, 2014). Moreover, there are multi-hazard risk assessment, 100 percent of
schools and hospitals has been assessed, agreement on national standards for multi hazard risk
assessments, risk assessment held by a central repository and common format for risk assessment.
However, despite these, there are no gender disaggregated vulnerability and capacity hazard risk
assessments and there is no national multi-hazard risk assessment with a common methodology
available to inform planning and development decisions (Rothery, 2014). Another core indicator
that was found in the report is that systems are in place to monitor data on key hazards such as
disaster loss databases regularly updated, there are reports generated and used in planning by
particular institutions however there are no hazards that are consistently monitored across localities
and territorial boundaries

For priority action 3, the report stated that “relevant information on disasters is available
and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders – through networks, development of information
sharing systems” in which information is proactively dispersed, institutions established
apparatuses for access and lastly, information is provided with proactive guidance to accomplish
disaster risk.

For priority action 4, “it is stated that 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.”

Lastly priority action 5, strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and
mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.

Philippines

The Philippines also experiences the same since it is one of the countries that are prone to
natural disasters. Tropical cyclones are the most common natural disasters in the country. These
tropical cyclones are usually developed frequently on the Pacific Ocean. In the past few years,
various typhoons struck the country killing millions of lives, destroying infrastructures and
business centers. Despite the former, there are also particular institutions to prepare the society for
any natural disasters that threatens the country. One of which is The National Disaster Risk
Reduction Management Council. The NDRRMC is “the agency tasked to prepare for, and respond
to, natural calamities, like typhoons and earthquakes in which they monitor human-induced
emergencies, such as armed conflicts and maritime accidents” (Bueza, 2013). Moreover, this
institution is assigned to articulate “national risk reduction and management framework that
provides for a comprehensive, all hazards, multi-sectoral, inter-agency and community-based
approach to disaster risk reduction and management as cited in Republic Act 10121 which is the
enabling law of the NDRRMC” (Bueza, 2013). Through this, the Philippine Government and the
NDRRMC was also able to apply the Hyogo Framework of Action. NDRRMC was able to
articulate a report about their accomplishments of performing the five priority actions however
their report is not as updated since they were only able to create reports from 2009 to 2011
compared to Australia. Below will be discussed how the Philippine government or institutions
were able to apply the Hyogo Framework for Action based on their National progress report on
the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2009 to 2011).
 For priority action 1, it is similar to the first core indicator in which they were able to
accomplish a national development plan, created sector strategies and plans, climate change policy
and strategy, poverty reduction strategy papers and country assessments (Ramos, 2011). However
there were no USD allocated to hazard proofing sectoral development investments, to stand alone
DRR investments, and no USD allocated to disaster proofing disaster reconstruction. Despite this,
local governments were able to have legal responsibility and budget allocations for DRR and lastly
the national multi sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning (Ramos, 2011).

For priority action 2, Ramos also mentioned that they were able to come up with a national
multi-hazard risk assessment available to inform planning and development decisions where in
there were multi-hazard risk assessment, agreed national standards for multi hazard risk
assessments but there were no gender disaggregated vulnerability and capacity assessments and
number of schools and hospitals assessed and are in the danger zone are unknown. In addition,
there were also disaster losses systematically reported and analyzed in which there was a disaster
loss database but no reports generated and used in planning.

For priority action 3, there were available national disaster public information system in
which there were web pages of national disaster information system but no established
mechanisms for accessing DRR information. Moreover, the DRR also included the national
educational curriculum in which they were able to include in the primary, secondary, tertiary levels
and also in professional DRR education (Ramos, 2011).

For priority action 4, there is a mechanism in place to protect and restore regulatory
ecosystem services in which they protected areas legislation, payment for ecosystem services,
integrated planning, environmental impacts assessments and climate change adaptation projects
and programs (Ramos, 2011). In addition, social safety nets do exist to increase the resilience of
risk prone households and communities in which there were crop and property insurance, disaster
risk reduction aligned with poverty reduction, welfare policy and programs, microfinance and
micro insurance but no employment guarantee schemes and conditional cash transfers.

Lastly for priority action 5, there are national programs to make schools and health facilities
safe in emergencies in which policies and programs for school and hospital safety and training and
simulated drills in institutes and hospitals for emergency preparedness are being provided and
implemented. Furthermore, there are also back-up plans, and resources in place to deal with a
major or expected disasters. There were contingency plans with operations and communications
center, search and rescue teams, stockpile of relief goods, secure medical facilities but no shelters
and dedicated provision for women in relief, shelter and emergency medical facilities. (Ramos,
2011)

References
PreventionWeb. (n.d.). About the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005 – 2015). Retreived from
[Link]
UNISDR. (n.d.). Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters. Retrieved from [Link]
Rothery, M. (2014). National Progress Report on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action (2013 – 2015). Attorney General’s Department. Retrieved from
[Link]
Calde, N. (2013). Module 2: The Legal Framework of the Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Policy. Department of Economics and Political Science. University of the
Philippines, Baguio. Retrieved from
[Link]
Ramos, B. (2011). National Progress report on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action (2009 – 2011). Office of Civil Defense, National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Council. Philippines. Retrieved from
[Link]
Bueza, M. (2013). Fast Facts: The NDRRMC. Rappler. Retrieved from
[Link]