2259 IndicatorsofProgressHFA PDF

Indicators of Progress:
Guidance on Measuring the Reduction

of Disaster Risks and the Implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action
United Nations
Indicators of Progress
Published by the United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR),
Geneva, Switzerland
January 2008
© United Nations, 2008

© UN/ISDR, 2008
All rights reserved
May be referenced as “UN/ISDR, 2008. Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster
Risks and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. United Nations secretariat of the International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), Geneva, Switzerland”
Any part of this text may be reproduced without permission provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a
misleading context and the source of the material is clearly acknowledged by means of the above title, publisher and
date. The wide dissemination, reproduction and use of the document is encouraged. If any reproductions, translations
or quotations are generated, a copy of the document or quotation is requested to be forwarded to the ISDR secretariat.
Disclaimer: This publication has been assembled on a best endeavours basis and the UN/ISDR regrets any errors or
omissions present. The information provided does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat,
the members of the ISDR system bodies or partners on Disaster Reduction or the organisations referred to in the
publication. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or the ISDR secretariat
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries.
United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
www.unisr.org
email: [email protected]
ii
Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
Foreword
In January 2005, at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, in Kobe Hyogo, Japan, 168 States adopted
the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, with
the overriding goal of achieving a substantial reduction in global disaster risk. The Hyogo Framework provides
comprehensive action-oriented policy guidance based on a comprehensive understanding of disaster risks, which arise
from human vulnerability to natural hazards.
In the preparatory negotiations on the Framework, States stressed the need for specific means, including indicators, to
measure progress toward the reduction of disaster risks. In particular, it was requested in paragraph 33c that the ISDR
system, supported by the ISDR secretariat, coordinates the development of “generic, realistic and measurable indicators”
for disaster risk reduction. It encouraged States to thereafter develop and refine such indicators for national use.
Indicators, benchmarks and targets are commonly accepted tools to focus and guide development investments, the
Millennium Development Goals being an important example.
Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework
for Action is an important step towards addressing this request. It is intended to assist not only national authorities
but also civil society and community organisations, regional inter-governmental institutions and technical bodies,
international and donor communities in setting priorities for policies, plans and programmes for disaster risk
reduction, while regularly monitoring and reviewing achievements against the chosen indicators.
Drawing on an online consultation held in 2005 as well as various consultative drafts, discussions and expert inputs
prepared over 2006, it offers a set of ‘recommended’ indicators for implementing each of the Hyogo Framework’s
five priorities for action, three strategic goals and one overall outcome. These build on the indicators for the Hyogo
Framework’s priorities for action have been included in the recent ISDR publication Words into Action: A Guide for
Implementing the Hyogo Framework.
National, regional and international organisations are encouraged to actively explore the refinement and application of
these indicators in their mandated areas. This will require concerted and collaborative effort by academics, practitioners
and policymakers, with a strong focus on achieving practicality and effectiveness in particular national settings. The
ISDR secretariat will seek to foster follow-up supporting activities, including workshops, to advance the development
and use of indicators as a tool for both work programming and progress reporting, along with associated practices such
as benchmarking.
The ISDR secretariat will welcome any feedback, which will be incorporated in subsequent versions of the document.
Sálvano Briceño
Director,
Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction,
United Nations
iii
Consultation process and acknowledgements

This report was developed under the initial guidance of the former Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction
(IATF/DR) whose members included: Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labour Organization,
International Telecommunication Union, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations Centre
for Regional Development, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Institute for Training and Research,
United Nations Human Settlements Programme, United Nations University, United Nations Volunteers, World Bank,
World Food Programme, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization; (regional organisations):
African Union Commission, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Asian Disaster Reduction Center, Commonwealth
of Independent States Interstate Council, Council of Europe, European Commission- Joint Research Centre, Ibero-
American Association of Civil Defence and Civil Protection, Inter-Governmental Authority on Development’s Climate
Prediction and Applications Centre, New Partnership for Africa’s Development Secretariat/African Union, Organization
of American States-Inter-American Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction, South Pacific Applied Geoscience
Commission; (civil society organisations): ActionAid International, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disasters, Global Fire Monitoring Center, International Council of Scientific Unions, International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Munich Re-insurance.
As part of the follow-up activities to the adoption of the Hyogo Framework, technical discussions were held on the side
of the eleventh1 and twelfth2 sessions of the IATF/DR, in Geneva in May and November 2005 respectively, to consider
the design of a guide note and consultation processes needed to respond to the Hyogo Framework’s paragraph 33(c)
concerning the development of generic, realistic and measurable indicators.
The discussions were moderated by Paola Albrito (UN/ISDR) and participants included Angelika Planitz (UNDP),
Norah Niland (OCHA), Francesc Pla (Council of Europe), Nichole Mc Garry (WHO), Anthony Spalton (IFRC),
Alan Mearns (SOPAC), Joe Chung (UN/ISDR) Yoshihiko Uchikura (UNESCO), Akihiro Teranishi (ADRC) Aberto
Pacheco (UNEP), Stefanie Dannenmann (UN/ISDR), Carlos Dueñas (Ibero-American Association of Civil Defence
and Civil Protection), Juan Pedro Lahore (Dirección General de Protección Civil, Spain), Everett Ressler (UNICEF),
Christel Rose (UN/ISDR), Philip Buckle (Coventry University), Graham Marsh (Coventry University), Saroj Jha
(World Bank), P.G. Dhar Chakrabarti (NIDM, India), Satoru Nishikawa and Shinji Matsuka (Cabinet Office,
Government of Japan), Martin Owen (National Platform, Uganda), Fouad Bendimerad (EMI), L.A. Ogallo (ICPAC),
Helena Molin Valdés (UN/ISDR), Terry Jeggle (UN/ISDR) and Akira Kato (Mission of Japan in Geneva).
Subsequently, an online dialogue3 was organised by the ISDR secretariat over the period 12 September to 10 October
2005, to obtain wide input on three topics (1): Understanding how to measure progress in disaster risk reduction (2):
Implementation and application of indicators, and (3): Procedures for reviewing national progress. Approximately 507
individuals participated in the on-line consultation. The on-line consultation moderator and initial draft consultants
were Philip Buckle and Graham Marsh. A summary of the dialogue is included in Annex 8 of the CD-ROM that
accompanies this guide.
During 2006 and 2007, consultant Stephen O. Bender prepared a substantive draft document that forms the primary
foundation for the final guide. Inputs on the draft outline were contributed during an UN/ISDR workshop on indicators,
Geneva, July 24-27, 2006, from: Stephen Bender, Fouad Bendimerad (EMI), Ron Cadribo, P.G. Dhar Chakrabarti,
Tanya Miquilena de Corrales, and Alain Valency (consultants), and Pedro Basabe, Helena Molin Valdes, Feng Min Kan,
Terry Jeggle, Silvia Llosa and Praveen Pardeshi (UN/ISDR secretariat).
1
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-meeting-11th-eng.htm
2
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-meeting-12th-eng.htm
3
http://www.unisdr.org/HFdialogue
iv
Additional expert reviewers included: Charlotte Benson (consultant), Ilan Kelman (Cambridge University), John Twigg
(Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre), Ben Wisner (RADIX), Marcus Oxley and Sarah La Trobe (Tearfund),
Omar Darío Cardona (Universidad Nacional de Colombia), Tanya Miquilena de Corrales (Consultant), Ian O’Donnell
(ProVention Consortium), Saroj Jha (World Bank), Maxx Dilley (UNDP/BCPR).
A final review and inputs were also provided from within the ISDR secretariat by; Helena Molin Valdes, Mostafa
Mohahgegh and Andrew Maskrey.
From the ISDR secretariat, Paola Albrito coordinated the consultations, Reid Basher with support from Shefali Juneja
revised and finalised the guide, and Mario Barrantes and Carolin Schäerpf managed the production process.
This publication would not have been possible without the many inputs of individuals, national and institutional
representatives. While every effort has been made to name all contributors, the UN/ISDR secretariat regrets if any
organization or individual contributor has been overlooked in the lists above. The UN/ISDR secretariat gratefully
acknowledges the many contributions received from individuals, institutions and States.
This guidance was prepared as part of the ISDR secretariat Biennial Work Plan 2006-2007, which in 2007 was supported
by contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for Disaster Reduction from the following governments: Australia,
Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and from the European Commission, and the World
Bank through the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery.
The present version is a consultation draft. Feedback on the document is actively sought, especially concerning national
experience in use of the guidance and in the application of indicators. Comments and information will be used in further
editions.

vi
Table of contents
Foreword.........................................................................................................................................................................iii
Consultation process and acknowledgements................................................................................................................. iv
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Disaster risks and their reduction .....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Hyogo Framework expectations........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Audience and purpose........................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Approach and content........................................................................................................................................3
2 Context and Principles .............................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Nature of disaster risk reduction.......................................................................................................................4

2.2 The Millennium Development Goals ..............................................................................................................4
3 Technical Guidance on Indicators And Benchmarks...............................................................................................6
3.1 Nature of indicators ..........................................................................................................................................6

3.2 Quantifying the indicators.................................................................................................................................6
3.3 Characteristics of good indicators......................................................................................................................7
3.4 Benchmarks, targets and trends.........................................................................................................................8
3.5 Data resources for indicators ............................................................................................................................8
3.6 Five-level assessment tool for qualitative characteristics....................................................................................9
4 Indicators for the Hyogo Framework’s Main Elements........................................................................................11
4.1 Need for common indicators...........................................................................................................................11

4.2 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome.....................................................................11
4.3 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s strategic goals..........................................................................12
4.4 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s priorities for action...................................................................13
4.5 Additional indicators........................................................................................................................................14
4.6 Indicators for regional and international level use...........................................................................................14
5 First Steps Toward Developing and Using Indicators...........................................................................................16
5.1 Process for selecting and developing indicators...............................................................................................16

5.2 Monitoring and review....................................................................................................................................16
5.3 Final note on challenges...................................................................................................................................17
List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................19
Glossary .........................................................................................................................................................................20
References .............................................................................................................................................................. In CD
vii
Annexes
Annex 1: Rationale of proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s Strategic Goals and Priorities for Action......23
Annex 2: Additional possible indicators to assess progress in implementation of Hyogo Framework . .................28
Annex 3: Indicators for regional and international level use ..................................................................................36
Annex 4: Millennium Development Goals and disaster risk reduction .................................................................38
Annex 5: Indicative criteria for establishing levels of progress for disaster risk reduction.....................................40
Annex 6: Links between disaster risk reduction priorities and Millennium Development Goals................... In CD
Annex 7: The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 – 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters................................................................................................................. In CD
Annex 8: Summary and Outcomes of the online dialogue of 2005 ................................................................. In CD
Annex 9 Worksheet for ‘HFA strategic goals status review’........................................................................... In CD
Annex 10: Worksheet for ‘HFA Monitor’ – national level progress reporting tool ......................................... In CD
Annex 11: Worksheets for data collection on disaster losses . ............................................................................ In CD
Tables
Table 1: Five-level assessment tool for use in grading achievement of qualitative factors
in indicators (see also Annex 5)................................................................................................................10
Table 2: Links between disaster risk and the Millennium Development targets .................................................38
Table 3: Hyogo Framework elements and the Millennium Development Goals .................................................39
Table 4: Millennium Development Goal indicators modified to capture disaster risk
reduction ........................................................................................................................... Annex 6, in CD
Table 5: Suggested measures to incorporate disaster risk reduction into Millennium
Development Goal strategies . ........................................................................................... Annex 6, in CD
Table 6. Examples of worksheets to support data collection on disaster losses and
natural hazard event occurrence....................................................................................... Annex 11, in CD
viii
1. Introduction
1.1 Disaster risks and their reduction
Disasters occur when a society’s capacities to manage the effects of a natural hazard event are overwhelmed. The scale
of a disaster depends therefore not only on the magnitude of the hazard event, such as a storm, drought, earthquake,
tsunami or other hazard, but equally importantly on the degree to which the society is exposed to the hazard and
is ill-prepared to cope with it. The evidence of recent decades shows that many societies are not well-prepared for
natural hazard events, and that disasters are increasing in scope and impact as a result of the combination of increasing
population density and asset stocks, inappropriate and exploitative land use, unplanned settlements, and lack of
awareness on risk reduction by authorities and citizens at large.
At the same time, there is growing recognition that the risks of disasters can be substantially reduced through specific
actions such as wise land use planning, safe building design, public education, early warning systems and other
preparedness measures.
A comprehensive description of the priorities for action for the next decade was set out in the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, which was negotiated and endorsed by
168 UN Member States at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, 18-
22 January 2005, with the support of numerous UN, technical, civil society organisations. It was later endorsed by the
United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/61/195).
1.2 Hyogo Framework expectations
An explicit requirement of the Hyogo Framework4 is that progress on its implementation will be monitored and
reported on. This is necessary in order to assess if disaster risks and losses are in fact being reduced, and that
appropriate policies and programmes are in place to achieve this. Reliable information is needed on the risks faced, the
losses experienced, and the risk reduction actions taken.
The most relevant parts of the Hyogo Framework for the present report are Part II, which defines the Framework’s
expected outcome and strategic goals, and Part III, which sets out the detailed priorities for action. These are described
as follows.
The overriding Expected Outcome

The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and states.
The three Strategic Goals

1. The more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable development policies, planning and programming
at all levels, with a special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and vulnerability reduction;
2. The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the community
level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards; and
3. The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the design and implementation of emergency preparedness,
response and recovery programmes in the reconstruction of affected communities.
The full text of the Hyogo Framework for Action is available as Annex 7 in the accompanying CD. It can also be downloaded from the ISDR website http://
4
www.unisdr.org/eng/HFA/HFA.htm (also available in the other UN languages – French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Russian.)

