Strengthening the disaster risk reduction framework and the fire protection system at the national level ROMANIA Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy for Romania (P172203) Output 2 Study on DRR strategies in other selected EU Member States April 2021 Project co-financed from the European Social Fund through the Operational Programme for Administrative Capacity 2014–2020 www.poca.ro Disclaimer This document is the product of work performed by World Bank staff and consultants. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomination, and other information shown in any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The document does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or Romania. Copyright Statement The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either: (i) General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (Banul Dumitrache Street, No 46, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania); (ii) the World Bank Group Romania (Vasile Lascăr Street, No 31, 6th floor, District 2, Bucharest, Romania). Acknowledgments This report was prepared under the guidance and supervision of Christoph Pusch (Practice Manager, Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land, Europe and Central Asia) and Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager). Drafting of the report was coordinated by Zuzana Stanton-Geddes (Disaster Risk Management Specialist), Alanna Simpson (Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist), and Tafadzwa Irvine Dube (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist) based on expert inputs from Vlatko Jovanovski, Ioana Irimia, Krunoslav Katic, and Soraya Ridanovic. The report also benefitted from comments and guidance from Carina Ferreira, Daniel Kull, and Darko Milutin. The team would like to express its gratitude for the cooperation and guidance of the representatives of the General Inspectorate of Emergency Situations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and all the stakeholders consulted during the report’s preparation. Statement on COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to substantial travel restrictions, the organization of workshops, and face- to-face meetings. There were certain limitations with regard to the collection of information and data due to the restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic. This report has been delivered in April 2021 under the provisions of the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy for Romania (P172203) signed between the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on June 30, 2020. It corresponds to Output 2 under the above-mentioned agreement. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................1 About the Report ........................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................1 Structure of the Report ..............................................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 1. NATIONAL DISASTER RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES...................................................................3 Global Context: The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.........................................................3 European Union Context: European Commission Action Plan and Enabling Conditions ...........................5 Operationalizing strategies and Post-COVID-19 recovery ..........................................................................8 Country Context: Fitting with the National Framework for DRM ............................................................10 Insights from Research on Strategic Planning ..........................................................................................13 Insights from Regional Projects ................................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 2. INSIGHTS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES ...........................................................................17 1. Stakeholder engagement/consultations before and during DRR strategy development ................17 2. Institutional coordination mechanisms for developing and implementation of a strategy .............19 3. The role of the National Platform for DRR ........................................................................................21 4. Peer review mechanisms to inform preparation and implementation of strategies .......................27 5. Structure of a strategy and the importance of monitoring mechanisms .........................................28 6. Structure of a strategy and implementation through a multi-stakeholder approach ......................29 7. Integration of DRM and CCA actions ................................................................................................31 8. Combination of structural and nonstructural measures ..................................................................33 9. Using strategy as a dissemination and outreach tool .......................................................................37 CHAPTER 3. KEY INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROMANIA........................................................41 ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................44 Annex 1. Case Study Details .....................................................................................................................44 Annex 2. Country Examples Considered ...................................................................................................64 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................................................66 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed process for the development of a national DRR strategy ...............................................3 Figure 2. Guidance steps in designing the NDRRS ..........................................................................................4 Figure 3. Problem definition for EU Climate Adaptation Strategy..................................................................7 Figure 4. Building blocks (and toolbox) of adaptation and resilience.............................................................9 Figure 5. The Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development (GRID) Approach .............................................10 Figure 6. Horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms in Germany ....................................................20 Figure 