mozambique - isdr_geneva_oct2015_final

MINISTRY OF STATE ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC FUNCTIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT

Lessons from implementing HFA (2005-2015) and initial work on SFDRR (2015-2030) in Mozambique

Geneva, 22 October 2015

By

Antonio Jose Beleza([email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

Presentation Outline

ISDR Support Group Meeting, Geneva_23.10.2015

1. Trends of disaster impacts in Mozambique

2. Changes in DRM over time

3. Mozambique’s experience on the implementation of HFA 2005-2015

i. Facts

ii. DRR Progress evaluation in Mozambique

iii. Methodology and process of monitoring the HFA progress

iv. Lessons learned from implementation of HFA (2005-2015)

v. Challenges from implementing the HFA (2005-2015)

vi. Positive experiences

vii. Main results

4. Initial work on the implementation of SFDRR 2015-2030

i. Facts

ii. Objectives of the workshop

iii. Proposed National SFDRR indicators

Disaster typology in Mozambique

Disaster Typology

Drought15%

Flood31%Trop Cyclone

19%

Windstorm7%

Earthquake1%

Epidemic27%


Floods are the most frequent hazard in the country followed by epidemics, tropical cyclones and droughts

Trends in disasters in Mozambique (1956-2008)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Decade

Num

ber o

f Eve

nts

Drought Flood Tropical Cyclone Epidemic


Trends of disaster impacts in Mozambique

0

1

100

10 000

1 000 000

2000 2001 2007 2008 2013 2014

Loga

rithm

ic sc

ale

Human impact of disasters in Mozambique (2000-2014)

Deaths

Displacedpeople

Affectedpeople

1

10

100

1 000

10 000

100 000

1 000 000

2000 2001 2007 2008 2013 2014

Disaster Impacts on economy and assets in Mozambique(2000-2014)

Agriculture(ha)Education(rooms)Health (units)

Houses (units)


Changes in DRM over time

The 2000 and 2001 floods provided key lessons for:

i. Rapid investment for improving early warning network for climate and weather data collection

ii. Focus of dissemination of risk information on end-users

iii. Strengthening of preparedness and response capacity at national and local level

iv. National leadership of DRR actions, including in disaster preparedness and response

v. Improvement of cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms for all DRR activities

vi. Policy reforms to foster DRR mainstreaming at national sector development planning


Mozambique’s experience on the implementation of HFA 2005-2015


Facts

Participated in all 5 Progress Reporting rounds (2007, 2009, 2011,

2013 & 2015);

The 2009-2011, 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 reports were expanded

and translated to Portuguese;

The 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 reports brought the following

innovations:

Integration of more means of verification for each of the 22 progress indicators;

Integration of information coming from districts (floods, cyclones and droughts);

Integration of illustrative boxes with challenges and lessons learned for the next

years.


DRR Progress evaluation in Mozambique, based on the 5 HFA priorities (2005-2015)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pou

co p

rogr

esso

Com

pro

mis

so in

stit

ucio

nal

Pro

gres

so s

ign

ific

ativ

o

Pro

gres

so a

bra

nge

nte

e s

ust

enta

do

Pou

co p

rogr

esso

Com

pro

mis

so in

stit

uci

onal

Pro

gres

so s

ign

ific

ativ

o

Pro

gres

so a

bra

nge

nte

e s

ust

enta

do

Pou

co p

rogr

esso

Com

pro

mis

so in

stit

uci

onal

Pro

gres

so s

ign

ific

ativ

o

Pro

gres

so a

bra

nge

nte

e s

ust

enta

do

2009-2011 2011-2013 2013-2015

Evolução do Progresso na Redução do Risco de Desastres em Moçambique, segundo Prioridade (2005-2015)

Prioridade 1

Prioridade 2

Prioridade 3

Prioridade 4

Prioridade 5


Methodology and process of monitoring the HFA progress

Lidership Participants Technical Support Methodology

National HFA INGCGovernment, Civil Society, Partners,

academia UEM UDM

Group Working, Validation workshops,

Secondary sources

Local HFA CCM INGCGovernment, Civil Society, Partners,

academia UNISDR UEM

Discussion groups (workshops)


Key lessons learned from implementation of HFA (2005-2015)

Reporting the HFA progress is an exercise that requires adequate

time:

Information intersection: consultations, dialogue, secondary sources;

The progress evaluation should be a joint and open process in order

to build consensus for tracking the priority actions;

Reporting and evaluating the HFA requires a clear understanding of

the overall disaster management cycle and DRR issues as a condition

for the collection and utilization of appropriate information;

The leadership and institutional memory are the basis for successful

reporting for each reporting cycle.ISDR Support Group Meeting, Geneva_23.10.2015

Key challenges from implementing the HFA (2005-2015)

Limited knowledge of the HFA by the different actors at Central (sectorial)

level;

Complexity and inaccuracy of the HFA indicators (need of verification

means for correct reporting): this allows a subjective evaluation;

Similarity between some HFA indicators (need of a technical guideline to

support in the correct reporting);

Little familiarization of different actors with the general DRR concepts

and disaster management cycle (focus on Early Warning and

preparedness);