The five Priorities for Action

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a 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.
Each of the Priorities for Action is further elaborated into a number of specific tasks and activities.
Part IV of the Hyogo Framework sets out expectations regarding implementation and follow up of the Framework.
States have the primary responsibility for the implementation of disaster risk reduction, but responsibilities are
also described for other parties, including regional organisations and international organisations, and members of
the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and its secretariat. Academic and technical bodies, non-
governmental organisations, and the private sector also have significant roles to play in what must be a broad effort to
reduce disaster risks.
Paragraph 33(c) specifically requests the ISDR system, supported by the ISDR secretariat, to coordinate the
development of “generic, realistic and measurable indicators” for disaster risk reduction5. It further encouraged States
to thereafter develop and refine indicators for application at the national level, noting that “countries ... that are able
to develop and track progress through specific and measurable indicators have greater capacity to manage risks and
to achieve widespread consensus for, engagement in and compliance with disaster risk reduction measures across all
sectors of society.”6
The ‘Indicators of Progress’ guidance has been prepared as a first step by the ISDR secretariat and ISDR system
partners toward addressing this request7. It draws on national and international expert contributions8 coordinated by
the ISDR secretariat, and complements the recent ISDR publications Words into Action: a Guide for Implementing the
Hyogo Framework and the progress review, Disaster Risk Reduction: 2007 Global Review, a consultative version of which
was prepared for the first session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, 5-7 June, 20079.
1.3 Audience and purpose
The intended audience for this guide are primarily the national authorities and officials who have responsibilities for
implementing disaster risk reduction activities and for monitoring and reporting on progress. This has been compiled
for nationally-designated HFA focal points, and officials in relevant sectors such as national development, civil
protection, environment, education, agriculture, health and water resources, and officials in subsidiary provincial, city
and local government.
Other audiences to whom this guide will be useful include community-based organizations, non-governmental
organisations, business and industry groups, local government and academia. While individual States are mainly
responsible for the implementation of disaster risk reduction and for the development and application of national
indicators, communities and organizations also can make use of proposed indicators to help describe and manage their
disaster risk reduction activities10.
5
Hyogo Framework, Part IV. Implementation and follow-up. Section E, paragraph 33c. Indicators are explained later. They include measurable expressions such
as “Number of deaths arising from natural hazard events”, and “Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards.”
6
Hyogo Framework, Part III. Priorities for Action 2005–2015. Section B, paragraph 16.
7
In this guidance, indicators for the Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome, strategic goals and priorities for action are discussed. Indicators for the
implementation elements of Part IV of the Framework are not considered, but where such indicators may be desired, the principles outlined in the report are
expected to be relevant and useful to their development.
8
See Acknowledgements above.
9
The Disaster Risk Reduction: 2007 Global Review is now available online http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/global-review/
10
Further guidance, please note that other agencies are in the process of developing indicators. For example, six United Kingdom based agencies are currently
developing a set of indicators that can be used by local partner organizations and communities to demonstrate the impact of community disaster risk reduction
projects and to assess their conformity to the Hyogo Framework. For more information:
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm

Experts and officials of international and regional technical bodies, and inter-governmental sub/ regional
organizations, particularly those with a responsibility to support States in disaster risk reduction efforts, will also find
the guidance of use. Indicators for applications at the international and regional levels are listed in Annex 3, and can be
adapted by institutions working across regions.
Overall, the guide is designed to assist all States, regardless of their initial familiarity with indicators, with practical
guidance on the development of nationally relevant indicators for application in policy, programming, monitoring,
evaluation and review processes. The main aim is to support the development of a managerial, indicator-based
approach to the design and implementation of disaster risk reduction activities, as a means to improve the effectiveness
of policies and activities, and to provide guidance to national authorities to help them develop indicators tailored to
their needs.
1.4 Approach and content
The guide’s main objective is to provide key principles and basic information to consider when identifying and
applying relevant indicators to implement the Hyogo Framework’s priority actions, and assess overall progress.
The guide builds on the extensive work already underway to measure disaster risk reduction, rather than prescribing
a single solution or set of solutions. Users are encouraged to apply the specific indicators provided in this guide to the
relevant stages of policy, programming, monitoring and evaluation, reviews or reporting, but at the same time they may
wish to develop different or additional indicators of their own design related to their particular circumstances, hazard
types, population, geographic areas and sectors of activity.
A variety of indicators are likely to be necessary to adequately capture progress on disaster risk reduction. Some
examples of possible additional indicators that could be adopted at the national and sub national levels are listed in
Annex 2.
The guide explains the basic rationale of indicators and their use, describes the features of ‘good indicators’, provides
advice on how they can be measured, and discusses the factors to consider when tailoring generic indicators to
particular contexts.
The idea of benchmarks for indicators is also discussed. A simple assessment tool is proposed as a means to measure
qualitative progress on indicators. The relationship of indicators and benchmarks to the Millennium Development
Goals is considered in Annex 4 and Annex 6.
An important contribution of the guide is its proposed set of indicators for the main elements of the Hyogo Framework
– namely for its one expected outcome, three strategic goals and five priorities for action. The rationale and significance
of the proposed indicators is included in Annex 1. The use of the guide can be linked to the ISDR document “Words
into Action: Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework”11, which provides guidance on 22 key tasks that national
actors can undertake as steps towards addressing the five priorities of the Hyogo Framework.
The guidance is expected to contribute to enhancing disaster risk reduction knowledge and expertise and action to
reduce risks. The systematic use of indicators will strengthen mechanisms for recording, analysing, summarizing
and disseminating statistical information on disaster occurrence, impacts and losses, and will assist in the provision of
transparent guidance and evaluation of policies and programmes by policy makers, decision makers and the public.
See http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Words-into-action/Words-Into-Action.pdf
11

2. Context and Principles

This section provides some context on the continually evolving nature of disaster risk, and the corresponding dynamics
of disaster risk reduction efforts. The nature of disaster risk reduction is particularly made explicit in its relation to the
Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), within the context of achieving sustainable development objectives.
2.1 Nature of disaster risk reduction
Disaster risk reduction comprises a range of activities undertaken to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risk
throughout a society, to avoid or to limit the adverse impact of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable
development12. The following general points about disaster risk reduction need to be considered when identifying and
developing relevant indicators.
• Hazard, exposure and vulnerability: Disaster risk arises from the combination of natural hazards, human
activities’ exposure to hazards, and the populations’ vulnerability to hazard events. Indicators therefore are needed
for all of these factors, as well as for disaster occurrence and for initiatives to reduce the risks.
• Crosscutting issue: Disaster risk affects all sectors, actors, populations, economic infrastructure and social fabric. It
is intimately connected to development. To be effective, disaster risk reduction must involve the populations at risk
and therefore all of the local and provincial entities that serve these populations.
• Variety of scope: Disaster risk reduction initiatives might take a hazard focus, e.g. to reduce earthquake losses, or a
social focus, e.g. to reduce the vulnerability of informal settlements. They may focus on a geographical/geopolitical
setting, such as a high mountain region, or a sector or an infrastructure type such as schools. They may involve
significant technology, or extensive community engagement.
• Multiple factors to consider: Individual disaster risk reduction initiatives usually involve multiple factors - physical,
financial, economic, social, environmental. For example, the risk of earthquake damage to a bridge will not only
dictate the physical structure and hence the financial obligations tied to the bridge (such as loans or concessions for
operations), but will also influence the neighbouring environments and the economic and social well-being of the
various populations who use the bridge.
• Disaster risks are subject to change: Disaster risks vary according to dynamic factors such as population change,
increased urbanization and poverty, and environmental exploitation are increasing the exposure and vulnerabilities
of people, while climate change will increase many hazard types. In addition, our knowledge of the risks is
changing owing to improved information about hazards, exposures and vulnerabilities both from ongoing data
collection and research and from empirical evidence following disasters.
• Social influences: Priorities for attention of a particular state or community are shaped and continually redefined
by the changing perceptions of government, opinion makers, media and community and the values and beliefs of a
society, affecting views on what events and actions are hazardous, how hazardous they are, which groups are most
at risk, and the relative public and private responsibility for risk reduction activities.
2.2 The Millennium Development Goals
The request in the Hyogo Framework to develop indicators, in paragraph 33(c), states that the indicators generated
should be in conformity with internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium
See http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm
12

Declaration, i.e. the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This recognises the important link between disaster
reduction and sustainable development, which are mutually reinforcing objectives, as well as the practical advantages of
consistency with the extensive efforts to implement the MDGs.
Disasters threaten hard-won development gains and compromise current and future resources upon which societies
and future generations depend. Disaster risk reduction helps to protect development investments, livelihoods,
environmental assets and social capital. It can play a critical role in ensuring achievement of development priorities,
including the MDGs. Conversely, it is important that development efforts undertaken to achieve MDGs do not
create new or increased disaster risks. Disaster risk reduction must be part and parcel of development actions towards
achieving MDGs.
The actors involved in monitoring disaster risk reduction, namely Governments and their multiple stakeholders,
and regional and international organizations are already heavily engaged in reporting on the implementation of the
MDGs and the various agreements, conventions, and programs related to sustainable development13. For these various
reasons, it is very desirable that work on the indicators for the Hyogo Framework is well integrated with processes to
monitor the MDGs and other internationally-agreed development goals and makes as much use as possible of existing
information processes for reporting development progress. Considerable practical experience has been developed with
respect to monitoring progress on the MDGs and this should be drawn upon to the greatest extent possible when
formulating indicators for disaster risk reduction14.
An analysis of the linkages between the elements of the Hyogo Framework and the specific MDGs is available in
Annex 4 of this guide. Additionally, information on the links between MDGs and disaster risk reduction will be
continually updated on the ISDR website15. The Annex presents a more detailed discussion of how the MDGs are
linked to disasters and disaster risk reduction and suggests several ways to incorporate disaster risk reduction into
MDG actions.
Specific measures on incorporating disaster risk reduction into areas of intervention to ensure that MDG-based needs
assessments are sensitive to reducing risk, is included in the accompanying CD, under Annex 6.
It is suggested that existing indicators and benchmarks for measuring progress on the MDGs could be slightly altered
to assist States also to monitor achievements on disaster risk reduction and some possible targets and indicators are
proposed16.
13
As an example see UNESCAP: 2006 Workshop on Statistics for Monitoring the Achievement of the MDGs in Asia and the Pacific http://www.unescap.
org/stat/meet/MDG2006/index.asp and <http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/sid/default.htm>.
14
For information on the MDGs, see the MDG web pages http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx
15
See ISDR web pages http://www.unisdr.org/eng/mdgs-drr/link-mdg-drr.htm
16
For more information on suggested measures, consult the web site http://www.unisdr.org/mdgs-drr-dialogue.

3. Technical Guidance on Indicators and Benchmarks

3.1 Nature of indicators
Indicators are defined here as an explicit measure of an important factor relevant to the subject of interest, in this case
disaster risk and its reduction, where the indicator can be used to monitor changes in the status of that factor and
thereby to monitor progress towards a desired outcome (in this case reduced disaster risk).
Indicators are primarily a management tool – they provide a means for measuring what is actually happening against
what has been planned for or hoped for, and hence offer insight into the effectiveness of a policy or programme, in
terms of quality, quantity and timeliness, as well as any unintended consequences.
Indicators may be created for the different stages of implementation, as follows17:
• Indicators of inputs – to measure the financial, administrative and regulatory resources being applied, such as
budgets expended, or the staff time applied.
• Indicators of outputs – to measure the immediate and concrete deliverables achieved with the inputs, such as houses
strengthened, or the number of people trained.
• Indicators of results – to measure the results at the level of beneficiaries, in social and economic terms, such as the
fraction of population receiving early warnings, or with houses free from flooding risk.
• Indicators of impact – to measure the overall impact on the society, such as reduced vulnerability to hazards, or
security of livelihoods. The Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome and strategic goals fall into this category.
Different actors need different indicators, depending on their role with respect to the policy or programme. There is
particular need for donors and Governments to focus on the level of results, as this is the level that can be incorporated
into ongoing planning processes, where achievements can be made and measured in reasonable periods of time, and
where desired achievements can be recognised by planners and the public alike.
3.2 Quantifying the indicators
Indicators need to be quantifiable to have value in a monitoring or assessment oriented process. In some cases
the factor is readily measured, such as “the number of deaths arising from natural hazard events”. A death is an
unequivocal result and the community involved usually knows very well if a death has occurred. Death totals can be
counted by official processes to provide a numeric indicator.
The indicator “A national multi-sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction exists” is also a quantitative indicator, but
its value is “binary” – defined by either “yes” or “no”. Provided a clear definition of such a platform exists, an official
will usually be able to say if a platform exists or not. At the same time, the nature and effectiveness of the platform are
qualitative characteristics and cannot be deduced from the mere existence of a platform.
Many of the important factors for which indicators are required will be rather qualitative. Consider the potential
indicator “Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans at all
administrative levels.” Its value can only be “yes” or “no”, but either of these answers could be misleading, since
for example a country with 95% compliance would still need to report “no”. One way to address this problem is to
17
OECD 2002. Guidelines for the use of indicators in country performance assessment. Room Document 3, DAC Development Partnership Forum: Managing
for Development Results and Aid Effectiveness. Prepared by the European Commission, Brussels, November 2002.
18
See Twigg, 2004; Cardona (2003) drawing from PAHO (2001); UNESCO/World Water Assessment Programme (Tokyo Case Study).

qualitatively assess the indicator using a graduated 5-point scale from “no/minor progress” through to “full/ substantial
achievement”. In this way, the qualitative characteristics become quantified, albeit only on this coarse 5-point scale.
Further information on this assessment tool approach is provided in section 3.6.
3.3 Characteristics of good indicators
When choosing sets of indicators, it is very important to select a limited number of indicators that focus on the most
essential aspects of the matter at hand and that can be readily implemented and sustained over many years. Having
many indicators that overlap can lead to difficulties of interpretation, confusion and a weakening of managerial action.
Since the indicators need to have credibility with many stakeholders, it is desirable to involve the stakeholders in the
process of choosing the indicators. Likewise, in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the use of the indicators, it
is desirable to involve the stakeholders in dialogue on their interpretation and evaluation.
Experience and research shows that there are certain characteristics that contribute to the quality of an indicator18, as
outlined below. Note that some of these characteristics overlap others to some extent. In practice, indicators need not
contain every characteristic. Depending on the indicator’s nature and use, only a subset may be relevant.
Attainable: The measurement of the indicators should be achievable by the policy or project, and therefore
should be sensitive to the improvements the project/policy wishes to achieve.
Clarity/Validity: Indicators should effectively target the factor which they are measuring, and should avoid
ambiguity and arbitrariness in the measurement.
Comparability: The indicator measurement should enable comparison over the different life-cycle stages of the
policy or project, as well as between different policies or projects.
Comprehensibility: The definition and expression of the indicator should be intuitively and easily comprehensible to
users.
Cost: The cost of collecting and processing the data needed for the chosen indicators should be
reasonable and affordable.
Currency: Indicator information should be as up to date as possible, to reflect current or recent
circumstances. The impact of delays between collection and use should be considered and
factored into the analysis, where necessary using extrapolation techniques.
Measurable: Indicators should be defined so that their measurement and interpretation are as unambiguous as
possible, preferably using data that is readily available, relevant, reliable and meaningful.
Redundancy: While each input variable should measure a discrete phenomenon, separate indicators that
measure the same phenomenon may be necessary and desirable.
Relevance: Indicators should be directly relevant to the issue being monitored or assessed, and should
be based on clearly understood linkages between the indicator and the phenomena under
consideration.
Reliability: The results from an indicator should be replicable by different researchers using standard
methods. The methods should be stable over time and as valid in as wide a circumstance as
possible.
Sensitivity: Indicators should be able to reflect small changes in those things that the actions intend to
change.
Social benefits: Applicable indicators should reveal net social benefit whether or not social benefit is maximized.
Time-bound: The time of an indicator’s measurement, or the interval to which it applies, should be appropriate
and clearly stated.
See Twigg, 2004; Cardona (2003) drawing from PAHO (2001); UNESCO/World Water Assessment Programme (Tokyo Case Study).
18