7. Ogranizational sturcture of the National Platform for DRR in Croatia ..........................................22 Figure 8. Organizational structure of PLANAT, Switzerland .........................................................................24 Figure 9. North Macedonia National Platform for DRR ................................................................................27 Figure 10. Structure of the National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia ...................................31 Figure 11. Interfaces of the Austrian Adaptation Strategy with other strategies ........................................32 Figure 12. Raising awareness activities in the Austrian National Flood Risk Management Plan .................36 Figure 13. New Zealand's National Disaster Resilience Strategy 2019 .........................................................38 Figure 14. New Zealand National Disaster Resilience Strategy: Example of an appealing layout ................39 Figure 15. Australia National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework: Example of an appealing layout ..........40 Figure 16. Proposed process for the development of a national DRR strategy ...........................................43 Figure 17. New Zealand's National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2019) – Vision, Goal, Three main priorities ........................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 18. New Zealand's National Disaster Resilience Strategy linkage .....................................................57 Figure 19. Operationalization of the Civil Defense Emergency Management (CDEM) in New Zealand ......59 List of tables Table 1. SFDRR Target E monitoring indicators ..............................................................................................3 Table 2. Priority hazards assessed under RO-RISK ........................................................................................11 Table 3. NSRRS indicators for monitoring implementation ..........................................................................12 Table 4. Operational budget of NEMA ..........................................................................................................60 Table 5. Types of decision-making relevant to the framework and indicative relevance to various sectors ......................................................................................................................................................................63 Table 6. Overview of select DRM funding and strategic DRM documents ...................................................64 Acronyms and Abbreviations BBK Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance CCA Climate Change Adaptation CDEM Civil Defense Emergency Management CEDRIG Climate, Environment, and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration Guidance COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives (Comité des Représentants Permanents) DG ECHO Directorate-General for European and Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations DPMC New Zealand’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC European Commission ENVI European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety ESPREssO Enhancing Synergies for Disaster Prevention in the European Union EU European Union EUSF EU Solidarity Fund GHG Greenhouse Gas GIES General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) HFA Hyogo Framework for Action ITF Integrated Training Framework MDPWA Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration MoIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MS Member States MSB Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap) NDRRS National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy NEMA National Emergency Management Agency NEMC National Emergency Management Committee NGO Nongovernmental Organization NSRRS National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAPI Programme d’Action de Prévention des Inondations PIMO Public Investment Management Office PLANAT National Platform for Natural Hazards PS Participating States RAS Reimbursable Advisory Services SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SEE South East Europe Urban Resilience Building Action Network URBAN SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction SkKM National Crisis and Disaster Management SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats UCPM Union Civil Protection Mechanism UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNDRR- United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Office for Europe and Central Asia ROE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development of the national and local disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies is one of the seven targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030. The articulation and adoption of such strategic framework documents are expected to contribute to improved disaster risk governance, one of the key priorities of the SFDRR. There are several tools and guidelines available for policy-makers to develop DRR strategies, including those developed by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and other international organizations, including the European Union (EU), the World Bank, and so on, that provide policy, operational/technical assistance, and financing contributing to increased resilience to disaster and climate change risks. In the past decade, Romania has taken many steps to reform its emergency management system toward a balanced and evidence-based approach, covering different phases of disaster risk management (DRM). A major step in this respect was the completion of the national risk assessment, focusing on 10 priority hazards to fill knowledge gaps and establish a baseline of information. Romania has also approved the National Disaster Risk Management Plan in 2021, which relates to the enabling conditions linked to EU funding under the 2021–2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MMF). These, as well as other strategic documents focusing on specific sectors and/or hazards, form a solid base for developing a national DRR strategy (NDRRS) encompassing all hazards, phases/aspects of DRM, and the different stakeholders in accordance with SFDRR. This report aims to support the Government of Romania in its efforts to design an NDRRS. The international examples reviewed and captured in this report show that strategic articulation of the goals for DRR