Little familiarization of different actors with national and sectorial

political processes. ISDR Support Group Meeting, Geneva_23.10.2015

Positive experiences

Strong Government coordination and leadership

Alignment of DRR issues in the main public policies

Well established coordination structures in both sides: Government and United Nations;

Preparation of a joint national contingency plan (Gov. CSO and UN Agencies)

The National Contingency plan is complemented by:

Inter Agency contingency plan (HCT)

Sectoral plans

Provincial plans

GOM budget based on the above and according to the emergency level;


Positive experiences

Use of agreed common scenarios;

Stocks prepositioning for rapid response;

Annual SIMEX (at different geographical levels and with

different actors) before the rainy and cyclone season (the 9th in 2015, in Zambezia Province);

Creation, training and capacity of about 1149 LCDRM (first responders to extreme events);

Decentralized coordination (CENOEs/ COEs);

Capacity building according to the INGC plans;

Multi-sectoral monitoring and evaluation of the needs;


Main results Reduction of the Level of vulnerability and number of human life loss (example: the

number of deaths and people affected by floods in the year 2000 has declined from 699 deaths and 4.5 million affected to 310 deaths and 1.1 million affected in the last 5 years);

Reduction of the number of vulnerable people or at risk (example: creation of more than 100 new villages in safe areas along the Zambezi, Save, limpopo and Buzi basins where we have more than 26,000 families who were moved from high risk areas);

Establishment of community based early warning systems for floods (Buzi, Licungo, Chinde, Messalo and Limpopo);

Production of a detailed scientific studies on the impact of climate changes on disaster risk in Mozambique (INGC Phase I: 2009, INGC Phase II: 2012)

The approval, by the Assembly of the Republic, of the new law for disasters (June 2014) which incorporates disasters from natural, biological and technological hazards, Industrial and complex emergencies.


Initial work on the implementation of SFDRR 2015-2030


Facts

Report already translated to Portuguese.

Held in 30 June, in Maputo, the 1st National workshop on

dissemination of SFDRR 2015-2030;

Organized by INGC with support of UNDP, Eduardo Mondlane

University and ACCRA (African Climate Change Resilient Alliance);

Initial discussion on the proposed national indicators for the

SFDRR;

Attended by 35 persons: Government officials, members of Civil

Society Organizations, Cooperation partners and academia;


Objectives of the workshop

Share lessons learned from the implementation of the HFA

(2005-2015);

Disseminate the SFDRR 2015-2030;

Initiate a discussion on the proposed national indicators for the

SFDRR;

Define ways forward on the implementation of the SFDRR.


Proposed National SFDRR indicators Group I Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk

Sub-action Nr. Proposed Indicators Data source

D

1 Nr de guiões de avaliação de diferentes impactos produzidos INGC

2 Nr de avaliações de perdas e impactos publicadas Research Institution

3 % da população com conhecimento sobre perdas causadas por desastres e seus diferentes impactos INGC and Local Government

L

1 % de conhecimentos de gestão de risco de desastres no currículo escolar

2 Nr campanhas ou programas de produção e disseminação de Material sobre RRD

F

1 Nr de unidades/estacões telemetrias de previsão e monitoria de desastres operacionais DNA e INGC

2 Nr de técnicos ou unidades capacitadas e equipadas com tecnologias de remot sensing e sistemas de informação geográfica INGC

3 Capacidade (%) de divulgação de dados no máximo em 24hrs INGC

M

1 Nr de estratégias sobre risco de desastres promovidas por meio das mídias e outros meios de comunicação social INGC

2 Nr de campanhas de prevenção de desastres realizadas junta das comunidades em audiências especificas INGC

I 1 Nr de praticas tradicionais de RRD validadas cientificamente Research Institution and INGC

2 Nr de estudos científicos de avaliação das praticas tradicionais de RRD feitos Research Institution


Proposed National SFDRR indicators Group II Priority 2: Strengthening DRR governance

Sub-action Nr. Proposed indicators Data Source

G

1 Número de fóruns de coordenação do governo criados a nível dos Posto Administrativos e localidade MAEFP/INGC

2 Número de fóruns capacitados e Revitalizados MAEFP/INGC

3 Numero de Instituições que tenham indicado pontos focais para RRD ALL/INGC

A

1 Numero de instituições que integram RRD nos seus planos e programas ALL/MEF

2 3

I

1 Número de parlamentares e comissões especializadas participam em eventos RRD AR/Specialized commission

2 Números de instrumentos legais concebidos AR

3

B

1 Número de estratégias, planos locais e nacionais em implementação de RRD 2 3

H 1 Número de líderes capacitados em RRD a nível local Local Government/INGC

2


Proposed National SFDRR indicators Group III Priority 3:Investing in DRR for resilience

Sub-action Nr. Proposed Indicators Data

Source

I

1 Número de formandos por tópicos (redução de risco, medicina aplicada à resposta humanitária) desagregado por área geográfica, sexo, função e sectores (inclui comunidades). MISAU