3.4 Benchmarks, targets and trends
A benchmark is a reference point or standard against which progress or achievements may be measured, or a target
that is desired to be achieved. Benchmarks can be set for any indicator. For example, a benchmark for early warning of
tropical cyclones could be “At least 90% of people learn of the warning within 3 hours of its issuance”. A benchmark
can only be established after an assessment or historic review of relevant data or well-established indicators, usually
using some process that has government and academic support and therefore that provides authority and technical
credibility. Ideally, a benchmark should describe a significant feature of risk or its reduction, whose achievement is of
high public and professional interest.
The use of benchmarks for disaster risk and disaster risk reduction is not very common. Partly this is because the field
of disaster risk reduction is itself not well developed. However, there is sufficient data on disaster loss and disaster risk
to begin work on formulating suitable benchmarks for these factors. In sectors such as land management, education,
early warning and evacuations, benchmarks could be readily formulated for risk reduction activities. In some cases an
indicator itself can be chosen to be a benchmark, with a binary indicator such as “Post-disaster reviews are routinely
undertaken to learn and apply experiences for risk reduction”.
Targets are directly linked to benchmarks. When an authority sets or proposes a target of say “halving the number
of deaths from disasters” this in effect sets two benchmarks, firstly an initial benchmark equal to the current annual
number of deaths from disasters, and secondly, a benchmark of exactly half this initial benchmark. Benchmarks
create a clear point of reference for commitment and achievement, but they need to be based on the establishment
of the initial situation and on good analysis of the available data and should reflect realism in what can be achieved,
both technically and politically. Gathering comparative data on the value of each indicator before starting the
implementation of actions would allow establishing reasonable performance targets and would make possible
measuring the degree of changes that might take place as a result of implementation of disaster risk reduction
interventions.
To monitor progress means to monitor changes or trends – hopefully improving trends – over time. Indicators can
be used to monitor progress over time and to detect trends in factors, but only if they are based on stable and reliable
statistics and methods, and are sufficiently precise for the time period over which progress is being measured. For
example, if an annually determined indicator is only reliable to say 10% of its value, it would take several years of such
measurements to demonstrate an improving trend of 10% per year. The analysis of progress and the detection of trends
often require considerable statistical expertise such as from experts in national statistical offices or university statistics
departments. It is thus also important to collect information on the achievement level of the processes initiated in the
country (region or international level) at the beginning of the period to be monitored.
In some instances, states have already undertaken vulnerability assessments at the national and city-specific level, with
the support of external partners, using relevant indicators that can serve as benchmarks19.
3.5 Data resources for indicators
As noted above, the cost of collecting and processing the data needed for the chosen indicators should be reasonable
and affordable. Costs can become very large if the information needs to be gathered frequently or in detail over large
geographical areas or large populations.
Existing indicators should be used first if possible, since they are available at small marginal cost, are familiar to
stakeholders, and their meaning and value are likely to be well known. Similarly, when formulating new indicators, it
An example is the Program of Indicators of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Instituto de Estudios Ambientales (IDEA) of the
19
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, which has developed an assessment methodology to measure key elements of countries’ vulnerability to natural hazard
events and the performance of different risk management policies and tools. This supports improved access by decision-makers to appropriate data and
methodologies needed to reduce and manage disaster risk at the national level. Another example is the Earthquake Megacities Initiative (EMI) an NGO
partnering with some of the world’s largest cities to define seismic vulnerability and prepare risk reduction plans.

will be most efficient to select indicators that can draw on available data sources, particularly national statistics.
Guidance on developing necessary data resources for disaster risk reduction can be found in the ISDR publication
“Words into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework”, in particular its Task 2.1: “Review the
Availability of Risk-Related Data and the Capacities for their Collection and Use”.
An important foundational capacity for every country is its database on losses and impacts of disasters. This requires
the systematic assembling of data on past and ongoing disaster events, with each event having records of dates,
location, deaths, economic losses, number of people affected, etc, and a suitable archiving system to maintain the
records and allow easy access. Several international or regional organisations collect and operate such databases20 and
can provide not only historical data for countries, but also technical advice and support to capacity building. The
quality of the data provided by international sources actually depends on the efforts that countries make for improving
their own information. This highlights the importance of developing national databases and information systems for
disaster relevant data. Annex 11 contains some instances of useful data collection at the national level (worksheets 1a
and 1b).
For example, UNDP’s Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP) provides information on expected losses and
the ProVention/World Bank/Columbia University Disaster Risk Hotspots Project data on expected mortality risk per
unit population, total economic losses per unit GDP and as a percentage of GDP per unit area. Both initiatives provide
information concerning the extent of exposure to hazards that can assist in the analysis of trends in vulnerability
reduction.
There are also existing international databases that stretch back several decades for some countries and are maintained
and continually updated. The EM-DAT is one example and is maintained by the Centre for Epidemiology of
Disasters (CRED)21, in Brussels, Belgium. CRED obtains its data from a variety of sources, particularly from national
sources, the media, Red Cross Red Crescent Societies and other relief agencies.
A key element of the indicators is the statistical definition of a disaster. For a disaster to be entered into the EM-DAT
database at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: (i) 10 or more people have been reported killed; (ii) 100
people have been reported to be affected, (iii) a declaration of a state of emergency has been issued, or (iv) a call for
international assistance has been made. Further definitions relevant to the EM-DAT database may be found on the
webpage http://www.em-dat.net/criteria.htm.
The DESINVENTAR database on disasters maintained in Latin America, and more recently in Asia is another
important source of data on disaster losses.
3.6 Five-level assessment tool for qualitative characteristics
As earlier noted, some indicators cover factors that are qualitative in nature and therefore require qualitative
assessment. In social research, assessment schemes using five equal steps are often used for converting qualitative
characteristics into quantitative values. The following table provides a generic scale of five achievement levels and is
proposed as an assessment tool for measuring such indicators. The Table also includes examples of the application of
the assessment tool to the possible indicator “A strategy for data provision for disaster risk reduction is in place”.
Including CRED, at http://www.cred.be, and Disaster Loss Inventories (DesInventar) http://www.desinventar.org,

20
See www.cred.be, and http://www.em-dat.net

21

Table 1: Five-level assessment tool for use in grading achievement of qualitative factors in indicators
Level Generic description of achievement Examples of an assessment of the indicator “A strategy for
data provision for disaster risk reduction is in place”
5 Comprehensive achievement has been attained, “Systematic, properly resourced processes for data collection
with the commitment and capacities to sustain and dissemination are in place, with evaluation, analysis and
efforts at all levels. improvements being routinely undertaken. Plans and commitments
are publicised and the work is well integrated into other
programmes.”
4 Substantial achievement has been attained, “Processes for data collection and dissemination are in place for all
but with some recognised deficiencies in hazards and most vulnerability factors, but there are shortcomings
commitment, financial resources or operational in dissemination and analysis that are being addressed.”
capacities.
3 There is some commitment and capacities to “There is a systematic commitment to collecting and archiving
achieving DRR but progress is not substantial. hazard data, but little awareness of data needs for determining
vulnerability factors, and a lack of systematic planning and
operational skills”.
2 Achievements have been made but are relatively “Some data collection and analysis has been done in the past, but
small or incomplete, and while improvements in an ad hoc way. There are plans to improve data activities, but
are planned, the commitment and capacities are resources and capacities are very limited.”
limited.
1 Achievements are minor and there are few signs “There is little awareness of the need to systematically collect and
of planning or forward action to improve the analyse data related to disaster events and climatic risks.”
situation.
The generic descriptions of the 5 levels may require refinement to better reflect users’ perceptions and to ensure the
levels properly cover the range of possibility in equal steps. They also may need to be tailored to the actual indicator, to
make them more relevant to the circumstances of the indicator.
Potential institutional users of this five level assessment tool might also be interested to refer to the 2005 Tearfund
publication on Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction where a similar tool has been suggested for assessing institutional
progress with mainstreaming disaster risk reduction.
An indicative table of criteria to illustrate the qualification of achievement for each of the five levels of progress is
included in Annex 5.
10
4. Indicators for the Hyogo Framework’s Main Elements

4.1 Need for common indicators
While it is important to develop national capacities to design and implement indicators tailored to national settings,
it is also necessary to develop internationally common indicators that enable globally-consistent long term tracking of
progress on disaster risk reduction and on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework. The adoption of common
indicators will also bring the benefit of standard, well-tested data collection methodologies that all countries can make
use of.
Accordingly, this section proposes the following specific indicators for planning and monitoring activities undertaken
for each of the Hyogo Framework’s main high-level elements – namely it’s overall “expected outcome”, its three
“strategic goals”, and its five “priorities for action”.
The indicators outlined for each of the Hyogo Framework’s elements, could be binary (“yes” or “no”) indicators, but
in many cases it will be necessary to make use of an assessment tool, such as the 5-level assessment tool described in
the previous section, to generate a value for the indicators. Methodologies will need to be developed for each of the
indicators.
4.2 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome
Expected Outcome Recommended Indicators

The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and i. Number of deaths arising from natural hazard events
in the social, economic and environmental assets of
ii. Total economic losses attributed to natural hazard events
communities and states
iii. Number of people affected by natural hazard events
Strengthening efforts in data collection at the national and local levels is an important starting point to accurately
inform disaster loss information databases maintained at the national, regional and international levels.
National authorities can contribute and access disaster loss data from existing international databases (see section 3.5).
For instance, many cooperate directly with CRED to improve the quality of both archived data and ongoing data
collection.
The three indicators chosen above, cover loss of lives and economic assets and reflect a general measure of social
impacts. However, they do not cover very well the loss of livelihoods or environmental assets – reliable indicators for
these factors require further methodological development.
Further information on necessary data for indicators relevant to the Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome can be
obtained from a number of widely-available annual and disaster-specific reports – these are referred to in section 3.5
above, and listed in the References.
11
4.3 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s strategic goals
Strategic Goal Recommended Indicators
1: The integration of disaster risk i. National development plans include elements which address disaster risk
reduction into sustainable development reduction.
policies and practices.
ii. All international plans and programmes such as;
a. poverty reduction strategies,
b. common programming tools of the UN and international agencies,
c. climate change adaptation plans and strategies,
d. and donor supported country development assistance programmes
include elements which address disaster risk reduction.
2: Development and strengthening of i. A national policy framework for disaster risk reduction exists, that includes
institutions, mechanisms and capacities policies, plans and activities for national to local administrative levels
to build resilience to hazards
ii. A national multi-sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning
iii. Dedicated and sufficient resources are available for planned activities to reduce
disaster risks.
3: The systematic incorporation i. The national policy framework incorporates disaster risk reduction into
of risk reduction approaches into the design and implementation of emergency, response, recovery and
the implementation of emergency rehabilitation processes.
preparedness, response and recovery
ii. Post-disaster reviews are routinely undertaken to learn lessons on risk
programmes.
reduction and these lessons are incorporated into plans and preparedness for
response.
The indicators proposed above for the Hyogo Framework strategic goals are aligned with the main elements of the text
of the Framework associated with each strategic goal. It is inevitable that indicator sets will be somewhat arbitrary in
formulation and may need to be refined in due course. Countries may need to examine each indicator and its wording
to asses its appropriateness to the country’s disaster risk reduction context.
The indicators are written as national level measures, but in principle, it should be possible to develop similarly
worded indicators for administrative sub-units and in some cases even for the community level. This will be important
especially given that most progress on risk reduction needs to be achieved at the local level, and that many national
level indicators must be tested and built up by aggregating local level progress.
A tool to support how relevant indicators chosen to assess the status of implementing the strategic goals is provided
under Annex 9, in the accompanying CD.
A recent application to monitor progress against the indicators for the five priorities for action has been developed
by the ISDR secretariat and can be found in an online “HFA Monitor” tool – enclosed as Annex 10 in a worksheet
format. The “HFA Monitor” is intended to be a comprehensive monitoring and reporting tool which will be launched
in mid-2008, to capture progress made across the national, regional and international levels in achieving disaster
risk reduction priorities outlined by the Hyogo Framework. Further guidance on responsibilities of states, regional
institutions and international organisations with respect to this monitoring and reporting process in 2008 can be found
in the accompanying CD under Annex 10. National focal points for the implementation of the Hyogo Framework will
be informed of upcoming progress review and reporting requirements in 2008.
12
4.4 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s Priorities for Action22
Priority for Action Recommended Indicators
1: Ensure that i. National institutional and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction exist with decentralized responsibilities
disaster risk and capacities at all levels.
reduction is a
ii. Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans at all administrative
national and a local
levels.
priority with a strong
institutional basis for iii. Community participation and decentralization is ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to
implementation local levels.
iv. A national multi-sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.
2: Identify, assess i. National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and include
and monitor disaster risk assessments for key sectors.
risks and enhance
ii. Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.
early warning.
iii. Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities.
iv. National and local risk assessments take account of regional/ trans-boundary risks, with a view to regional
cooperation on risk reduction.
3: Use knowledge, i. Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through networks,
innovation and development of information sharing system.
education to build
ii. School curricula, education material and relevant trainings include risk reduction and recovery concepts and
a culture of safety
practices.
and resilience at all
levels. iii. Research methods and tools for multi risk assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and
strengthened.
iv. Country wide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to
urban and rural communities.
4: Reduce the i. Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment-related policies and plans, including for land use,
underlying risk natural resource management and climate change adaptation.
factors23.
ii. Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at
risk.
iii. Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of
economic activities.
iv. Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including
enforcement of building codes.
v. Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.
vi. Procedures are in place to assess disaster risk impacts of all major development projects, especially
infrastructure.
5: Strengthen i. Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster management, with a disaster
disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.
preparedness for
ii. Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training
effective response at
drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response programmes.
all levels.
iii. Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to enable effective response and recovery when
required.
iv. Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during disasters and to undertake post-event reviews.
These indicators derive from the Hyogo Framework and align with those recommended by the ISDR publication Words Into Action: A Guide for
22
Implementing the Hyogo Framework. See http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Words-into-action/Words-Into-Action.pdf