is critical for raising awareness of this agenda and setting a path for implementing specific priorities. However, the results of the strategic documents depend on many country-specific elements like the institutional and legal framework, including coordination structures, political commitment and leadership, stakeholder consultations/inputs before and after the strategy adoption, funds allocated for implementation, and finally, established monitoring/reporting arrangements. This report focuses on these elements through a review of several case studies. Although each of the 11 case studies (Annex 1) can inform a variety of aspects that are useful for the process of developing the NDRRS, selected/good examples are highlighted in line with the specific aspects relevant to Romania, including the consultation processes prior to the strategy, coordination mechanisms, the role of the National Platform for DRR, the content/structure of the strategy (including structural and nonstructural elements), and the synergies with climate change adaptation (CCA) and communications/outreach aspects. While there is no single model and no ‘perfect’ example of a NDRRS, there are good practices that can inform Romania’s efforts in this regard. Following are the key five recommendations with an expanded list included in Chapter 3. Figure 1 includes a proposed process for Romanian authorities to consider for the development of the NDRRS. First, Romania could consider a robust consultation process to define the vision and scope of the future DRR strategy. By capitalizing on the recent achievements with the RO-RISK and the DRM Plan, the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (GIES) can lead the consultation process, ensuring the necessary support from the wider professional and nonprofessional community for the steps that 1 will follow. As shown, countries like Sweden, New Zealand, and Australia have all benefited by investing significant efforts in this element when drafting their DRR strategies. The outcomes from the consultation process will also inform the actual structure of the NDRRS to reflect the real needs of Romanian society. There are also opportunities to use available mechanisms for outside support when drafting the NDRRS, like the assessment tool offered by UNDRR and the peer review program of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM). Bulgaria is, for example, a country that benefited from such assistance tools Second, strategy development needs to leverage existing coordination mechanisms for its preparation and implementation. The report shows that if the National Platform for DRR is established as a forum that unites policy makers, academia, and practitioners, it can be quite an effective mechanism for NDRRS planning and implementation. Croatia, Switzerland, and North Macedonia offer valuable lessons in this regard. International experience shows value in ensuring the continuation of networks and working groups included in the development/implementation of the NDRRS by assigning them clear roles and responsibilities. As in the case of Germany, it is not enough to only form a working group and expect it to deliver results. The working group and its members need to be motivated constantly and their capacities developed continuously to produce results. Third, NDRRS needs to build synergies with other agendas including CCA and sustainable development and combine a range of measures. The development of NDRRS is an opportunity to strengthen links between DRM and CCA agendas, such as the case in Austria. Combining structural and nonstructural measures (including legislative, policy, communications/outreach, and so on) can help drive the reform agenda and contribute to the transformation of DRM systems to become more proactive and risk informed. The example of Serbia shows that articulating a balanced set of measures can facilitate the achievements of both engineered (such as large infrastructure) investments as well as drive reform agenda or build up of risk information for future interventions. Serbia is also an example of having a strategy that engages both national and international organizations to implement these measures. Montenegro also offers an interesting example of a NDRRS structure to consider. Fourth, to avoid creating the NDRRS as a declaration with good intentions but with limited chances for implementation, budget allocations, set timeframes, and transparent monitoring and evaluation are needed. Experience shows that this is difficult for many countries. The NDRRS must include precise targets, time frames, and deliverables supported by budget allocations and mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. The National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia offers a good example of this element. From the international examples reviewed, most strategies are complemented with an implementation plan. The period covered by these plans varies from one year to the entire time frame covered by the strategy. The Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration (MDPWA) is taking a similar approach in the development of Romania’ National Seismic Risk Reeducation Strategy (NSRRS). Fifth, strategies can serve as communications and awareness tools to reach a wider audience. Explicit language, appealing layout with graphics, and information directly relevant to a broader audience can help the strategy serve as a communication and awareness-raising tool. Moreover, having a package of accessible information online in the form of briefs or interactive maps and so on linked to the strategy can help communicate the findings, expected results, and dissemination of 2 knowledge to different segments of society. Examples of well-designed and appealing strategic documents include New Zealand and Australia. Figure 1. Proposed process for the development of a national DRR strategy Source: Authors. 