2 Número de palestras de sensibilização nas instituições nos temas relacionados com redução de riscos. MISAU

3 Número de mensagens transmitidas relacionadas com redução de riscos no âmbito da saúde nos meios de comunicação (rádios comunitárias, televisão, etc) MISAU

J

1 Número de professores do ensino primário formados em matérias de redução de risco de desastres. MINED

2 Percentagem/Número de pessoas com insegurança alimentar aguda. SETSAN

3 Número de adolescentes e jovens com acesso à serviços em matéria de educação sexual. MISAU

K 1 Número de gestores e técnicos envolvidos nos serviços de acção social treinados em redução de risco INAS/

MGCAS2 % de pessoas, abaixo da linha de pobreza, afectadas por desastres. 3

C

1 % de Planos de Estrutura ou ordenamento urbano (PEU) que incluem a componente de DRR e CCA

2 % de cidades que implementam planos de estrutura ou ordenamento urbano, incluindo a componente de DRR e CCA

3 % dos fundos do orçamento nacional alocados para a elaboração dos planos de estrutura urbana (PEU) com o objectivo de adaptar-se às mudanças climáticas e DRR

F 1 % de perdas económicas devido a catástrofes naturais 2 3


Proposed National SFDRR indicators Group IV Priority 4:Enhancing disaster preparedness, response recovery and reconstruction response (BBB)Sub-action Nr. Proposed Indicator Data Source

B

1 Número de comunidades com acesso ao Sistema de Aviso Prévio funcional

INAM, DNA, CENOE2 % da população com informação antecipada da ocorrência de desastres

3 Percentagem de fundos alocados para o funcionamento de SAP

C

1 Existência de código de construção MOPRH, MISAU

2 Número de infra-estruturas que colapsam em casos de eventos calamitosos MINEDH

3 Período de paralisação dos serviços sacias básicos

H

1 Número de simulações realizadas a todos os níveis

CENOE/COEs2 Numero capacitações realizadas a nível local para resposta rápida e eficaz

3 Criado um sistema de lógica local

I

1 Reuniões de CTGC realizadas em todo ciclo de GD

CENOE/COEs2 Reforçado o sistema de gestão de informação

3 Nível de participação do sector privado nas decisões

N

1 Criada uma base de dados sobre a mortalidade provocada por desastre

MSAU/INE/CENOE2 Existência de um cadastro fiável em todos níveis

3 Boletins estatísticos sobre mortalidade divulgados


Thank you for your attention!!!

By

Antonio Jose Beleza([email protected])


mailto:[email protected]

INGC Mandate

24

• Coordination authority of emergency actions;

• Coordination authority for the development of arid and semi arid zones;

• Coordination authority of natural disasters prevention and mitigation actions;

• Coordination authority of post emergency reconstruction.


Disaster Management Structure

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS(PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC)

CCDM (CCGC) (PRESIDENT – PRIME MINISTER)

MAE (VICE PRESIDENT-CCGC)

INGC

TCDM (CTGC)

Regions

Provinces

Cooperation Partners(UN, NGOS,

Donors )

Districts

METEOROLOGY

WATER

AGRICULTURE

ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH

FIRE SERVICES

DEFENSE

ROADS

TRANSPORTS

MIN. RES.

HOUSING AND URB. IND. COMMERCELCDRM (CLGRC)


Coordination structure between the Government (INGC) and the coordination partners


SECTORAL STRATEGIC PLANS Master Plan for DRR

FIVE YEAR GOV PROG.

ACTION PLAN FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (PARP)

DRR as crosscutting issue

Adoption of DRR measures and Climate change adaptation

INTEGRATION OF DRR IN THE DISTRITC DEVELOPMEDNT PLANS

STRATEGIC PLANS FOR DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT

Alignment of the DRR & public policies


Trend Analysis:

Season River Basin Afected People Deaths2000 Limpopo

4.500.000

Incomate

Umbeluzi 699 Save

2010/2011

Zambeze

118.528 0IncomateLimpopo

2011/2012 0 0

2012/2013Zambeze

478,892 117Limpopo

Incomate

2013/2014

Incomati

92,775 30Buzi Licungo Messalo

2014/2015

Licungo

408,711 163Zambeze Pungoe

Buzi ISDR Support Group Meeting, Geneva_23.10.2015

GOM – Government of MozambiqueCCGC- Coordinating Board for Disaster ManagementMAE- Ministry of States AdministrationINGC- National Institute of Disaster ManagementCENOE- National Centre for Emergency OperationUNAPROC (NUCP)- National Unity of Civil ProtectionCOE- Emergency Operative CentreCERUM- Disaster Resource Centre for Multiple UseCTGC- Technical Council of Disaster ManagementDRR- Disaster Risk ReductionHCT - Humanitarian Country TeamCMT- Cluster Management TeamHCTWG- Humanitarian Country Team Working GroupCSO – Civil Society OrganizationsSIMEX- Simulation ExerciseCLGRC (LCDRM) – Local Committee of Disaster ManagementCC- Climatic ChangesEWS- Early Warning SystemCCGC- Coordinator Council of Disaster ManagementUN- United NationsUNDMT- United Nations Management TeamNGO- Non Government Organization

mozambique - isdr_geneva_oct2015_final

Documents