Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Occasional Papers
New Series
Number 21
May 2017
Dr Hugh Deeming
HD Research and Senior Research Fellow
Emergency Planning College
Please Note:
For further information, including a submissions guide for those who wish to submit a
paper for publication, please contact:
Mark Leigh
Emergency Planning College
T: 01347 825036
E: mark.leigh@emergencyplanningcollege.com
Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sendai Framework:
What does it mean for UK resilience practitioners?
Introduction
For many people the international discussions and processes associated with attempts to
reduce disaster risk and to increase resilience are somewhat esoteric. This is because
disaster risk reduction can be regarded by some as a necessity only for developing
countries. From this perspective, the only issue relevant to the G20 nations becomes how
much international aid should be allocated to enable this stream of activity to be undertaken
by others.
This understanding does, however, fail to acknowledge two important factors: Firstly, the fact
that since 2005 the United Nations frameworks for disaster-risk reduction (DRR) have been
applicable to all nations and at all scales, from local, to national, regional, and global. Thus,
in addition to guiding the activities of others, such context underlines a clear relationship
between these internationally agreed frameworks and the risk reduction and risk
management aspirations of all national civil-protection practitioners, including the whole UK
Civil Protection sector. Secondly, that recent decades have seen disasters occurring in
nations spanning the gamut of development, suffice that the UN suggests that despite
concerted mitigation activity disaster losses resulting from natural and manmade causes
remain a significant challenge for all nations:
Disasters, many of which are exacerbated by climate change and which are
increasing in frequency and intensity, significantly impede progress towards
sustainable development. Evidence indicates that exposure of persons and
assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus
generating new risks and a steady rise in disaster-related losses, with a
significant economic, social, health, cultural and environmental impact in the
short, medium and long term, especially at the local and community levels.
UN/ISDR (2015: p.10)
In light of these factors, this paper will investigate where the principal model through which
UK civil protection is delivered Integrated Emergency Management (IEM) aligns with and
supports the meeting of the targets and priorities that have been set out in the current UN
framework, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (UNISDR, 2015b).
In doing so, this paper will enable those working with IEM concepts to understand
where IEM and the Sendai framework need to be meshed in order to reinforce the DRR
aspects of their practice. It will also identify where gaps may exist between the
capabilities, capacities and competences inhered within UK IEM doctrine and practice
(MacFarlane, 2017) and those of any other sectors, whose engagement with disaster risk
reducing activities will undoubtedly be necessary to meet SFDRR targets at the local and
national scales.
This secondary aim is important because, whilst the SFDRR is focussed on attaining
disaster-risk reduction and building disaster resilience, the framework clearly associates
such activities as bearing a renewed sense of urgency within the context of sustainable
development and poverty reduction (Ibid., p.9), i.e. the need to reduce systemic
vulnerabilities (e.g. poverty) something which has not necessarily been a traditional civil-
protection function make achieving the SFDRR targets and priorities a truly integrated
undertaking. Whilst these issues will be expanded on later, a key illustration of this broader
Definitions
This paper discusses concepts that have numerous definitions across a range of academic,
policy and practice applications. Accordingly, it is important to frame the discussion in a way
that encourages a consistent understanding of the concept being discussed. This does not
mean that other interpretations are invalid. Rather, it simply ensures that all readers are
considering the same interpretation and building their understandings, and their challenges
to that interpretation, from that position.
This approach is slightly at odds with straightforward analysis, because the subject matter
means that it is possible to use either of two lexicons from which to adopt concept
definitions. The UNISDR glossary of terms1 contains definitions for several of the relevant
concepts, which have been deliberated and agreed between member nations. Accordingly, it
is important not to ignore these interpretations. However, as this paper discusses SFDRR in
the context of UK IEM, it is also important to acknowledge the terminology within the UK
Emergency Responder Interoperability Lexicon2.
Table 1 lists the interpretations of the key concepts discussed in this paper side by side, as
they are defined in the respective glossaries. This comparison allows the reader to
understand key similarities and differences between these definitions, and from there to
make an individual judgement on their respective applicability in this context.
1
https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
2
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-lexicon
One issue with the self-reporting structure within the HFA approach was that compliance did
lead governments to develop national policies. Unfortunately, however, when viewed
objectively these policies achieved very few DRR outcomes at the local scale: where
disaster impacts are most keenly felt.
So, HFAs success was in achieving limited DRR outcomes focussed on multi-hazard
management, rather than through success in confronting the factors that underpin risk
accumulation and risk persistence (e.g. inappropriate land use; failing to reduce
vulnerability). This limited success, therefore, fed deliberation over what would succeed
HFA. The consensus became that there was a clear need to actively tackle these ingrained
constraints as part of the global DRR strategy:
As a result, if the expected outcome of the HFA, the substantial reduction in
disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of
countries and communities, is ever to be achieved, there is a growing consensus
that the development drivers of risk, for example climate change, the
overconsumption of natural capital, poverty and inequality will have to be
addressed.
In order to do so, it is essential to manage disaster risks more effectively.
