Mainstreaming Disaster Reduction at the National Level: A Bilateral Donor Perspective

1. Mainstreaming Disaster Reduction at the National Level: A Bilateral Donor Perspective Presentation to the ISDR IATF 25th May 2005 1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE Abercrombie House, Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 8EA

2. Reflections on Prioritisation • DFID in a process of reflecting how to do more on disaster risk reduction in our development programmes. • To assist us in this process we commissioned a scoping study to chart out: • how much of a problem disasters actually are for development, including at the national level; and • what sort of efforts should be made to better tackle disaster risk.

3. DFID Scoping Study on Disasters and Development: Findings • Study concluded that disasters are a problem & this problem is growing • Poor countries and poor people suffer most, and have least capacity to reduce risk • Climate change will add to the burden of disasters, disproportionately affecting the poor • Humanitarian responses are rising in cost: now at least $6b per year (7% of total ODA) • Disasters hold back progress toward MDGs 1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE Abercrombie House, Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 8EA

5. Challenges to prioritisation • Incentive, institutional and funding structures • long-term, low visibility, no guarantee of quick returns • donors respond more when governments declare emergencies • institutional gulf between agency humanitarian and development wings, with separate funding instruments • Assumption that pro-poor development will automatically address vulnerability • Inadequate exposure to/information on disaster issues • though awareness increases where impacts frequent & severe (e.g. food insecurity in southern Africa & Horn)

6. Challenges to prioritisation • Disasters a cross cutting issues: • Do not fit easily into sectorally dominated planning processes • no clear line ministry responsibility • disaster risk reduction ‘not rocket science’ but poor understanding/articulation of how to do it. • Failure to win the economic ground = finance ministries are not converts • e.g.cost-effectiveness to be demonstrated • Often not strongly prioritised in developing countries own development plans e.g. PRSP process.

7. Hyogo Framework for Action Benefits • Negotiated by member states – provides legitimacy. • Provides a holistic reflection of DRR. • Reflects the roles of broad range of stakeholders including at national level. Challenges • Broad – how to prioritise implementation including at national level. • Ambitious – how will monitoring of progress take place i.e. how do we prove we are making progress? 1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE Abercrombie House, Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 8EA

8. DFID’s Views on way forward • Hilary Benn committed DFID to: • provide up to 10% of funds spent in response to disasters on risk reduction • provide more support to multilateral efforts • He also recognised the need for others to do more, including: • other bilateral donors • the UN – should take a stronger leadership role • the development banks e.g. mainstreaming in the PRSP

9. Disaster Risk Reduction: a Development Concern Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/