3 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY About the Report This report forms part of the Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) agreement titled ‘Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy for Romania’. This agreement between the MoIA’s GIES of the Government of Romania and the World Bank became effective on June 30, 2020. The RAS focuses on two broad areas of activities, including (a) the NDRRS development, and (b) capacity development. This report is the output produced under Activity 1 (b), under which the World Bank supports the GIES by “preparing a study on DRR strategies of around five (5) other relevant EU Member States (MS) to identify best practice, with the aim of recognizing specific elements that could be integrated into the Romanian national DRR Strategy” (RAS agreement). These elements relate to the organization and cooperation, the drivers of good enforcement and implementation, and information on structural and nonstructural measures. This report corresponds to Output 2 of the RAS agreement. Methodology This report draws on a range of terms and concepts related to DRM (see Annex 1). While the terminologies by UNDRR, the European Commission (EC), and the World Bank differ slightly in some cases and reflect the countries’ specific legislative, strategic, and institutional frameworks, this report is aligned with UNDRR terminology. Accordingly, “DRR is aimed at preventing new, reducing existing disaster risks, and managing residual risks, all of which contribute to strengthening of resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development. DRR is the policy objective of DRM, and its goals and objectives are defined in DRR strategies and plans,” while DRM is “the application of DRR policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risks, reduce existing disaster risks, and manage residual risks, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses.” This report is the result of a desk review and selected consultations. The report draws on consultations with civil protection authorities which were conducted under the World Bank’s broader engagement on DRM in the EU region. It also includes a series of interviews that the World Bank conducted between November and December 2020 with public authorities involved in civil protection/DRM in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, and Sweden, as well as survey results submitted by Norway, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, and Poland. The report also benefited from insights from consultations conducted with representatives of UNDRR in Geneva. The desk review considered a range of publicly available documents and studies across different countries in Europe and globally (Annex 3). The 11 countries assessed in detail are EU MS (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, and Sweden), European countries (North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Switzerland), and non-European countries (Australia and New Zealand). Select aspects from these case studies are summarized in Chapter 2, while more detailed/structured information is provided in Annex 1. The selection was made based on their experiences in strategic DRR planning and the potential application of those experiences in the Romanian context. The initial desk review considered about 20 countries focusing on similarity in terms of risks and DRM systems, and the key findings are presented in Annex 2. 1 The study also draws on the initial results of the RAS Output 1 ‘Report on the Review of the Legal, Regulatory, and Institutional Framework Governing DRR in Romania’, which was prepared in parallel to this report. Structure of the Report This report begins with an executive summary and an introduction/methodology, followed by Chapter 1, focusing on general information and good practice related to DRR strategies. Chapter 2 highlights insights from the review of country case studies, and Chapter 3 summarizes key overarching observations and recommendations; followed by further information provided in the Annexes. 2 CHAPTER 1. NATIONAL DISASTER RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES This chapter summarizes the global, regional, and national context related to designing national DRR strategies as well as guidelines, tools, and policies developed by UNDRR and the EC that support the process of designing national DRR strategies. The chapter also includes a brief description of some of the activities completed in Romania, which can serve as the base for the upcoming Romanian NDRRS. Finally, the chapter provides general information related to the development of strategic policy documents and summarizes two relevant regional projects. Global Context: The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction In the broad spectrum of tools used by governments across the world, national and local DRR strategies are the cornerstone of all formalized actions for reducing disaster risks and creating resilience. SFDRR 2015–2030 recognizes the lead role of the governments in this process and encourages them to “adopt and implement national and local DRR strategies and plans, across different timescales, with targets, indicators and time frames, aimed at preventing the creation of risk, the reduction of existing risk and the strengthening of economic, social, health, and environmental resilience” (SFDRR, paragraph 27b). Acknowledging the importance of strategic planning in DRR, one of the seven global targets of SFDRR, Target E, is dedicated to substantially increasing the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies by 2020. To monitor Target E, two reporting indicators have been identified, as listed in Table 1. Table 1. SFDRR Target E monitoring indicators Source: UNDRR. 2017. Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The ‘Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’ (UNDRR 2017) helps policy makers better understand the requirements for reaching Target E and monitoring its implementation. The technical guidance specifies 10 key elements that need to be considered to achieve the necessary alignment with SFDRR: 1. Define timescales with targets, indicators, and time frames. 2. Prevent creation of risk. 3. Reduce existing risk. 4. Strengthen economic, social, health, and environmental resilience. 5. Understanding disaster risk. 6. Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. 7. Invest in DRR for resilience. 3 8. Enhance disaster preparedness for effective response and to build back better in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. 9. Promote policy coherence relevant to DRR, such as sustainable development, poverty eradication, and climate change. 10. Adopt mechanisms to follow up periodically, assess, and publicly report on the progress. Additional support in reaching Target E is the UNDRR tool ‘Developing National DRR Strategies: Words into Action’ (2019 1). The tool relies on a few basic principles and the above 10 key elements. The tool also provides 10 guidance steps toward designing the national strategy, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Guidance steps in designing the NDRRS Source: UNDRR. 