Users are encouraged to apply the indicators where applicable and relevant to the national and local contexts. If there are areas that are relevant, but not explicitly
23
mentioned here, users are encouraged to develop ‘additional’ and ‘contextual’ indicators. Support and further resources are available in Annex 2 and 3.
13
Each of the indicators needs to be examined in the individual national context and adjusted accordingly, while still
adhering to the objective of a common internationally comparable set of indicators.
The general comments made above with respect to the indicators for the Strategic Goals also apply to the indicators
for the Priorities for Action, and in some instances the indicators are common. However, while the indicators for the
Strategic Goals focus solely on national-level actions, the indicators for the Priorities for Action can be formulated for
local and regional levels as well.
4.5 Additional indicators
The indicators listed above address the foundations of an effective and well-integrated national disaster risk reduction
programme oriented to implementing the Hyogo Framework. Many other indicators could be formulated, for
example to track particular issues of concern, such as the status of vulnerable groups, sensitive ecosystems or
settlements, or particular policy objectives, in which case more detailed indicators are likely to be necessary to
adequately assess the desired achievements. Subject areas for additional indicators might include the Millennium
Development Goals, climate change, governance, corruption, gender equality and other specific development issues
related to risk reduction.
Countries are encouraged to explore options for identifying and applying relevant and ‘additional’ indicators in areas
of concern. The intention at the national and sub regional level will be to develop indicators tailored to specific disaster
risk reduction and recovery projects, programmes and policies. If the data resources are readily available, an indicator
may be simple to establish. To provide further guidance on possible additional indicators, Annex 2 lists a variety of
indicators against the different elements of the Hyogo Framework.
Another source of information that may be useful is the ISDR secretariat database on commitments and initiatives
toward implementing the Hyogo Framework. It is available for review, and for further updates through the Prevention
Web site at: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/framework/projects-initiatives.
4.6 Indicators for regional and international level use
The indicators developed at national level can be aggregated by standard means to provide regional and international
indicators, assuming there is sufficient commonality of data type and methodology among countries. National
indicators for the expected outcome (deaths, economic losses and people affected) can be simply added for the different
countries. Relative indicators also can be calculated if desired, such as fatalities per 100,000 population, or losses per
capita or per unit gross domestic product.
The indicators for the Strategic Goals and Priorities for Action can be aggregated as counts of the number of
countries reporting “yes” or “no” to the indicator, or if they are recorded against the five-level scale, as averages of the
levels recorded or counts of countries reaching a particular level of achievement, e.g. level 4 or higher. Totals can be
expressed as percentages if desired, as in for example, “50% of countries report the existence of a functioning national
platform”, or “90% of communities have access to early warnings”. For suggestions on indicators for regional or
international use, see Annex 3.
If national indicators and methodologies differ greatly among countries, it may not be possible to formulate an
adequate regional or international aggregate indicator. However, if the differences are not great, a wider definition that
encompasses the range of differences may be feasible. For example, if some countries have an indicator for national
early warning systems while others have an indicator for community warning systems, these might be combined into a
single regional or international composite indicator on early warning capacities.
Care needs to be exercised when transposing or interpreting national data and indicators, to ensure that proper
consideration is given to the particular national circumstances such as data definitions, hazard characteristics, available
resources and technical capacities, social factors, and language.
14
International organisations are increasingly developing and using indicators to monitor and manage their investments
and programme activities in disaster risk reduction. For example, the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Risk
Reduction and Recovery and UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery are currently drafting indicator
sets and frameworks to monitor institutional performance, while member organizations of the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee (IASC) on humanitarian matters are developing indicators relevant to their operations. Efforts are being
made by these and other members of the ISDR system to secure as much consistency as possible among the different
indicator sets. This is desirable to ensure comparability among indicator data and to reduce the burden of data
collection and analysis, much of which necessarily is done by partners in countries.
15
5. First Steps Towards Developing and Using Indicators

5.1 Process for selecting and developing indicators
At the outset, it is worth noting that a primary reason for establishing indicators is to monitor achievements on
disaster risk reduction and to be able to assess what has been done with regard to disaster risk reduction and why
this is important to meeting sustainable development goals. Therefore, the approach must be one that the country
chooses and implements, in order to pursue its priorities and initiatives in disaster risk reduction, and the methodology
provided here should be regarded not as a rigid process but as a set of tools, information, and suggested tasks that can
help a country achieve its aims.
This section presents a generic process for selecting an indicator, either from existing sources or indicators or as a new
indicator. Drawing on the most useful aspects of the numerous methods available, this suggested process provides an
accessible, systematic and transparent course of action for organisations seeking to create useful measures of progress,
adapted as necessary to the needs of individual countries. At each stage of the process, the organisation should monitor
and review the actions taken and consult with stakeholders, adjusting its activity as appropriate in response.
Step 1: Identify and define a key issue or problem related to disaster risk reduction.
Step 2: Identify what information is required to monitor and evaluate the issue, actions taken to address it, and key achievements.
Step 3: Identify existing indicators that could potentially capture this information in a measurable form.
Step 4: Evaluate these indicators according to their relevance to policy, programme and project initiatives, their specificity in
terms of hazard, population affected, the practicality of their data collection and measurement, and any other relevant
characteristics.
Step 5: If existing indicators are not suitable, develop additional indicators and subject these to the same review described above
in Step 4.
Step 6: Choose the most useful indicators for the circumstances. Decide on and define the methodology for applying the indicator,
including the necessary processes for data collection, storage and analysis.
Step 7: Implement the indicator programme including data collection and dissemination of results.
Step 8: Use the selected indicators to evaluate and direct policy development, program implementation, and project management
and operational practice.
Step 9: Monitor the indicators’ utility for the purposes indicated in Actions 1, 2 and 8.
It is likely that many countries will implement indicators in a progressive way, moving from those for Expected
Outcome, to those for Strategic Goals and then Priorities for Action. In doing so, it may be desirable to adjust the
indicators and any benchmarks, in order to make them as relevant and useful as possible in capturing progress related
to their changing policies and circumstances. It is recommended that the key stakeholders be consulted as part of such
an adaptation process.
5.2 Monitoring and review
The initial selection of indicators is just the start of the process. The task of measuring progress on disaster risk
reduction and the implementation of the Hyogo Framework will require continued attention, because even the
most effective actions will experience challenges and changes along the way. For this reason, monitoring and review
processes are essential, both internally and with partners. Monitoring and review processes help all parties to learn
from experiences and to share these with other interested parties. It is recommended that authorities concerned with
indicators undertake the following tasks on an ongoing basis:
• Periodically monitor and review the indicators, to ensure that they remain relevant and are properly operational.
16
• Regularly engage and consult with all stakeholders, to maintain awareness and support for an indicator-guided
approach to disaster risk reduction objectives.
• Participate in international and regional consultations on the status and development of indicators, to help secure
the quality of national and international activities24.
By using indicators and systematically monitoring and reviewing achievements, national and other authorities will also
greatly facilitate the discharge of obligations to prepare status reports related to disaster risk reduction. The Hyogo
Framework sets out several such expectations to ensure ongoing monitoring and review of efforts at all levels.
ISDR secretariat is in the process of initiating a multi-tiered monitoring and progress review mechanism with a view
to assess progress in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework across the national, regional and global levels, and
for key thematic areas. During the course of April 2008, an online tool will be launched and hosted by the ISDR
secretariat online Prevention Web to enable countries to conveniently monitor progress in achieving disaster risk
reduction and recovery objectives across years.
As a first comprehensive output of this progress review mechanism, analysis on key trends, progress and challenges
encountered at the national and regional levels, will be compiled by the ISDR secretariat and presented in the ISDR
system’s upcoming first biennial Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – to be released in 2009 at the
second Global Platform on DRR.
In preparation, the guidance on “Common Reporting on the Progress of the Implementation of the HFA”25 prepared
specifically for the reporting exercise of 2007 (leading to the production of the Disaster Risk Reduction: 2007 Global
Review), will be updated for the upcoming monitoring and reporting process in 2008. For details on the ‘HFA
monitor’ tool to be launched online Prevention Web in mid-2008, see Annex 10.
5.3 Final note on challenges
Identifying and implementing indicators is a complex task that must involve many actors, including individual states,
regional and international organizations, local governments, non-governmental organisations and community-based
groups. It requires the blending of technical expertise and political and social realities in order to achieve good, usable
indicator sets that can remain relevant for a reasonably long term.
Some challenges in working with indicators could be:

• The difficulty of sustaining a long term monitoring programme when the benefits of specific disaster risk reduction
initiatives may not become apparent for many years.
• The random and infrequent nature of particular disaster events, particularly catastrophic events, which does not
permit annual assessment of the impacts of nationwide risk reduction programmes, and where the large losses of
individual events can distort the perceptions of overall disaster risk reduction efforts.
• The difficulty of quantifying the likely impacts of disaster risk reduction measures in advance of actual hazard
events;
• The complexity of developing and using indicators in multi-hazard environments, where the vulnerabilities vary by
hazard, location, and human circumstances.
• The limited number of factors that indicators can cover, and the potential for the chosen indicators to unduly focus
attention on these factors at the expense of other less obvious but important factors involved.
• The tension that may develop between those whose priority is to implement the substantive risk reduction measure
and those whose priority is to monitor their progress, and the sensitivity that may occur if the indicators show
unfavourable outcomes of particular initiatives.
The Program of Indicators developed by IDB-IDEA enables the depiction of disaster risk at the national level, allowing the identification of key issues by
24
economic and social category thus facilitating the creation of national risk management performance benchmarks (the RMI) in order to establish performance
targets for improving management effectiveness. See conceptual framework, project phases, international workshops, outcomes, reports of results and the
technical details in the web site http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co.
25
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/reporting-guidelines-hfa.doc
17
These issues require careful thought and wise management. The random characteristics of disasters and disaster
losses suggest the need to focus policies and programmes on the vulnerabilities to hazards, and to orient indicators
to measure vulnerabilities and their changes rather than disaster losses and their changes. Indicators for losses must
remain a key part of the indicator set, but with full recognition that extended periods of time will be required to detect
trends in losses and effectiveness of risk reduction programmes.
Another challenge is to integrate and link action on indicators across the various policy frameworks and initiatives, for
example across different sectors, between risk reduction and climate change, and between country-driven needs and
global reporting and international cooperation needs.
The technical demands of indicator implementation will always remain a challenge. Obtaining measurements and
maintaining reliable meaningful data series requires dedicated expertise and resources and can be costly. The data and
methodologies upon which indicators and benchmarks depend are inevitably limited and imperfect. Indicators must be
recognised as only indicative of the real world, and not the reality itself.
18
List of Acronyms
ADRC Asian Disaster Reduction Centre
CCA (UN) Common Country Assessment
CAP Country Assistance Plan
CDB Convention on Biological Diversity
CRA Community risk assessment
CSD Commission on Sustainable Development
DesInventar Disaster Loss Inventories
DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom
DRI Disaster Risk Index
DRR Disaster risk reduction
EIA Environmental impact assessment
EM-DAT The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
EMI Earthquake Mega cities Institute
EWS Early warning system
GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery
GIS Geographical information system
GDP Gross domestic product
HDI Human Development Index
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IATF/DR Inter- agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction
IASC Inter-agency Standing Committee
IDP Internally-displaced person
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
ISDR International Strategy on Disaster Reduction
LDCs Least developed countries
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-governmental organization
TRIAMS Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment & Monitoring System
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)
ODA Official Development Assistance
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
VCA Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment
WCDR World Conference for Disaster Reduction
WHO World Health Organisation
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
19
Glossary26
Benchmark: A standard by which something can be measured or judged, a point of reference for measurement.
Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Assistance Framework (CCA/UNDAF): The
CCA is a common instrument of the United Nations system to analyse the national development situation and identify
key development issues with a focus on the MD/ MDGs, and other internationally agreed treaty obligations and
development goals. The UNDAF is the common strategic framework for the operational activities of the UN system
at country level (http://www.undg.org).
Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material,
economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own
resources.
Disaster risk reduction: The elements including a conceptual framework to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks
throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards,
within the broad context of sustainable development.
Emergency management: The organization and management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all
aspects of emergencies, in particularly preparedness, response and rehabilitation.
Early warning system: A system that links and integrates all elements needed for effective issuance and use of early
warnings, including the key elements of prior risk assessment, hazard monitoring, hazard prediction, the preparation
and communication of warning messages, and the receipt and proper use of warnings by those at risk. (Note: such
integrated, people-centred systems are often more an ideal than a reality.)
Goal: Something worked toward or striven for; the purpose toward which an endeavour is directed; an objective.
Hazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury,
property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.
Hazard resistant standards: Guidelines for building construction that ensure a minimum level of safety for the
occupants, given the forces that natural hazards impose on the area governed by the guidelines.
Indicator: An explicit measure used to determine progress; a signal that reveals progress towards objectives; a means of
measuring what actually happens against what has been planned in terms of quality, quantity and timeliness.
Land-use planning: Branch of physical and socio-economic planning that determines the means and assesses the
values or limitations of various options in which land is to be utilized, with the corresponding effects on different
segments of the population or interests of a community taken into account in resulting decisions.
Millennium Development Goals: Eight key goals, supported by all the world’s states and its leading development
institutions, which together form a global agenda for development
Mitigation: Structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural hazards,
environmental degradation and technological hazards.
The definitions of these terms come from sources including the ISDR online glossary, http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm, as
26
well as the online dialogue upon which this guide is based, available at: http://www.unisdr.org/HFdialogue/, and both last accessed 19 January 2007.
20
Monitoring: A continuous function, tracking the actual performance or situation against what was planned or
expected according to pre-determined standards.
Multi-sectoral disaster risk reduction platform: A nationally-owned and led mechanism—adopting the form of a forum or
committee—that serves as advocate for disaster risk reduction at different levels and contributes with both analysis and advice
on action through a coordinated and participatory process. A forum to facilitate the interaction of key development players from
line ministries, disaster management authorities, academia, civil society and other sectors around the disaster reduction agenda.
National Development Plan: the principle document guiding a country’s development focus and priorities, whose
content is reflected in the PRSP, CCA/UNDAF and national MDG report.
National disaster risk reduction policy framework: A framework for national policy on disaster risk reduction provides
a well-designed and mutually-reinforcing set of plans and positions by the national government to reduce the risk of
disasters, including legislation, planning and resource allocation.
Natural hazards: Natural processes or phenomena occurring in the biosphere that may constitute a damaging event.
Objective: Purpose or goal representing the desired result that a programme or project seeks to achieve.
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PSRPs): Prepared by governments in low-income countries through a
participatory process involving domestic stakeholders and external development partners, including the IMF and the
World Bank. A PRSP describes the macroeconomic, structural and social policies and programs that a country will
pursue over several years to promote broad-based growth and reduce poverty, as well as external financing needs and
the associated sources of financing.
Preparedness: Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response to the impact of hazards, including
the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary evacuation of people and property from
threatened locations.
Prevention: Activities to provide outright avoidance of the adverse impact of hazards and means to minimize related
environmental, technological and biological hazards.
Public awareness: The processes of informing the general population, increasing levels of consciousness about risks
and how people can act to reduce their exposure to hazards.
Public information: Information, facts and knowledge provided or learned as a result of research or study, available to
be disseminated to the public.
Recovery: Decisions and actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring or improving the pre-disaster living
conditions of the stricken community, while encouraging and facilitating necessary adjustments to reduce disaster risk.
Relief / response: The provision of assistance or intervention during or immediately after a disaster to meet the life
preservation and basic subsistence needs of those people affected. It can be of an immediate, short-term, or protracted
duration.
Resilience / resilient: The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by
resisting or changing, in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure.
Risk: The probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses (deaths, injuries, property, livelihoods, economic
activity disrupted or environment damaged) resulting from interactions between natural or human-induced hazards
and vulnerable conditions.
21
Sustainable development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Target: The specific and intended result to be achieved within an explicit timeframe and against which actual results
are compared and assessed.
Vulnerability: The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes, which
increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards.
22
Annex 1: Rationale of proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s