However, this in turn implies reinterpreting the way disaster risk reduction has
been approached and practised to date. Managing risk, and not just the disasters
that arise from unmanaged risk, has to become the new normal in development
practice. Otherwise, sustainable development will not be sustainable. (UNISDR,
2015a: p.248)
NB. At time of writing CONOPS has not been updated to reflect the change in regional
coordination structure; from Government Offices (GO) to the DCLG Resilience and
Emergencies Division (DCLG-RED)
SFDRR: Targets
Whereas HFA had no formalised targets for signatory nations to meet, SFDRR presents
seven global targets. Whilst an improvement, these targets are not legally binding and there
remains no sanction for failing to meet them. As Pearson and Pelling (2015: p.4) state,
however, they do provide a starting point for measuring success.
The seven targets (see Appendix 1) are, in effect, high-level aspirations for globally
significant disaster risk reduction (e.g. reduce global disaster mortality by 2030). However,
all these targets bear relevance for those orchestrating DRR efforts at the national scale
(e.g. reducing the number of people affected by flooding in the UK has already been a
strategic UK government objective for many years (MAFF, 2000, Defra, 2005, Environment
Agency, 2009).
It could also be said that the UK has already developed effective DRR strategies at national
and local levels, in the sense that the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) enacts statutory duties
for designated responders to carry out risk assessment and other activities at national and
local (i.e. Local Resilience Forum: LRF) scales. Closer reflection on this particular aspect
does, however, highlight that risk treatment3 (i.e. proactive intervention to reduce risks)
3
Risk treatment involves deciding which risks are unacceptably high, developing plans and
strategies to mitigate these risks, and then testing the plans and any associated capabilities. [] It is
important to note that the Act does not require Category 1 responders to take action to reduce the
SFDRR: Priorities
In order to make progress in achieving the SFDRR targets during the period, the framework
also lays out four Priorities for Action:
1. Understanding disaster risk.
2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk.
3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience.
4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, and to Build Back Better
in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Within the text of the framework document these priorities are expanded upon, with
suggested measures to achieve each one outlined separately for national/local and
global/regional regimes.
As this paper is focussed on the SFDRRs relevance to UK civil protection practice, the
following section will discuss where the SFDRRs local/national priorities mesh with current
UK civil protection doctrine and practice. It will also suggest gaps where this doctrine and
practice could be adapted or transformed to better align with the internationally agreed goal
of the SFDRR, that all nations should prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk.
likelihood of threats and hazards. Category 1 responders may decide to do this as part of their
treatment of assessed risks but the Act only requires that emergency plans be developed: prevention
and pre-emption lie outside its scope. (HM Government, 2013: Chpt 4, p.15)
4
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-beyond-aid-development-priorities-from-
2015
5
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfid-single-departmental-plan-2015-to-2020/single-
departmental-plan-2015-to-2020#strengthening-resilience-and-response-to-crisis
6
2013 United Kingdom Peer Review - Building resilience to disasters: Implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action (2005-2015), UNISDR, EC, OECD
http://www.unisdr.org/files/32996_32996hfaukpeerreview20131.pdf
7
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-lead-government-departments-responsibilities-
for-planning-response-and-recovery-from-emergencies
Conclusions
This paper has sought to identify parallels between the aspirations of the internationally
agreed Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and the current UK civil
protection practice of Integrated Emergency Management (IEM). The non-legally binding
targets and priorities of the SFDRR have been examined, predominantly against the context
of flood-emergency management in England, but also in respect to a broader range of
contingency planning for floods and other hazards and major accidents in the UK. In
comparing the SFDRR priorities against the partially statutory and partially doctrine-based
delivery of IEM, it can be seen that in many respects the UK is on track to deliver the
SFDRR goal of disaster risk reduction at a national level. It was found that learning that has
emerged, particularly as a result of extreme flood emergencies, has resulted in many
improvements to the way civil protection is both, perceived by the public, and delivered by an
expanding network of practitioners, businesses, voluntary-sector and community groups.
The UK civil-protection sector and those responsible for its resourcing should not, however,
be complacent. Maintaining the current trend toward including the wider population in
resilience building is an admirable aspiration, but it is not a one-shot undertaking. This will
require on-going and honest engagement by practitioners with appropriate negotiating skills
and resources, and who are able to foster relationships. If facilitated effectively there is no
reason why such networks should not be able to continue to develop increasingly ambitious
plans and programmes and to deliver clear and quantifiable risk reduction outcomes across
a continuum of local to national scales.
BCI 2016. Horizon Scan Report 2016. Caversham, UK: Business Continuity Institute.
BEGG, C., WALKER, G. P. & KUHLICKE, C. 2015. Localism and flood risk management in
England: the creation of new inequalities? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
33.
BMIIB 2008. The Buncefield Incident, 11 December 2005: The final report of the Major Incident
Investigation Board. Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board.
BONFIELD, P. 2016. The Property Flood Resilience Action Plan. London: Report prepared for
the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
BYE, P. & HORNER, M. 1998. Easter floods 1998: report by the Independent Review Team to
the Board of the Environment Agency Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.
CABINET OFFICE 2004. Dealing with Disaster, Liverpool, Brodie.