2019. Developing National DRR Strategies: Words into Action. Furthermore, as part of its support to the process, the UNDRR Office for Europe and Central Asia (UNDRR-ROE) developed an assessment tool that helps align a specific DRR strategy with SFDRR. The tool uses a total of 75 sub-indicators and output indicators and is applied upon a request by the government to the UNDRR-ROE. On receiving the request, UNDRR-ROE establishes an assessment 1 UNDRR. 2019. “Developing National DRR Strategies: Words into Action”. Link. 4 committee composed of European National Sendai Focal Points, members of the European Science and Technology Advisory Group, and relevant experts with the aim of operating the assessment tool to review draft or existing national strategies and providing governments with recommendations and suggestions. The assessment committee is asked to specify if and how indicators are implemented in existing DRR activities or planned in concrete actions to be delivered during the implementation of the strategy. The process also includes a specific focus on the implementation mechanisms as well as the tools in place for evaluation and monitoring. The assessment is completed by a list of verifications, aiming to specify how the strategy is considering the core elements as well as a set of observations to be considered by the national authorities for the next versions of the document. While not the focus of this report, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) offers a wide range of handbooks and tools to develop local-level DRR strategies. These include the following: • Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient 2 • How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government Leaders (2017 Edition) 3 • Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities 4 • Words into Action guidelines: Implementation Guide for Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Strategies. 5 Globally, a number of cities have developed city-level resilience strategies that consider a range of hazards, different societal groups and urban functions. Cities with such strategies include for example: Mexico City (Mexico), Santiago de Chile (Chile), Santiago de los Caballeros (Dominican Republic), San Francisco (United States), Thessaloniki (Greece), and Wellington (New Zealand). Key takeaways: • SFDRR Target E seeks to substantially increase the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies by 2020. • National and local DRR strategies are expected to be aligned with SFDRR. • There are various tools and guidance available to achieve alignment with SFDRR. • National governments can also learn from city-level resilience strategies. European Union Context: European Commission Action Plan and Enabling Conditions With regard to DRM, the EU remains consistent with the principle of solidarity and Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, where civil protection affairs remain within the jurisdiction of the national governments, while the EU aims to support, coordinate, or complement their efforts, pursuant to Article 6 of the same treaty. With clearly set objectives on enhancing prevention and preparedness within its MS/Participating States (PS), set out by Decision No. 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of December 17, 2013, on a UCPM, the EC has designed steps to support the operationalization of SFDRR principles. For the implementation of SFDRR, the EC, led by the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO), 2 UNISDR. 2019. The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient. Link. 3 UNISDR. 2017a. How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government Leaders. Link. 4 UNISDR. 2017b. Disaster Resilience Scoreboard for Cities. Link. 5 Hardoy, Jorgelina, María Evangelina Filippi, Ebru Gencer, Braulio Eduardo Morera, and David Satterthwaite. 2019. Words into Action Guidelines: Implementation Guide for Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Strategies. UNDRR. Link. 5 supports the EU MS and third countries with the implementation of SFDRR, by providing mechanisms to reinforce the capacities of the UCPM MS/PS. Although not a signatory of SFDRR, the EC was one of the key supporters in the negotiations for its development. The EC’s active participation in the process allowed many of the recommendations from SFDRR to serve as a basis for the DRM policies and programs within the EU. In 2016, the EC published ‘Action Plan on Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: A disaster risk- informed approach for all EU policies’, which identifies the following key areas of intervention: 1. Building risk knowledge about EU policies 2. Adopting an all-of-society approach to DRM 3. Promoting EU risk-informed investments 4. Supporting the development of a holistic DRM approach. Developing the national and local DRR strategies is part of the action plan’s Key Area 2: the all-of- society approach to DRM. Supporting the development of inclusive local and national DRR strategies with the active engagement of local actors—authorities, communities, and civil society—is identified within the action plan as a specific measure to be undertaken by the EC. This measure is divided into two separate objectives to be achieved by 2020: 1. Ensure the regular exchange of good practices on the design and implementation of an all- inclusive local and national strategy and plan for DRR. 2. Support the development of national prevention and preparedness strategies through neighborhood assistance in at least 10 countries and through development assistance in at least 20 most vulnerable countries, Least Developed and Small Island Developing States. For the EU MS which are developing national DRR strategies, there are processes designed to assist them, like the civil protection voluntary peer reviews or the ‘exchange of experts' program. The upcoming Civil Protection Knowledge Network will definitively add to this as well. In this regard, the EC supports the MS and PS of the UCPM through prevention and preparedness projects as well as advisory missions in nonemergency and post-emergency situations. The EC respects the leading role of UNDRR in providing guidance on SFDRR and the development of national and local DRR strategies. Through the active participation and support given to the European Forum for DRR, the EC continues its commitment to SFDRR priorities for action. Additional incentives toward applying a strategic approach in DRR are specific provisions that the EU MS need to meet to access various EU funds. The use of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund, and the Border Management and Visa Instrument, as suggested with the upcoming policy, will depend on the fulfillment of enabling conditions around having an effective DRM framework. This means having a national or regional DRM plan, consistent with the existing climate adaptation strategies; description of disaster prevention, preparedness, and response measures to address the key risks identified; and information on 6 budgetary and financing resources and mechanisms available for covering the operation and maintenance costs related to prevention, preparedness, and response. 