Strategic Goals and Priorities for Action.
This annex presents information on the significance of each suggested indicator for the Hyogo Framework for
Action Strategic Goals and Priorities for Action. It is suggested that relevant authorities consider using the proposed
assessment tool to measure progress on all disaster risk reduction actions where qualitative indicators have been chosen.
HFA Strategic Goals
1. Integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and practices
1(i) National institutional and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction exist with decentralised responsibilities and capacities
at all levels.
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers are prepared by governments in low-income countries through a participatory process
involving domestic stakeholders and external development partners, including the IMF and the World Bank. Focusing on the
protection of the most vulnerable is an efficient strategy to help reduce the overall impact of disasters. Effective disaster risk
reduction strategies focus on ways to reduce beneficiaries’ vulnerability to natural hazards, including programmes that promote
asset enhancement and diversification, a safe environment, social protection, and empowerment through participation in
governance.
1(ii) Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Assistance Framework (CCA/UNDAF) covers elements of
disaster risk reduction
CCA/UNDAF’s strategic planning should include the principal national disaster risk reduction mechanisms, including a multi-
stakeholder national platform and development plans. Introducing disaster risk reduction into UN-system development planning
and practice will, in the long term, reduce risk resulting from some development activities (such as land use) while protecting
development progress.
1(iii) National MDG report includes elements of disaster risk reduction.

The national MDG report is a key instrument for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. The MDG process is an extensive
and high-profile international development priority, and therefore an important avenue for mainstreaming disaster risk into
sustainable development policies, planning and programming.
1(iv) A national multi sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.
Engaging the relevant stakeholders in a dialogue about disaster risk reduction will help build a national consensus on the need
and priorities for disaster reduction. Such dialogue enhances awareness of hazards, disaster risk and risk reduction. It can
empower vulnerable stakholders, including women and the socially and economically disadvantaged, and promote action by
local govenrmnets, private entities, women and community groups and other NGOs through information sharing and coalition
building. Dialogue can also lead to greater collaboration on risk reduction at the regional level.
1 (v) Donor-supported country development assistance programme documents include elements on disaster risk reduction
Donor-supported resource allocation that embeds disaster risk reduction into a country’s assistance is necessary.
Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development assistance is a priority, supported by donors.
23
2. Development and strenghtening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards
2(i) A national multi-sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning

A multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduction can be defined as a nationally-owned and led mechanism— facilitating the
interaction of key development players around the disaster reduction agenda. It also facilitates integration of disaster risk
reduction into development policies, priorities and plans. Engaging stakeholders in a dialogue about disaster risk reduction
will help build a national consensus on the need and priorities for disaster reduction. Dialogue can also enhance awareness
of hazards and risk reduction, and it can empower vulnerable populations. It can also promote action by local governments,
private entities, women and community groups and NGOs, through information sharing. Dialogue can also lead to collaboration
at the regional level.
2(ii) A national policy framework for disaster risk reduction exists, that includes policies, plans and activities for national to local
administrative levels
A framework for a national policy on disaster risk reduction should provide a well-designed and mutually-reinforcing set of
plans by the national government to reduce the risk of disasters, including legislation, planning and resource allocation. A
country’s constitution, laws, and governmental system provide the basis to develop plans for disaster risk reduction. Assessing
such elements can reveal gaps, resources and linkages that were under-utilised or untapped; a disaster risk reduction policy
framework can also guide local governments in its risk reduction policies and strategies.
2(iii) Dedicated and sufficient resources are available for the planned disaster risk reduction activities
Resource allocation that embeds disaster risk reduction into an institution’s day-to-day functioning is necessary. Mainstreaming
disaster risk reduction depends on building the financial capability of organizations to plan and implement disaster risk reduction
activities.
3. Systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into implementation of emergency preparedness, response
and recovery programmes.
3(i) The national policy framework requires the incorporation of disaster risk reduction into the design and implementation of
emergency response, recovery and rehabilitation processes
The policy framework represents a good mainstreaming tool. Lessons learned from previous disasters should be included into
pre-disaster planning in order to avoid past mistakes and address the underlying causes of risk.
3(ii) Post-disaster reviews are routinely undertaken to learn lessons on risk reduction and these lessons are incorporated into
plans and preparedness for response
Lessons learned from previous disasters should be included into pre-disaster planning in order to avoid past mistakes and
address the underlying causes of risk.
HFA Priorities for Action
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.
1(i) National institutional and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction exist with decentralised responsibilities and capacities
at all levels.
A country’s constitution, laws, and governmental system provide the basis to develop plans and organizational arrangements for
all areas of disaster risk reduction. Assessing such elements can reveal gaps, resources and linkages that were under-utilised or
untapped; a disaster risk reduction policy framework can also guide a local government in its disaster risk reduction policies and
strategies.
1(ii) Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at all adminitrative
levels
Dedicated resources refer to funds that are allocated specifically for, and only for, disaster risk reduction. Resource allocation
that embeds disaster risk reduction into an institution’s day-to-day business is necessary. Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction
depends on building the capability of organizations to plan and implement disaster risk reduction activities.
24
1(iii) Community participation and decentralisation is ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local levels
Such action calls for the promotion of community participation in disaster risk reduction through the adoption of specific
policies, promotion of networking, strategic management of volunteer resources, attribution of roles and responsibilities, and the
delegation and provision of the necessary authority and resources.
1. (iv) A national multi sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.
Engaging the relevant stakeholders in a dialogue about disaster risk reduction will help build a national consensus on the need
and priorities for disaster reduction. Such dialogue enhances awareness of hazards, disaster risk and risk reduction. It can
empower vulnerable stakholders, including women and the socially and economically disadvantaged, and promote action by
local governments, private entities, women and community groups and other NGOs through information sharing and coalition
building. Dialogue can also lead to greater collaboration on risk reduction at the regional level.
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.
2(i) National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and include risk
assessments for key sectors
National risk assessments allow decision makers and the public to understand the country’s exposure to various hazards and
its social, economic, environmental and physical vulnerabilities. National risk assessments allow communities to take effective
action to reduce risk.
2(ii) Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities
Data collection and dissemination processes allow decision makers and the public to understand the country’s exposure to
various hazards and its social, economic, environmental and physical vulnerabilities. Such information, disseminated in an
appropriate and timely manner, allows communities to take effective action to reduce risk.
2(iii) Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities
Assessing capacity of the four elements of early warning (risk knowledge, monitoring and warning service, dissemination and
communication, and response capabilities) is the first step to identify areas of weakness and set measures to fill gaps.
Early warning systems empower individuals and communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in an
appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life, damage to property and the environment, and
loss of livelihoods.
2(iv) National and local risk assessments take account of regional / trans boundary risks, with a view to regional cooperation on
risk reduction.
This action refers to the need to cooperate regionally and internationally to assess and monitor regional and trans boundary
risks, exchange information and provide early warnings through appropriate arrangements. This would imply, having standard
and accessible information and data on regional disaster risks, impacts and losses.
3. Use knoweldge, innovation and educaiton to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
3(i) Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through netwoirks,
development of information sharing systems etc)
Information on disaster risks and protection options, especially to citizens and local authorities in high risk areas, should be
easily available and understandable to enable them to take actions to reduce risk, and build resilience.
3(ii) School curricula , education material and relevant trainings include disaster risk reduction and recovery concepts and
practices.
Incorporating disaster risk-related issues into existing education curricula contributes to continuous learning and reinforces
disaster risk reduction knowledge. Educating younger generations instills disaster risk reduction as a value in society. Children
are thus effective agents for building a culture of resilience to disasters. Moreover, higher education and applied research are
sources of practical endeavours in building disaster reduction capacities and therefore merit special attention. Training activities
also provide the opportunity to consider indigenous knowledge and traditional practices.
25
3 (iii) Research methods and tools for multi risk assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and strenghtened
Authorities at national and regional level have a role to play in strenghtening the technical and scientific capacities to develop
and apply methodologies, studies and models to assess vulnerabilities and impacts of hazards, including the improvement of
regional monitoring capacities and assessments.
3 (iv) Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to urban and rural
communities
A countrywide public awareness strategy is a national, long-term plan of action with specific goals that organizes how the
general population is informed about disaster risk and the ways they can act to reduce their exposure to hazards. Public
awareness actions are important tools to help integrate disaster risk reduction into every-day life. Making stakeholders aware of
the hazards they are likely to face also helps ensure political commitment to risk reduction measures.
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors
4(i) Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, including for land use natural
resource management and climate change adaptation.
Management policies can have beneficial impact on disaster risk reduction, and should explicitly incorporate risk reduction
goals and strategies. Many disaster risk reduction actions have environmental benefits, and many environmental practices can
provide solutions to reduce vulnerability. When environmental and natural resource policies specifically incorporate disaster risk
reduction elements, they can help reduce underlying risk factors
4(ii) Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk –
through addressing issues of food secuirty, public health, risk sharing mechanisms, protection of critical public infrastrucute, etc.
When public awareness, education, early warning and environmental policies specifically incorporate disaster risk reduction
elements, they can help reduce underlying risk factors and reduce the vulnerability of impoverished groups.
4(iii) Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of economic
activities.
Focusing on the protection of a state’s most vulnerable economic activitieis and productive sectors is an efficient strategy to help
reduce the overall impacts of disasters.
4 (iv) Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including enforcement of
building codes.
There is an identified need for the national and local implementation of international post disaster recovery and reconstruction
norms and standards.
4(v) Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.
There is an identified need for the national and local implementation of international post disaster recovery and reconstruction
4(vi) Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure
The social impact of a disaster can be reduced by ensuring prompt resumption of these essential facilities. Direct community
involvement is essential in all aspects of school and health facility disaster risk reduction. If procedures are in place, it greatly
reduces the risks of communities.
5. Strenghten disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
5(i) Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk
reduction perspective are in place.
An investment of time and resources in systematically evaluating and subsequently improving disaster preparedness capacities
and mechanisms provides states with a substantial increase in readiness and improves disaster preparedness.
26
5(ii) Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and
rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response programmes
Disaster preparedness and response planning for recovery and rehabilitation efforts should be informed by the lessons learned
from previous disasters as well as knowledge of risk reduction measures in order to avoid missing the underlying causes of risk.
Disaster risk reduction actions should be required in the design and implementation of both types of planning.
5(iii) Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.
An investment of time and resources in systematically evaluating and subsequently improving disaster preparedness capacities
and mechanisms provides states with a substantial increase in readiness and improve disaster preparedness.
5(iv) Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event
reviews.
Emergency preparedness and response as well as planning for recovery and rehabilitation efforts should be informed by the
lessons learned from previous disasters. Disaster risk reduction actions should be included in the design and implementation of
both types of planning.
27
Annex 2: Additional possible indicators to assess progress in im-

plementation of the Hyogo Framework
The indicators provided in the following table were developed in 2005 in consultation with a range of experts as part of
preliminary efforts to identifying a range of possible indicators to measure progress on different aspects of disaster risk
reduction within the context of the Hyogo Framework.
Strategic Goal 1: The integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning
1. A national platform and coordination mechanism has been created.

2. National platform has an effective structure and function.
3. Progress on sustainable development and achievement of MDGs is related to application of disaster risk reduction in:
(i) CCA/UNDAF and other international common programming tools
(ii) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)
(iii) Climate change adaptation plans and strategies
Strategic Goal 2: Development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to
hazards
1. Number by type of formal education programs related to emergency and risk management.
2. Number by type of sector programs for emergency and risk management.
3. Legislation has been adopted covering (presence or absence of):
(a) Building codes for prevalent natural hazards.
(b) Building inspection practices for code compliance and insurance classification.
(c) Land use planning incorporating hazard zones.
4. Sector (by development area, public and private) functioning as an integral part of national platforms for disaster risk
reduction.
Strategic Goal 3: The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency
preparedness, response and recovery
1. Number by type of internationally certified emergency and recovery management specialists.

