The Hyogo framework
In February 2009, the Commission adopted two disaster-related
Communications. The fi rst focused on disaster risk reduction in
developing countries. The communication set out a series of action
priorities, which included:
• strengthening political dialogue with developing countries;
• integrating disaster risk reduction into both EU and developing
countries’ policy and action, including EU support for national
risk reduction investments; and
• developing of regional plans, starting with one for the Caribbean:
such action plans would include for example support for
awareness-raising campaigns.
The second communication is entitled “A community approach
on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters” and focuses
on the need for a comprehensive approach to disaster prevention
Building your
which reinforces the need for a community-based response to
major incidents. According to an impact assessment carried out in
view of adopting the communication, it found that member states
were in favour of greater European action on disaster management
resilience is
and that such action should “support and complement national
policies and measures and should take full account of national
specifi cities…” They also called for a more integrated approach ourspeciality
tackling not only all disaster types but also the “disaster cycle”,
including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.
The Commission stated that the two communications formed
the fi rst steps in a strategic approach to tackling disasters and
contributed to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005 – 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Emergency Crisis
Business
Communities to Disasters. The Hyogo Declaration was adopted at
Planning Management
Continuity
the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, which took place
in Kobe City of Japan’s Hyogo Prefecture in January 2005 and was
signed by representatives of 168 different countries.
The action plan lays a series of measures for reducing the impact
Bespoke solutions to meet
of disasters on “lives and other social, economic and environmental
assets worldwide”. These include building upon relevant
your continuity needs:
international commitments, frameworks and development goals to
enhance global disaster reduction activities. It calls for enhanced
resilience through “people-centred early warning systems, risks
ˆ 6IZMI[ERH%YHMX ˆ -RGMHIRX1EREKIQIRX
assessments, education and other proactive, integrated, multi-
hazard, and multi-sectoral approaches and activities in the context
ˆ 4SPMG] ˆ &'-IRHSVWIH8VEMRMRK
of the disaster reduction cycle, which consists of prevention,
ˆ &YWMRIWW-QTEGX%REP]WMW ˆ )\IVGMWMRK
preparedness, and emergency response, as well as recovery and
ˆ 6MWO%WWIWWQIRX ˆ 4VSKVEQQI1EREKIQIRX
rehabilitation.” It then called upon those involved to translate these
measures into concrete actions.
ˆ 7XVEXIK] ˆ -'8'SRXMRYMX]
While the two aforementioned communications are clearly ˆ 4PERRMRK ˆ -'88IWXMRK
evidence of the EU taking concrete steps towards meeting the
demands of the declaration there is still much work that needs to
be done. This was emphasised by comments made by Margareta
Wahlström, who highlighted the fact that despite the declaration
calling upon signatories to establish national platforms (mechanisms
for co-ordinating, analysing and advising on disaster risk reduction),
only a “miserable” 57 such platforms had been set up. However,
she added that some 130 countries had set up national focus
groups.
There is clearly much effort being put into enhancing the
effectiveness of the EU’s existing mechanisms for tackling
major disasters. However, how much of this effort actually
converts into demonstrable action is another matter. There is an
acknowledgement that the tools which exist, while having the
potential to be effective, are often hampered by the administrative
issues faced when trying to mobilise them. Furthermore, there is a
t: 0845 094 2117
recognition that more work must be carried out to ensure that the
member states can achieve a sense of solidarity in their response. enquiries@steelhenge.co.uk
www.steelhenge.co.uk
NIGEL ALLEN
Nigel Allen is editor of Continuity.
'IVXM½IHXS&7
Cont Jan/Feb 2010_insides.indd 23 4/2/10 09:33:07
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44