6 In 2020, the EC submitted a proposal to amend Decision No. 1313/2013/EU, aiming to “reinforce a cross-sectoral and societal preparedness approach to transboundary disaster risk management, including establishing a baseline and planning elements at a European level” as well as “enable stronger investment in preparedness at the EU level and further simplification of budget implementation.” 7 On September 16, 2020, the Parliament adopted its position on the reinforcement of the UCPM, noting that “[t]he EP clarifies the meaning of the EU’s disaster resilience goals as objectives set out to support prevention and preparedness actions that improve the capacity to face disasters with transboundary effects. These goals should be taken into account by the Member States' respective disaster risk management plans.” 8 On February 17, 2021, the Council, in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Comité des Représentants Permanents, COREPER), confirmed the final text, and later, on February 25, 2021, the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety (ENVI) adopted the provisional agreement. The Parliament is expected to vote on the new UCPM proposal in the Plenary by the end of April, followed by the vote in the Council beginning of May. Entering into force is expected in mid-May 2021. 9 A recent EC report provides insights on linking DRR with the broader climate change agenda. 10 Figure 3 lists the key challenges that the European Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change seeks to address. These challenges are also relevant for the DRR sector, in particular constraints related to institutional implementation, monitoring and reporting, public engagement, localization, financing, and prioritization. These should be considered by the EU MS when developing DRR strategies. Figure 3. Problem definition for EU Climate Adaptation Strategy Source: European Commission/Directorate-General for Climate Action 2021. 6 European Commission. 2018. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Common Provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and Financial Rules for Those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument COM/2018/375 final - 2018/0196 (COD). May 29, 2018. Link. 7 European Commission. 2020. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. June 2, 2020. Link. 8 European Commission. 2021. Legislative Train Schedule: A Stronger Europe in the World: Union Civil Protection Mechanism 2021–2027. Link. 9 European Commission. 2021. 10 European Commission/Directorate-General for Climate Action. 2021. Ex-ante Impact Assessment of the new European Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. Link. 7 Key takeaways • The EC supports the objectives of SFDRR. The EC’s ‘Specific Action Plan on DRR until 2020’ supports, among others, the process of development of national and local DRR strategies in the EU MS. The decision on whether and how to design a DRR strategy remains with the government. • The EC assists the UCPM MS/PS to develop effective DRM systems through a set of policies, publications, and mechanisms. • For the 2021–2027 MFF, enabling conditions are set for accessing the EU funds by demonstrating an effective DRM system. DRM plans/strategies are an important part of this. • The EC encourages the creation of necessary links between DRR and CCA including the strategic level. Operationalizing strategies and Post-COVID-19 recovery The World Bank’s ‘Adaptation Principles: A Guide for Designing Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience’ (2020) is also relevant as it offers guiding principles, examples of specific actions, and indicators to consider. 11 The six guidelines for integration of CCA, which are also relevant to DRM, are as follows: 1. Ensuring resilient foundations through rapid and inclusive development 2. Facilitating the adaptation of firms and people 3. Adapting land use and protecting critical public assets and services 4. Increasing people’s capacity to cope with and recover from shocks 5. Anticipating and managing macroeconomic and fiscal risks 6. Ensuring effective implementation through prioritization and continuous monitoring. The guidelines note that precise measures designed for a specific scenario must be avoided, as robust and flexible interventions are better suited to the uncertainty of future climate change. To support the development of these strategies, the guide provides various practical tools (including screening questions, toolboxes, indicators, and targets) as well as case studies. This facilitates countries to identify their country-specific needs and define the key strategic objectives in order to prepare an action plan and indicators to measure performance. Figure 4 provides the building blocks (and toolbox) of adaptation and resilience outlined in the guide. 11 Hallegatte, S., Maruyama Rentschler, J. E., and Rozenberg, J. 2020. Adaptation Principles: A Guide for Designing Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. World Bank. Link. 8 Figure 4. Building blocks (and toolbox) of adaptation and resilience Source: Hallegatte, Maruyama Rentschler, and Rozenberg. 2020. Related to post-COVID-19 recovery, in March 2021, the World Bank presented the document entitled “From COVID-19 Crisis Response to Resilient Recovery - Saving Lives and Livelihoods while Supporting Green, Resilient and Inclusive Development (GRID). Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the longer-term climate change crisis, has exacerbated vulnerabilities, disrupted livelihoods, and brought to the surface many social and economic challenges. The GRID approach (highlighted in Figure 5) is proposed to be used to realize “sustainable and equitable recovery”, as well as a “long-term development paradigm” which recognizes the cross-sectoral and spillover effect of crises, particularly on the most vulnerable population. 