2. Incorporation and implementation of international-adopted recovery standards and criteria into reconstruction and recovery
programs.
28
Priorities for Action – Expected results and additional indicators
Priority 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for
implementation.
Areas / Expected results Additional possible indicators per priority area
Multi-sectoral policies and plans / 1. Multi-stakeholder and multi-sector national platform exists.
DRR integrated into development 2. Composition of multi-sector national platform is effective.
policy and planning by countries.
3. Disaster risk reduction has been included in the country’s CCA/UNDAF.
Multi-sectoral coordination
4. Country has included disaster risk reduction initiatives in MDG reports.
mechanisms for DRR created and
functioning 5. Country has included disaster risk reduction in sustainabale development plans/
national development plans.
Increased resource allocation for DRR
6. Inclusion of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies in sector policies and
plans.
7. Country identifies disaster risk reduction allocations in annual budget.
8. Country receives international cooperation/ODA for issues related to disaster risk
reduction.
9. Proportion of official development assistance provided that goes to national
disaster risk reduction issues.
Legislation / 10. Coverage by type (e.g. hurricane, flood) and objective (e.g. mitigation) of national
legislation that has been adopted or modified to support disaster risk reduction.
Legislation adopted or modified
to explicitly support disaster risk -- Codes and standards exist and are regularly updated.
reduction;
-- Compliance with disaster risk reduction regulations is required by law
Compliance of normative regulations
11. Coverage by type and objective of national legislation enforcement systems.
Decentralization / 12. Location and level by type of responsible designated agencies, institutions and
offices for the implementation of enforcement system.
Empowered sub-national authorities
29
Community Participation / 13. Participation by type and objective of NGOs, civil society, volunteers and private
sector in national platforms.
Community and volunteers
empowered and involved in DRR 14. Coverage by type and objective of disaster risk reduction policies, plans and
planning and activities programmes developed in consultation with NGOs and civil society.
Community involvement and the 15. One or more national and sub-national events organised on Disaster Risk
media are engaged in building Reduction Day for public awareness campaigns.
resilience to disasters
16. Coverage by type and objective of risk management plans that are implemented
Specific mechanisms are developed with involvement of the local community.
to engage stakeholders communities
17. Coverage by type and objective of assessment of human resources capacity,
and volunteers.
technical and financial assessments for disaster risk reduction.
18. Presence of identifiable leaders, institutions or collaborations that lead disaster risk
reduction activities at the local level;
19. Coverage of disaster risk reduction related activities by media.
20. Disaster reported by media that include racoomandations to reduce disaster risk.
20. Identified means and sources to convey local relevance, community experience or
traditional knowledge in disaster risk reduction.
21. Amount of community training and community-based preparedness.
22. State has halved the average of annual casualties by 2015.
Multi-hazard / 24. Coverage by type and objective of risk specific management policies, planning
and programming into sector activities.
Multi-hazard approach integrated into
disaster risk management policies, 25. Evidence of multi-hazard approach integrated into risk management policies,
planning and programming planning and programming.
Capacity development / 26. Number of higher-level education degree disaster management programmes.
Capacity assessed, supported and 27. Capacities in disaster risk reduction assessed and reported as basic information
strengthened at all levels in all sectors for all project and programme development.
Priority 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning
Data, analysis and dissemination / 28. Coverage by type and objective of media markets with programming disaster
management awareness.
Statistical information is maintained
and shared on disaster occurrence, 29. Number by type (cyclone/hurricane, flood, volcanic eruption, tsunami) of national-
impact and losses. based early warning systems (EWS).
30. Coverage by type and objective of community vulnerability EWS.
31. Identifiable, accessible and structured record system maintained at national and
appropriate sub-national levels to a common and compatible standard.
32. Percentage of development projects and investment based on independent risk
and environmental impacts assessments, including in post disaster phases.
33. Evidence of statistical information exchanged at international, regional, national
and local levels.
30
Vulnerability and disaster risks / 34. Coverage by type and objective of hazard-specific vulnerability and capacity
assessments at the community level.
Indicators on disaster risks, hazards
and vulnerability developed, to 35. Vulnerability and capacity indicators developed and systematically mapped and
assess the impact of disaster on recorded.
social, economic and environmental
36. Identifiable programs assessing vulnerability and developing risk scenario.
conditions at national and sub-
national scales. 37. Indefinable programs/centres for hazard monitoring and analysis in institutions
such as national hydro-meteorological, seismic, etc.
Risk maps / 38. National multi-hazard vulnerability and/or risk mapping is completed.
Risk assessments and maps 39. Coverage by type and objective of development projects and investment based
(hazards/ vulnerability) are current on independent risk and environmental impacts assessments, including in post-
and available to the public. disaster recovery and reconstruction.
40. Historical record available of hazards and their impacts, climate change and
climater variability (catalogues, inventories).
Early waning systems and information 41. Public, professional and technical evaluation made of effectiveness of EWS by
management / hazard type at community level.
People centred early warnings 42. Robust and extended communication means available throughout areas at risk.
developed and communication
43. Early warning information and alerts reaching populations at risk.
systems to those at risk reviewed and
assessed.
International coordination / 48. National implementation of the recommendations from the Third International
Conference on Early Warning outcome document, “Developing Early Warning
International and regional efforts
Systems: A Checklist”.
are harmonized for cooperation and
support for standards in early warning 49. International and regional efforts are underway for standards and cooperation to
capacities and procedures build early warning capacity.
50. Recognised global authority, standards and procedures exist for consistent
motivation of EWS at international and regional level.
51. National implementation of the disaster risk reduction elements in the Mauritius
Strategy related to the Small Island Developing States.
Research and analysis / 52. Effectiveness of national risk assessment programmes in analysing emerging risk
and increased vulnerabilities.
Research, analysis and reporting are
undertaken on long-term changes and
emerging issues that might increase
vulnerabilities and risk exposure
Exchange of data and monitoring at 53. Coverage by type and objective of trans-boundary hazard assessments.
regional level /
54. Evidence of international, UN and/or bilateral assistance on the compilation and
Regional data information is compiled exchange of data and monitoring on regional risks.
and exchanged;
55. Existance of border agreements on areas of shared hazard events.
Trans-boundary hazards are
monitored.
31
Additional possible indicators for Priority 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and
resilience at all levels
Public information / 56. Extent of state participation in international and regional workshops and meetings
related to information sharing and good practices.
Good practises and lessons learnt
collected disseminated and used. 57. Quantity of accurate documentation and databases on disasters.
58. Presence and extent of applicable education material.
59. Number of institutions, academic programs and courses focusing on good
practices and lessons learnt.
60. Dissemination of literature on disaster risk reduction and protection measures
including good practices, lessons learnt, academic programs and course offerings.
Professional vocabulary and 61. Percentage of publications using international standard terminology related to
commonly agreed concepts / disaster risk reduction as per ISDR.
International standard terminology
related to DRR is widely used and
disseminated.
Network development and cross- 62. Coverage by type and objective of hazard, sector or disaster risk reduction action-
disciplinary interaction / specific professional and public networks related to disaster risk reduction.
Network among disaster experts is 63. Multi-purpose data generated.
strengthened together with dialogue
64. Existence of a national data/information management plan.
and cooperation among scientific
communities and cross-disciplinary
professional interaction.
Access to advance technology / 65. Coverage by type and objective of hazard, vulnerability and risk information
available on GIS, remote-sensing or similar technology-based files.
The use and access of recent
information, communication and 66. Extent of training offered on the use and advantages of advanced technology.
space-based technologies to support
DRR promoted together with the
transfer, technical training and
information management concerned
Formal education and children 67. Coverage by grade level and objective of hazard, vulnerability and risk curriculum
engagement / as part of school curricula.
Disaster risk reduction knowledge is 68. Number of nationals with advanced degrees related to disaster risk reduction.
included in school curricula (primary,
69. Disaster risk reduction programmes identified with professional disciplines,
secondary and higher education). institutes and example courses.
70. Extent of the implementation of initiatives related to the UN Decade of Education
for Sustainable development.
Professional and multi-sectoral 71. Coverage by hazard, vulnerability, risk or disaster risk reduction-action type of
training / public sector and community-based training in risk reduction.
DRR training and learning 72. Development of training courses for field practitioners from the public and private
programmes developed targeting sectors.
specific sectors
73. Development of community-based training.
74. Percentage of women in public sector and community-based training in risk
management.
32
Analytical research / 75. Coverage by sector type and objective of multi-risk assessments, including socio
and economic analysis.
Improved methods for predictive
and multi-risk assessments and 76. Existence and scope of national applied-research agenda for disaster risk
socio economic cost-benefit analysis reduction, with multiple disciplines involved.
developed.
77. Evidence of research institutions or departments involved in disaster risk reduction
activities.
Priority 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors

Environmental management / 78. Coverage by type and objective of natural hazards in environmental impact
assessments.
Environmental management and risk
reduction practices are integrated 79. Use of wetlands, mangroves and forest management to reduce flood risk.
particularly in ecosystem conservation.
80. Trends in deforestation rate including mangroves.
81. Use of environmental impact assessments in disaster reduction planning.
Climate variability and change / 82. Disaster risk reduction integrated into climate variability and climate change
adaptation planning and programming.
DRR is integrated with adaptation to
existing climate variability and future 83. Information coverage by type of hazard and risk reduction objective for
climate change; incorporation of climate variability and climate change risk into project planning
and assessments.
Climate related-risk information is
collected and applied by decision-
makers
Social protection / 84. Adding classifications and the location of the most vulnerable people to social
protection and a safety net.
Social protection and safety nets
are identified and promoted for 85. Incorporation of social safety nets and social protection programmes in the
marginalized and undeserved recovery processes.
populations 86. Extent of natural hazard insurance coverage for homes, business, agriculture and
public infrastructure
87. Access to micro-finance services in high hazard risk areas, evidence of utilization
following disasters for recovery and reconstruction.
88. Coverage by hazard type and objective of food security initiatives in areas prone
to drought, flood, cyclones and other hazards that can weaken agriculture-based
livelihoods.
Public facilities and infrastructures / 89. Coverage by type and location of schools and bridges built with full compliance to
adopted natural hazard building codes and zoning requirements.
Critical public facilities and physical
infrastructure are protected and 90. Coverage by hazard type and objective of incorporation of disaster risk reduction
strengthened. management elements into physical planning and infrastructure development
procedures.
91. Percentage of official buildings in compliance with standards.
92. Disaster risk reduction is integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation
processes.
33
Public Health / 93. Number/percent by type and location of health facilities in full compliance to
adopted natural hazard building codes and zoning requirements.
Health facilities conform to hazard
resistant standards: Reduced social 94. Number of existing hospitals certified as disaster safe.
impact of a disaster by ensuring
95. Number/percent by type and location of health facilities certified for a performance
prompt resumption of essential health
level of continuity of service following prevalent natural hazard events.
and other vital facilities.
96. National coverage of hazard zone maps with the location of critical facilities by
type.
Public-private partnership / 97. Coverage by sector and objective of public-private partnerships for disaster risk
reduction management to meet acceptable risk levels.
Promotion of public-private
partnerships to advance DRR in
practice.
Risk-sharing, reinsurance / 98. Coverage by sector of hazard insurance.

Promotion of financial risk-sharing 99. Trends of insurance claims.
mechanisms and diversified income
options for populations in high-risk
areas to reduce vulnerability
Displaced people / 100. Number annually of natural disaster-triggered refugees and IDPs needing
international assistance.
Refugees and IDPs programme do
not increase risk or vulnerability to
hazards.
Planning policy and practices / 101. Coverage by administrative level and type of instrument of land use planning,
land use zoning, setbacks, construction codes and standards, and occupancy
Disaster risk assessments incorporated
permits that include natural hazard management and risk reduction elements.
in spatial and economic development
plans and management practices 102. Percentage of construction or building projects in floodplains and other mapped
(urban and rural). hazard-prone areas.
103. Difference between pre-disaster and post-disaster land occupation.
104. Coverage by sector and objective of disaster risk reduction actions in rural
development planning.
Normative standards and codes/ 105. Review by location, sector and citation of non-compliance and resolution of
zoning, building code and occupancy permit enforcement related to disaster risk
Mechanisms which ensure that codes
reduction.
and norms are publicly known and
implemented 106. Existence of specialized legal offices controlling compliance and enforcement.
Recovery / 107. National implementation of international post-disaster recovery and reconstruction

DRR integrated into post-disaster
recovery and rehabilitation process.
34
Priority 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
Regional approach / 108. Review of progress on existing regional preparedness mechanisms.

Coordinated regional
approaches are developed and
strengthened.
Contingency plans 109. Adoption of a national disaster preparedness plan.

Disaster preparedness and 110. Coverage by sector of policy frameworks that requires disaster risk reduction
contingency plans prepared and incorporation into the design and implementation of emergency response, recovery and
reviewed periodically. rehabilitation processes.
111. Emergency response networks and plans are regularly updated and tested.
Emergency funds 112. Coverage by type and support level of identifiable funding and annual budgetary
allocations to strengthen preparedness at the local and national levels.
Establishment of emergency
funds promoted. 113. Availability of emergency funds and stocks.
35
Annex 3: Indicators for regional and international level use

The indicators proposed in Section 4 of the main text to measure progress on the Hyogo Framework for Action’s
Strategic Goals and Priorities for Action can be aggregated from country reports to provide regional and
internationally applicable indicators.
The table below illustrates some of the indicators that can be applied by regional and international insittutions working
to assist States to reduce disaster risks at the national and local level.
Elements of the Hyogo Framework for Action Regional /International Indicators
Expected Outcome
The substantial reduction of disaster losses, 1) Number of deaths arising from natural hazard events
in lives and in the social, economic and
2) Total economic losses attributed to natural hazard events
environmental assets of communities and states
3) Number of people affected by natural hazard events
Strategic Goals
Goal 1: The integration of disaster risk reduction 1) Percentage of Poverty Reduction Strategies that include disaster risk
into sustainable development policies and reduction initiatives.
practices.
2) Percentage of CCA/UNDAF and common internaitonal programing
processes including disaster risk reduction elements.
3) Percentage of MDGs including disaster risk reduction elements.
4) Percentage of National Development Plans for sustainable development
including disaster risk reduction elements.
Goal 2: Development and strengthening of 5) Number of operational national platforms.

institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build
6) Number of published national disaster risk reduction policy frameworks.
resilience to hazards.
7) Percentage of national dedicated resources available for disaster risk
reduction including sector plans incorporating disaster risk reduction.
8) Percentage of natural hazard events that did not require a disaster
declaration (including a request through the United Nations for
international assistance).
Goal 3: The systematic incorporation of risk 9) Percentage of policy frameworks that require disaster risk reduction
reduction approaches into the implementation incorporation into the design and implementation of emergency
of emergency preparedness, response and response, recovery and rehabilitation processes.
recovery programmes.
Priorities for Action
Priority 1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is 1) Percentage of existing national legal frameworks. (Also used for goal 2.)
a national priority with a strong institutional basis
2) Number of operational national multi sectoral platforms. (Also used for
for implementation at the local level.
goal 2.)
3) Number of published national disaster risk reduction policy framework.
(Also used for goal 2.)
4) Percentage of national dedicated resources available for disaster risk
reduction. (Also used for goal 2.)
36
Priorities for Action
Priority 2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster 5) Number of national strategies of data provision for disaster risk
risks and enhance early warning. reduction – including climate change accounted for in risk analysis.
6) Number of national end-to-end early warning systems in existence.
Priority 3. Use knowledge, innovation and 7) Percentage of school curricula including disaster risk reduction
education to build a culture of safety and elements.
resilience al all levels.
8) Percentage of states with countrywide public awareness strategies for
disaster risk reduction.
Priority 4. Reduce the underlying risk factors. 9) Percentage of health facilities and schools conforming to hazard
resistant standards.
10) Percentage of states where environmental protection, natural resource
management and climate change and adaptation policies include
disaster risk reduction.
11) Percentage of states with land-use development plans that include
disaster risk reduction elements.
12) Percentage of PSRPs that include disaster risk reduction initiatives.
13) Percentage of CCA/UNDAFs including disaster risk reduction elements.
14) Percentage of MDG actions including disaster risk reduction elements.
15) Percentage of national MDG reports including (under MDG 7 – Target
10) elements of vulnerability reduction for drinking water systems
related to natural hazard events.
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective 16) Percentage of policy frameworks that requires disaster risk reduction
response at all levels. incorporation into the design and implementation of emergency
response, recovery and rehabilitation processes. (Also used for goal 3.)
If data on the following is made available at the naitonal level across a
sub/region, the correspondent indicators 17 and 18 at the regional level,
will be relevant:
If all organizations, personnel and volunteers in the preparedness
system possess the required technical capacity to carry out essential
elements and tasks for effective disaster response?
17) Percentage of states reporting that all organizations, personnel and
volunteers in the preparedness system possess the required technical
capacity to carry out essential elements and tasks for effective disaster
response.
18) Percentage of states who have completed an independent assessment
of disaster preparedness capacities and mechanisms, and assigned
and resourced responsibility for implementation of recommendations.
37
Annex 4: Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and disaster

risk reduction
The MDGs and disaster risk reduction activities have mutually-reinforcing objectives. Since states are already
reporting on MDG implementation and other MDG activities, it is hoped that they will routinely incorporate
information from that process into implementation monitoring and reporting for the Hyogo Framework for Action.
Below are several resources to aid in this synthesis.
Table 2 illustrates some of the many and often complex links between disaster risk reduction and the MDGs. Table 3,
shows how the goals and priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action align with the eight specific MDGs.
Refer to tables 4 and 6, in Annex 6 for suggestions on how the MDGs and their indicators can be aligned with disaster
risk reduction objectives.
Table 2: Links between disaster risk and Millennium Development Goal targets
Targets of Direct impacts of Indirect impacts of disasters Benefits to MDG targets from disaster risk
Millennium disasters on MDG on MDG targets reduction activities
Development targets
Goals
1: Poverty & Reduced livelihood Fiscal impacts on governments; Vulnerability reduction key to tackling poverty
hunger sustainability. forced sale of assets.
Reduced health Additional call on health care Poverty reduction programmes may also reduce
status for individuals. facilities. vulnerability.
2: Education Infrastructure Educational opportunities Safer schools; more money for education.
damaged; people for students disrupted. Less
Improved education and awareness
displaced. money for education.
programmes relevant to disaster risk reduction.
3: Gender Women left to care; Domestic violence may Women better protected, may organise for
bear brunt of ‘coping’. increase. disaster risk reduction.
Family disruption and break-up Awareness programmes allow for pre-emptive
may eventuate. action.
4: Child Children at special More orphans and vulnerable Children and their health services are better
mortality risk; health assets children; water, food, medicines protected.
damaged. are in greater demand.
5: Maternal Pregnant women at More maternal stress; water, Less stress, better health services for mothers.
health risk; health assets food are in greater demand.
damaged.
6: Diseases Weakened resistance; More exposure to disease after Public health risks reduced, assets protected.
health assets disaster.
damaged.
Reduced capacity to recover
from impacts.
38
7: Environment Resources and More move to cities, more More commitment to tackling degradation.
infrastructure pressure on urban services
damaged.
8: Partnerships SIDS ongoing Impacts on commitment Better governance for DRR, more help for
programmes affected to good governance and SIDS.
by storms, tsunamis. development.
All MDGs Resources reallocated from development to response. Resources reallocated to mitigation and
disaster proof development.
Disaster affected communities often trapped in poverty
cycles, with less predictable devlopment benefits.
Table 3: Hyogo Framework for Action’s components and the Millennium Development Goals
Priorities for Action Strategic Goals
Integration of disaster Development and Systematic incorporation

reduction into sustainable strengthening of of risk reduction
development policy and institutions, mechanisms approaches into the
practice and capacities to build implementation of
resilience to hazards emergency preparedness,
response and recovery
programs
1. Ensure that DRR is a MDG#1 eradicating extreme MDG#1 eradicating extreme MDG#8 develop a global
national and a local poverty and hunger, food poverty and hunger, food partnership for development
priority with a strong security security
institutional basis for
MDG#7 ensuring
implementation
environmental stability
2. Identify, assess and MDG#1 eradicating extreme

monitor disaster risks and poverty and hunger, food
enhance early warning security
3. Use knowledge, MDG#2 achieving universal MDG#2 achieving universal

innovation and education primary education primary education
to build a culture of safety
and resilience at all levels
4. Reduce the underlying MDG#1 eradicating extreme MDG#4, 5,6 access to clean MDG#1 eradicating extreme
risk factors poverty and hunger, food drinking water and basic poverty and hunger, food
security healthcare security
MDG#3 prevention of loss MDG#2 achieving universal
of lives and livelihood and in primary education
particular child mortality
MDG#4, 5,6 access to clean
MDG#7 ensuring drinking water and basic
environmental sustainability healthcare
5. Strengthen disaster MDG#1 eradicating extreme MDG#2 achieving universal

preparedness for effective poverty and hunger, food primary education
response at all levels security
39
Annex 5: Indicative criteria for establishing levels of progress for disaster risk reduction
Illustration of advancements for each level of disaster risk reduction processes
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Indicators No progress has been made and/ Minor progress achieved in disaster Institutional commitment to reduction Systematic commitment at policy Full achievement with sustained
or progress has stopped or moved risk reduction actions, with no disaster risk, but no substantial level, but insufficient resource commitment
backwards systematic commitment progress allocation
HFA Priority 1: Ensure that Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for implementation
National disaster Disaster risk reduction policy Disaster risk reduction referred in Disaster risk reduction policy Disaster risk reduction policy Broad disaster risk reduction
risk reduction framework not elaborated national plans or sectoral policies framework in process to be framework formally accepted framework implemented at
policy framework formulated with the incorporation to guide national disaster risk different levels (national, sectoral
elaborated of multi-sectoral development reduction policies and territorial)
instruments
Disaster risk reduction plan not Initiatives for elaborating and Plans at some levels formulated, but Disaster risk reduction plans Good technical quality plans at
elaborated institutionalizing disaster risk with no operationalisation and no in different spheres (national, all levels, with the involvement of
reduction plans inadequately evaluation or update territorial, sectoral) formulated, but participating development bodies
formulated with no evaluation or update
40
Multisectoral Multi-sectoral disaster risk Initiatives for establishing a national National platform for disaster risk National platform for disaster risk National platform for disaster risk
disaster risk reduction platform not established platform for disaster risk reduction reduction established, but with reduction in place incorporating reduction established, with main
reduction platform or limited to response conceptualized, but not implemented limited impacts and no incorporation multi-sectoral development development agencies active in
operational of multi-sectoral development instruments, but coordination and their respective fields
instruments participation further required
Multisectoral disaster risk Initiatives for establishing sectoral Some sectoral or local platform for Some sectoral, territorial or Many sectoral and local platform
reduction platform not established or local platform for disaster risk disaster risk reduction established local platform for disaster risk for disaster risk reduction
at sectoral or territorial level or reduction conceptualized, but not yet but with limited impacts and no reduction in place with many multi- established, with the main
limited to response established collaboration with relevant multi- sectoral development instruments development agencies active in
sectoral development instruments incorporated but not totally their respective fields
institutionalized as a practice
Disaster risk Disaster risk reduction legal References on disaster risk Some juridical foundations for Clear legal framework elaborated, Well developed legal framework
reduction legal framework not elaborated reduction in the Constitution or the establishing a legal framework for but with some gaps preventing the that links risk reduction with all
framework legislation (such as an environmental disaster prevention exist, but still too widespread promotion of disaster aspects of development activities
elaborated protection act), but scattered generic prevention activities across all in place
territorial and sectoral boundaries
Annex 5: Indicative criteria for establishing levels of progress for disaster risk reduction (continued)
Dedicated No budget for disaster risk Scattered initiatives for funding Some budgetary channels for Several stable funding lines Many lines of funding available for
resources reduction prevention efforts exist, but generally institutional strengthening and available for institutional disaster prevention activities as
for disaster related to international assistance specific projects created, but no strengthening and preventive part of sustainable development
risk reduction permanent. actions, but disaster prevention still plans. Annual budgets
allocated Promotion of international not fully internalized in operational incorporate disaster reduction
cooperation for this purposes plans and everyday management
HFA Priority 2: Identify, assess and monitoring risk and enhance early warning
41
Structured process No hazard research or only Ongoing efforts to build the first Existence of hazard database, but Extensive database of areas Comprehensive geographical
of Research on fragmentary and incomplete comprehensive database on incomplete; with irregular updating; at risk created with adequate information system on hazards
existing hazards, research and based on historical areas at risk (hazards maps), but persisting significant problems with information incorporating some and areas at risk exists; regularly
including the records alone updating of the information not yet quality and information resolution advances in man-made hazard updated; with high quality and
elaboration considered; problems with quality assessment with no geographical high resolution. Consideration
of hazards and information resolution information system in place yet, both of man-made and natural
maps, in place but the database regularly updated hazards
- Earthquakes, by assessing new hazards or
Floods, Drought, changes in patterns, the quality
Volcanic eruptions, and information resolution may still
Landslides, El be improved
Niño, Hurricanes,
Typhoons, Fires

General strategy No information and strategy for Efforts underway to build the first Vulnerability database created, but Extensive sectoral vulnerability Comprehensive sectoral and
and data base identifying vulnerability vulnerability database, but limited still incomplete, although displaying database with adequate geographical information system
related to to physical aspects; updating of the greater territorial and sectoral information, incorporating criteria on vulnerabilities; regularly
vulnerability information not yet been considered; coverage; with irregular update; other than purely physical ones updated; with high quality and
assessments problems regarding the quality of the persisting significant problems with exists; no geographical information high resolution. Consideration
(social, economic, information quality and information resolution system in place yet, but the of all types of vulnerabilities
physical and database is regularly updated by (social, economic, physical and
environmental assessing changes in vulnerability environmental)
vulnerability) patterns; the quality and resolution
elaborated can still be improved
Data base and No risk maps available Efforts underway to build the first A database of risk maps exists, Extensive risk database Comprehensive sectoral and
analysis of risk risk map database, but limited to but it is still incomplete, although with adequate information, geographical information system
42
assessments (risk physical urban aspects; updating displaying greater territorial and incorporating criteria other than on risks exist; regularly updated;
maps) in place of the information has not yet been sectoral coverage; updating is purely physical ones exists; limited with high quality and high
considered; problems regarding irregular; significant problems persist or no sectoral and geographical resolution. Consideration of all
the quality and resolution of the regarding the quality and resolution information systems in place types of risk (social, economic,
information of the information; some GIS yet, but the database is regularly physical and environmental)
developments, but limited updated by assessing changes in
vulnerability patterns; the quality
and resolution can still be improved
Supportive No disaster risk information Some manual information systems, In progress, computerized Computerized information systems Wide use of modern information
systems for systems exists with no systematic data update, information systems on general in place involving significant systems (GIS, various maps of
decision-making aiming at recording events and behavior of hazards, including developments in some areas, risks, hazards and vulnerabilities,
exist number of people affected. Difficult records of the areas and population including general frameworks etc.); historical records; record
access to the little available affected. However, these systems for users (maps, vulnerability of damage suffered, etc. The
information not yet generalized information, etc), but with gaps in information constantly updated,
relevant areas and with updating and users have easy access to it
problems
Supportive No impact measuring systems Some manual records Are available Some measurements of the damage There is a certain institutional There is a culture of measuring
systems for (indicators and methodologies) of the damage suffered, including n carried out with external support, capacity for measuring damage as a basis for
decision-making exist. No records are available of specific estimations carried out following clear guidelines socioeconomic impacts and their decision- and policy-making.
exist (continued) the damage suffered, or if there sporadically, without employing effect on development. Some The measuring systems include
are, they are scattered and have formal methodologies for these application methodologies are appropriate methodologies and
not been systematized. There is purposes. There are no indicators available, but efforts are required to indicators, which are permanently
no institutional capacity for such for assessing the socioeconomic provide training for these purposes assessed at the relevant level
evaluations impact and expand coverage
43
No management assessment Very limited and irregular There are no management Systems for measuring disaster Advances and weaknesses
systems available to evaluate experiences have taken place assessment systems, but analyses management effectiveness have regarding prevention in the
actions in this field. Evaluations of to assess management efforts of previous experiences facilitate been established, but they are not country acknowledged. Progress
this type not carried out to incorporate prevention in decision-making. Keeping a record yet in wide use. Keeping a record indicators are available on
development actions. No formal of previous errors and limitations of previous errors and limitations disaster management and are
system has been established for has made some progress possible helps to improve disaster used permanently in the decision-
these purposes prevention actions making process. Significant
achievements have been made
thanks to the application of the
results of this management
assessment