CABINET OFFICE 2011. Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience. London:
Cabinet Office.
CABINET OFFICE 2012. Chapter 4 Local responder risk assessment duty: Revision to
Emergency Preparedness. London: Cabinet Office, Civil Contingencies Act Enhancement
Programme.
CABINET OFFICE 2013. Responding to Emergencies, the UK Central Government Response:
Concept of Operations. London: Cabinet Office.
CABINET OFFICE 2014. Mobile Alerting Trials: Project Report. London: Cabinet Office.
CABINET OFFICE 2015a. National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies. London: HMG.
CABINET OFFICE 2015b. National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies: 2015 Edition. London:
HMG.
CABINET OFFICE. 2016. Guidance: Community resilience framework for practitioners [Online].
London: .GOV.UK. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-resilience-
framework-for-practitioners [Accessed 04/05/17].
CAVE, B., CRAGG, L., GRAY, J., PARKER, D., PYGOTT, K. & TAPSELL, S. 2009.
Understanding of and response to severe flash flooding. Bristol: Defra / Environment Agency.
CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL 2016. Flooding in Cumbria, December 2015 - [Draft] Impact
Assessment. Carlisle, UK: Cumbria County Council.
DEEMING, H. 2017. An analysis of Storm Desmond, as a catalyst for institutional change in flood
risk management. Bentham, UK: HD Research.
DEFRA 2005. Making Space for Water: Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and
coastal erosion risk. London: Defra.
DEFRA 2011. Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding. London: Department for Food
and Rural Affairs.
DEFRA 2014. The National Flood Emergency Framework for England. London: Department for
Food and Rural Affairs.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 2016b. How were reducing the risk of flooding for Calderdale. Leeds:
Environment Agency working with the Calderdale Flood Partnership.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 2016c. Reducing flood risk from source to sea: First steps toward an
integrated catchment plan for Cumbria. Penrith: Environment Agency.
HARRIES, T., MCEWEN, L. & WRAGG, A. 2016. Finding out why businesses respond in
different ways to the risk of flooding (Deliverable for the SESAME Project: Small businesses and
flooding operational responses and long-term preparedness). Gloucester, UK: University of the
West of England.
HM GOVERNMENT 2007. National recovery guidance: recovery plan guidance template.
London: HM Government.
HM GOVERNMENT 2012. Emergency Preparedness: Guidance on Part 1 of the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004 Her Majesty's Government, Cabinet Office.
HM GOVERNMENT 2013a. Emergency Preparedness: Guidance on Part 1 of the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004 Her Majesty's Government, Cabinet Office.
HM GOVERNMENT. 2013b. Emergency Response and Recovery Non-statutory guidance to
complement Emergency Preparedness. [Online]. HM Government, Civil Contingencies
Secretariat. Available: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/emergency-response-and-recovery
[Accessed 04-05-17].
HM GOVERNMENT 2016. National Flood Resilience Review. London: HMG.
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2016. Flood risk management and funding. London: House of
Commons.
JENNINGS, T. L. 2009. Exploring the invisibility of local knowledge: the Boscastle flood disaster.
In: ADGER, W. N., LORENZONI, I. & O'BRIEN, K. L. (eds.) Adapting to Climate Change:
Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
JESIP 2016. Joint Doctrine - the Interoperability Framework. London: Joint Emergency Services
Interoperability Principles (JESIP).
LEIGH, M. 2013. Assessing the Risk of Civil Protection Hazards in the UK: Getting the
Methodology Right. Easingwold, UK: Emergency Planning College.
LEIGH, M. 2016. Changes in the Public Sector Resilience Landscape. Easingwold, UK:
Emergency Planning College.
MAFF 2000. Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance: Overview including general
guidance London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
MANYENA, S. B. 2011. Disaster resilience: a bounce back or bounce forward ability? Local
Environment, 16, 417-424.
MARSH, T. J., KIRBY, C., MUCHAN, K., BARKER, L., HENDERSON, E. & HANNAFORD, J.
2016. The winter floods of 2015/2016 in the UK - a review. Wallingford, UK.: Centre for Ecology
& Hydrology.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. 2016. 2015 to 2020 government policy: Military Aid to the Civil
Authorities for activities in the UK [Online]. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2015-to-2020-government-policy-military-aid-to-the-
civil-authorities-for-activities-in-the-uk/2015-to-2020-government-policy-military-aid-to-the-civil-
authorities-for-activities-in-the-uk [Accessed 05/05/17].
PEARSON, L. & PELLING, M. A. 2015. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
20152030: : Negotiation Process and Prospects for Science and Practice. Journal of Extreme
Events, 2.
PITT, M. 2008. Learning lessons from the 2007 floods: An independent review by Sir Michael
Pitt. The final report. London: Cabinet Office.
WHITTLE, R., MEDD, W., DEEMING, H., KASHEFI, E., MORT, M., TWIGGER ROSS, C.,
WALKER, G. & WATSON, N. 2010. After the Rain learning the lessons from flood recovery in
Hull, final project report for "Flood, Vulnerability and Urban Resilience: a real-time study of local
recovery following the floods of June 2007 in Hull" Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.