12 In line with the GRID approach, it is essential that countries shaping resilience policies incorporate climate adaptation into development strategies. This can be facilitated by: • Risk-informed decision-making and planning, i.e., by investing in hazard and risk data, asset management platforms, and decision-making tools. • Risk reduction measures, i.e., through infrastructure resilience, risk-informed spatial planning, irrigation systems, and nature-based solutions which simultaneously provide human well- being and biodiversity benefits. • Effective residual risk management, i.e., by establishing emergency response protocols, disaster risk financing, shock-responsive safety nets, and risk transfer solutions, such as insurance schemes or catastrophe bonds. 13 12 World Bank. 2021. “From COVID-19 Crisis Response to Resilient Recovery - Saving Lives and Livelihoods while Supporting Green, Resilient and Inclusive Development (GRID)”. Development Committee (Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries), p. V. 13 World Bank. 2021, para. 44. 9 Figure 5. The Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Development (GRID) Approach Source: World Bank. 2021. Key takeaways • The World Bank’s ‘Guide for Designing Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience’ provides building blocks and a toolbox in ensuring an effective, robust, and flexible action plan that will be able to adapt to the specific risk profile of Romania, as well as indicators for ministries to measure performance. • Through the GRID approach, the World Bank encourages the creation of necessary links between DRR and CCA, including at the strategic level, recognizing the multisectoral implications. The World Bank notes that inclusion - community engagement in policy development and investment in projects can facilitate the implementation of long-term development strategies. Country Context: Fitting with the National Framework for DRM In Romania, there are several important government decisions and strategies related to civil protection/DRM, which also need to be carefully considered when developing the upcoming DRR strategy. Romania has experience in transforming its emergency management system, and over the years, it has developed multiple strategic documents. These processes and documents can and should serve as the basis for the upcoming NDRRS. The RAS Output 1 provides a detailed analysis of the risk governance legal, strategic, and institutional framework. Romania is a signatory country of SFDRR, has established in 2016 the National Platform for DRR, which is operational since 2017 and has three cities participating in the UNDRR Make My City Resilient Campaign. Important for the development of the NDRRS, Romania recently completed its national risk assessment (RO-RISK), which focuses on 10 priority hazards, as noted in Table 2. In line with EC enabling conditions as noted above, Romania had developed in 2020 a National Disaster Risk Management Plan (2020), which identifies critical areas of intervention needed to prevent new and reduce residual risks. Romania has also submitted a National self-assessment of the enabling 10 conditions efficient framework on disaster risk management to the EC with details on meeting EC enabling conditions for the use of EU funds for disaster and climate change related expenditure. Table 2. Priority hazards assessed under RO-RISK Natural disasters Floods Wildfire Drought Earthquake Landslide Infectious diseases Epidemics (human infectious disease) Animal epidemics and zoonosis (animal and plant infectious disease) Technological accidents Seveso accidents (industrial accident) Nuclear and radiological accidents Major accidents involving dangerous substances Romania contributes to several global agreements/frameworks related to CCA. As an EU MS and signatory to the Paris Agreement, Romania is a party to the mitigation and adaptation commitments made in the EU’s collective Nationally Determined Contribution. Furthermore, being a signatory to the SFDRR 2015–2030, Romania must comply with CCA priorities under the SFDRR Priority 2 to strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. 14 Several CCA measures are carried at national and local levels in line with strategic documents and corresponding action plans. Adopted in 2013, Romania’s National Climate Change Strategy 2013-2020 provides the overall framework for action and guidelines enabling the development of action plans with measures for each of the 13 priority sectors identified. 15 A two-year programme to operationalize the Strategy resulted in the development of a National Climate Change and Low Carbon Green Growth Strategy for the 2016-2030 correlated to the EU commitments on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and an associated Action Plan on Climate Change for the same period. The most recent strategy and action plan cover both mitigation and adaptation and focus on the priority sectors. At subnational levels, there is no centralized information or evidence about adaptation action plans developed. There are still efforts to be made related to CCA. The EC’s 2018 Scoreboard for Romania 16 notes a lack of coherence between DRM and CCA, stating that it is unclear how climate change considerations are integrated into DRR planning. The scoreboard also highlights lack of clarity on climate change consideration vis-à-vis the National Platform for DRR. 17 According to the 2020 European Semester Country Report 18 for Romania, the country is below EU-average levels in GHG emissions, energy, and renewable-energy consumption, though it continues to progress to EU levels, in line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action. Going forward, substantial challenges 14 World Bank. 2019. RAS on Consolidation of the Strategic Planning Capacity of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration for Renovation of the National Building Stock for Energy Efficiency and Seismic Risk in Romania (P169420). January 2019. 15 Government of Romania. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. 2013. “National Climate Change Strategy 2013- 2020”. Link. Sectors include industry; agriculture and fisheries; tourism; public health; buildings and infrastructure; transport; water resources; forests; energy; biodiversity; insurance; recreation activities; and education. 16 European Commission/ Directorate-General Climate Action. 