End-to-end early No systems available. Only the Mostly emergency warning methods Early warning systems linked to Widespread development of early A well developed early warning
warning systems application of indirect methods for structured haphazardly for handling some hazards are partially available; warning systems for the main system is available for major
are in place for informing the public (through the slowly developing events. Some interinstitutional obstacles to their hazards that generate risks. Links hazards in different territorial
major hazards media) after a disaster has struck sectoral strengths in areas of high implementation with the media levels that operates by stages
national impact (e.g., the electric and employs a variety of
grid) communications processes, with a
structure of hierarchical relations
through which communication
flows, as well as pre-established
procedures for advising the
public. Acts in cascade fashion
to disseminate information. Is
complemented by the role of the
44
media
HFA Priority 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
Country wide No countrywide public awareness Declarations related to the Some attempts for elaborating Discussion on strategy is taking Countrywide public awareness
public awareness strategy for disaster risk reduction importance of a country wide public public awareness strategy at place strategy promoted for disaster risk
strategy promoted awareness strategy in place at different territorial levels. Some local reduction
for disaster risk some governmental levels, but public awareness strategies.
reduction without practical applications
No commitment for evaluating Country does not have commitment Isolated cases study implemented Many cases study and assessment Lesson learned part of the DRR
previous experiences as a basis for assess previous experiences in as a basis for improving disaster of experiences are common management system of the
for decision making exists the field, but uses some international management practices in some sectors or local country
experiences for improving DRR territories for improving disaster
reduction management, but
still not a general practice in the
country
Disaster risk No progress in incorporating Awareness of the need to Incorporation of prevention into Incorporation at some educational Disaster prevention fully
reduction disaster risk reduction elements in incorporate disaster risk into curriculum in progress, but at a very levels significantly advanced, but incorporated, in cross-cutting
elements included basic curricula curricula, but efforts not yet borne early stage still without impact on the culture fashion, throughout basic and
in basic curricula fruit. Other improvised and ad hoc as a whole secondary education. Society as
efforts carried out a whole receives the benefits of
this cultural change
Higher education No progress in higher education Some initiatives for eventually Stable training centers established, The academic community Higher education has a
training on training on disaster risk reduction providing technical training on but very limited committed to carrying out research permanent base of professional
disaster risk disaster risk reduction in this field. A more diversified and technical education in risk
reduction base for training technicians and management that supports the
professionals is available, but with transfer of up-to-date technical
limited coverage knowledge throughout the
45
institutions themselves and in the

private sector
Disaster risk No progress in incorporating Awareness of the need to Incorporation of prevention in higher Significant advances have taken Higher education has
reduction disaster risk reduction in higher incorporate prevention and disaster education in progress place in the incorporation of the incorporated the issue of risk
incorporated education curricula risk in curricula, but no result yet issue in some disciplines management in cross-cutting
into curricula fashion
(architects,
planners, MDs,
agriculture
experts,
engineers, social
workers, etc)

Broader No training programmes Some staff training initiatives Timid processes underway to hire Training programmes for Staff working on prevention and
disaster risk for building capacity in risk launched, but basically in disaster staff with experience in these professionals and technicians development qualified on these
reduction training management for stakeholders response alone issues, and some support available conducted and promoted by the issues. There is a permanent
programmes for training to strengthen institutional institutions at some levels or in policy of upgrading staff
for institutional capacity some areas knowledge in this field
staff of country
stakeholders
conducted
Compilation, No channels for gaining access to There are some institutional Widespread links with the media as Establishment of institutional Well developed and publicized
dissemination and the information channels for disseminating disaster a way of disseminating information. networks for disseminating channels for disseminating
use of disaster risk reduction information, but they Limited institutional information information and maintaining links information created, with new
risk reduction offer little access to users and the networks, but some beneficiaries with the media: Wide dissemination technologies to facilitate access.
46
information is a impact is very low benefits from the received and use of information Strong links between the users
practice information (institutional, community, private)
and the information networks.
Diversity of information media
HFA Priority 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors (reduce risk in key sectors)
Environmental No progress in including disaster Some progress in considering Strong awareness on the relation Projects and programmes related Disaster risk reduction is always
protection and risk reduction elements in disaster risk reduction in between disaster risk reduction to environment and natural considered for environmental
natural resource environmental protection and environmental protection and and protecting the environment as resources management include protection and natural resources
management natural resources management natural resources management complementary aspects. Attempts to disaster risk reduction in existing management in all activities
policies include policies policies, but only referred to physical relate those issues into environment mechanisms as environmental
disaster risk interventions and resources management impacts assessment, but a broader
reduction consideration as a cross cutting
elements theme needs to be implemented
Health facilities Health facilities and schools not Scattered progress in incorporating Some national or international Significant advances have taken Considering resistant standard in
and schools incorporated in hazards resistant resistant standard in health facilities institutions are supporting the place in the incorporation of health facilities and schools is a
conform to standard and school incorporation of resistant standard in resistant standard in health and common practice in the country
hazards resistant health facilities and schools schools at all levels
standards
National MDGs Elements of disaster reduction not National MDGs reports included
reports included included in MDGs reports elements of disaster reduction
elements of
disaster reduction
Elements of Elements of vulnerability reduction Elements of vulnerability

47
vulnerability for drinking water systems related reduction for drinking water
reduction for to natural hazards events not systems related to natural
drinking water included in national MDGs report hazards events included in
systems related includes (under MDG7- Target 10) National MDGs report (under
to natural hazards MDG7- Target 10)
events included
in National MDGs
report (under
MDG7- Target 10)
Elements of Elements of disaster risk reduction Elements of disaster risk

disaster risk not covered in CCA/UNDAF reduction included in CCA/
reduction covered UNDAF
in CCA/UNDAF
Disaster risk Disaster risk reduction Disaster risk reduction

reduction components not included in PSRP components included in PSRP
components
included in PSRP

Disaster risk DRR not incorporated in the Attempts made to incorporate Land-use management plans Weak land-use management plans Geographically extended
reduction planning mechanisms that prevention in general land-use officially contain regulatory disaster at different levels, but functioning regulatory land-use management
elements included regulate land use. No land-use management plans, or in local plans, prevention measures, whether at control mechanisms, or in the system in place, with periodically
in land use management plans or urban but not enough information has been the national, state, or local level, process of being strengthened. updated plans that incorporate
development development plans in the country collected to produce appropriate but they are weak or lack control However, geographical coverage is risk management, and with
plans risk maps. Incorporating disaster mechanisms to ensure compliance. still limited control mechanisms that ensure
prevention in land-use management Advances in a deeper knowledge on compliance
plans is still not legally compulsory DRR for specific areas as pilots but
implementation is still weak
Technical No technical construction Awareness of the need for technical Some technical standards available Technical standards are available Widespread development of
construction standards. No control mechanisms standards promoted , but none but only in the case of a few for several types of risks, some technical standards for the
standards for securing safety of buildings have been developed or they hazards. Technical deficiencies in of them updated, but gaps and most significant risk situations.
48
elaborated and and critical facilities are at an early stage. There are their formulation. Not updated. New technical weaknesses remain. Periodically updated. Good
implemented. indirect mechanisms for controlling mechanisms for securing safety of Direct mechanisms for securing technical quality. Effective control
Mechanisms of the existing technical construction buildings and critical facilities have safety of building and critical mechanisms that ensure the
the application standards but they are not very been implemented, but control facilities are available, but they application of technical standards
of technical effective remains a complex task remain hard to implement or are
standards still very recent
controlled
Sectors have Disaster risk reduction not Attempts to consider the issue Some sectors have projects for Several sectoral development Sectoral development plans
incorporated included in sectoral plans and in some sectors, but in scattered vulnerability reduction, but these plans include risk management contain a preventive vision
disaster risk practices fashion and without an overall vision lack detailed information on linkages considerations as part of their of disaster management, at
reduction into to existing development plans vision of sustainable development, all the levels and involving all
the planning but these systems have yet to be sectors, with extensive coverage
processes and institutionalized permanently throughout the national territory,
executions particularly at the local level
The insurance No system in the country for Insurance policies incorporate some Pressure for the establishment of Establishment of disaster risk Strong participation by insurance
sector is actively insurance against the risk of conditions of prevention related such mechanisms by the inhabitants insurance based on greater agencies in risk assessment, with
participating disasters, or not applied to certain assets or persons, but of areas at risk. Participation by the technical knowledge of the risks. systems developed for applied
in disaster risk in a limited manner and without a private sector in these efforts Little knowledge or awareness such mechanisms in different
reduction technical assessment of the risk on the part of some potential geographical areas and economic
situation beneficiaries sectors
Financial Disaster prevention not among the Some financial firms incorporate There is awareness among Risk management becomes Many financial institutions in
institutions have criteria for approval of projects in elements of risk assessment in their financial institutions of the need to generalized for financing the country have developed
included criteria areas at risk criteria for approval, but not in an incorporate risk assessment among development projects located in risk assessment methodologies
for approval of organized fashion. Instead, they their criteria for approval; however, areas at risk. However, problems and regularly apply obligatory
project financing may be acting out of environmental there has been little concrete of implementation remain risk assessment criteria before
considerations that have been progress approving the funding of projects
previously established
Disaster recovery No disaster recovery plans Some initiatives for elaborating and Broad awareness about the Recovery plans widely Recovery plans are part of the
plans prepared prepared when disasters occur institutionalizing disaster recovery importance of recovery plans implemented in the country but disaster management culture
as a practice plans established but without aiming in future disaster risk reduction weak coordination in some cases in the country. Formal structure
49
when disasters at disaster risk reduction promoted and efforts for preparing and coordination mechanisms
occur and coordinating recovery plans for planning and execution are
made putting in place when disaster
occurs
HFA Priority 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels
Disaster risk Disaster risk reduction not Disaster risk reduction considered National policy framework on National policy framework Broad framework on emergency,
reduction considered into designing and in some emergency, response and emergency, response, recovery on emergency, response and response and rehabilitation
incorporated into implementation of emergency, rehabilitation initiatives, but not and rehabilitation in process of rehabilitation incorporated into with disaster risk reduction
the design and response, recovery and permanent formulation with the participation of disaster risk reduction, but consideration accepted and
implementation rehabilitation fundamental response and multi- implementation efforts needed implemented
of emergency, sectoral development instruments
response,
recovery and
rehabilitation
processes of
National policy
framework

All organizations, No programme implemented Some isolated programmes with National and local efforts for Relevant progress made for sufficient technical capacity of
personnel and for improving technical capacity limited coverage implemented for improving technical capacity made establishing and implement organizations, personnel and
volunteers in the to carry out essential elements improving technical capacity for through programmes covering a programmes for improving volunteers in the preparedness
preparedness and tasks for effective disaster effective disaster response broad range of actors (personnel, technical capacity on preparedness system for carrying out essential
system possess response volunteers and organizations), but oriented to a wide range of actors elements and task for effective
the required not institutionalized (organizations, personnel and disaster response
technical capacity volunteers), but efforts needs to
to carry out be made
essential elements
and tasks for
effective disaster
response
50
Independent No assessment undertaken on Some advances on assessment of Progress on assessment of Relevant progress in assessment Wide updated independent
assessment disaster preparedness capacities disaster preparedness capacities disaster preparedness capacities of disaster preparedness assessment of disaster
of disaster and mechanisms and mechanisms undertaken at and mechanisms achieved at capacities and mechanisms preparedness capacities
preparedness some geographical levels, but no national and some local levels, but and in the implementation of and mechanisms frequently
capacities and mechanisms and responsibilities implementation limited due to lack of recommendations, but insufficient executed and recommendations
mechanisms has established resources and coordination geographical coverage implemented by responsible
undertaken and
responsibility for
implementation of
recommendations
assigned and
resourced
Disaster plans and No disaster preparedness plans Some initiatives for elaborating Preparedness plans elaborated at Disaster preparedness plans Disaster preparedness plans
programmes are and programmes elaborated for and institutionalizing disaster some geographical levels, but only of good quality in different elaborated at all levels with good
common practices disaster prone areas preparedness plans and programme, for response without considering risk geographical levels and sectors technical quality, involving the
in disaster prone but with poor technical quality and reduction and relevant mitigation elaborated, but not monitored or participation of response and
areas scarce institutional participation actions. No evaluation and update updated development bodies. Permanently
evaluation and update
Secretariat Geneva Secretariat Africa, Nairobi
Tel. :+41 22 917 8908/8907 [email protected]
Fax : +41 22 917 8964 www.unisdr.org/africa
[email protected]
www.unisdr.org Secretariat Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok
[email protected]
International Environment House II www.unisdr.org/asiapacific
7-9 Chemin de Balexert
CH 1219 Châtelaine Secretariat the Americas, Panama
Geneva, Switzerland [email protected]
www.eird.org
Postal Address:
Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Secretariat Europe, Geneva
Geneva, Switzerland [email protected]
www.unisdr.org/europe
Secretariat, West Asia and North Africa, Cairo

[email protected]
www.unisdr.org/wana
UN/ISDR-15-2008-Geneva

2259 IndicatorsofProgressHFA PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2259 IndicatorsofProgressHFA PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2259 IndicatorsofProgressHFA PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indicators of Progress:

Guidance on Measuring the Reduction

© United Nations, 2008

United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Consultation process and acknowledgements

1.1 Disaster risks and their reduction .....................................................................................................................1

2 Context and Principles .............................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Nature of disaster risk reduction.......................................................................................................................4

3 Technical Guidance on Indicators And Benchmarks...............................................................................................6

3.1 Nature of indicators ..........................................................................................................................................6

4 Indicators for the Hyogo Framework’s Main Elements........................................................................................11

4.1 Need for common indicators...........................................................................................................................11

5 First Steps Toward Developing and Using Indicators...........................................................................................16

5.1 Process for selecting and developing indicators...............................................................................................16

1.2 Hyogo Framework expectations

The overriding Expected Outcome

The three Strategic Goals

The five Priorities for Action

1.3 Audience and purpose

1.4 Approach and content

2. Context and Principles

2.1 Nature of disaster risk reduction

2.2 The Millennium Development Goals

3. Technical Guidance on Indicators and Benchmarks

Indicators may be created for the different stages of implementation, as follows17:

3.2 Quantifying the indicators

3.3 Characteristics of good indicators

3.4 Benchmarks, targets and trends

3.5 Data resources for indicators

3.6 Five-level assessment tool for qualitative characteristics

Including CRED, at http://www.cred.be, and Disaster Loss Inventories (DesInventar) http://www.desinventar.org,

See www.cred.be, and http://www.em-dat.net

4. Indicators for the Hyogo Framework’s Main Elements

4.2 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s expected outcome

Expected Outcome Recommended Indicators

4.3 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s strategic goals

Strategic Goal Recommended Indicators

4.4 Proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s Priorities for Action22

Priority for Action Recommended Indicators

Implementing the Hyogo Framework. See http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Words-into-action/Words-Into-Action.pdf

4.5 Additional indicators

4.6 Indicators for regional and international level use

5. First Steps Towards Developing and Using Indicators

5.2 Monitoring and review

5.3 Final note on challenges

Some challenges in working with indicators could be:

Annex 1: Rationale of proposed indicators for Hyogo Framework’s

HFA Strategic Goals

1(iii) National MDG report includes elements of disaster risk reduction.

2(i) A national multi-sectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning

HFA Priorities for Action

4. Reduce the underlying risk factors

Annex 2: Additional possible indicators to assess progress in im-

1. A national platform and coordination mechanism has been created.

1. Number by type of internationally certified emergency and recovery management specialists.

Priorities for Action – Expected results and additional indicators

Areas / Expected results Additional possible indicators per priority area

Areas / Expected results Additional possible indicators per priority area

Areas / Expected results Additional possible indicators per priority area