2018. “Adaptation preparedness scoreboard: Draft country fiche for Romania.“ Link. 17 World Bank. 2019. 18 European Commission. 2020. “European Semester. Country Report. Romania.” Link. 11 remain regarding air pollution, climate change mitigation, and adaptation that require adequate investments in green technologies and sustainable solutions. Related to the most recent developments relevant to the NDRRS development, Romania has also approved the Long-Term Building Renovation Strategy and is currently developing a National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy (NSRRS). 19 Developed by MDPWA, the NSRRS has four specific objectives to: (a) reduce seismic risk, (b) promote well-being; (c) boost resilience; and (d) mobilize participation and inclusive actions. The NSRRS also sets specific targets and indicators to monitor progress and provides a good example to consider in Table 3. Table 3. NSRRS indicators for monitoring implementation Outcome indicator Description Source • Number of students, teachers, and staff in schools • MDPWA records • Number of patients, staff, and users of health facilities from multiple People benefitting • Number of occupants of emergency buildings (police, gendarmerie, investment from safer and fire stations, among other buildings used for emergency operation operations purposes) • MDPWA should more resilient • Number of occupants of other public buildings source the buildings • Number of occupants of residential buildings (including residential necessary buildings with spaces occupied by businesses) information from • Number of occupants of commercial buildings other ministries • Data segregated by gender, age, and other socio-economic and authorities indicators annually • Number and percentage of schools, health facilities, emergency • MDPWA records buildings, other public buildings, residential buildings, and from multiple commercial buildings retrofitted for seismic risk reduction investment Percentage of the • Increase (measured in million m2) of nearly zero-energy building operations building stock (NZEB) stock through seismic retrofitting projects (linked to the • MDPWA should more resilient to Long-Term Building Renovation Strategy) source the earthquakes • Percentage in reduction of buildings in the lowest energy classes necessary among the retrofitted buildings for seismic risk reduction (linked to information from the Long-Term Building Renovation Strategy) other ministries • Percentage of retrofitted buildings for seismic risk reduction that and authorities complies with the Fire Code annually • Percentage of retrofitted buildings for seismic risk reduction which underwent other improvements in functionality (washing and sanitary facilities, universal access, among others) • Number of communication campaigns focused on the safety and • MDPWA records Population is costs of seismic risk disseminated in a reference period • Survey aware of seismic • Percentage of population who correctly comprehend a given risk in terms of message safety and costs • Percentage of target audience expressing knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs consistent with key message(s) Population is • Number of communications focused on seismic risk reduction • MDPWA records aware of opportunities disseminated in a reference period • Survey opportunities to • Percentage of the population exposed to communications based on reduce seismic risk recall Population is • Number of attendees at professional trainings, events, etc. • Attendance records willing to take • Percentage of the population of general public engaged in seismic for ministry action on risk risk reduction activities sponsored training 19 World Bank. 2019. 12 reduction • Self-reporting measures through survey • Permits issued Note: Draft as of December 2020. Key takeaways • Several important government decisions and strategies related to civil protection/DRM need to be considered when developing the upcoming NDRRS. • Romania has adopted a National Climate Change and Low Carbon Green Growth Strategy for the 2016-2030 that is correlated to the EU commitments on reducing GHG emissions, as well as an associated Action Plan on Climate Change covering the same period. • To further converge with the EU and maximize the impact of its CCA actions, Romania needs to correlate more clearly climate change measures with DRR planning at different levels, and make a clear case of how it plans to operationalize DRR and CCA actions in an integrated way. Insights from Research on Strategic Planning Beyond the above-mentioned tools, there is extensive academic literature and theories behind strategic planning that can inform the design of the NDRRS in Romania, with notable/relevant studies, amongst others, reflected below. This report does not provide a comprehensive literature review but highlights several particularly relevant examples under the assumption that the future process of drafting the NDRRS in Romania will consider both the theory on strategic planning and practical experiences of the countries which have gone through such process. Boyne and Williams (2003) 20 reviewed existing research behind theories on strategic planning, and conclude that strategies provide a structure, promote action, and minimize intuitive decision-making. However, they also acknowledge opponents to strategic planning, referring to the limited implementation/ operationalization of many strategic plans. Candido and Santos (2018) 21 provided a list of the most common obstacles to successful strategic implementation (see list below). They conclude that the “development and implementation of a strategic plan is not a straightforward task, with estimating a rate of failure of between 30 and 70 percent.” This highlights the need to ensure that the process by which strategies are developed facilitates their implementation. • Leadership: Lack of top management commitment; poor choice of method for introducing change, for example, choosing edicts or planning without receptivity; management ineffective as a team; top managers leaving the organization. • Time available: Short time available for the change, excessive speed of the changes; personnel attention distracted from implementation, day-to-day activities take all the time, delays; internal problems that were not anticipated, behavior compliance, hijacked process, sabotage, strategic drift. • Communication and perceptions: Selective attention and retention of pieces of information, no anticipation of potential problems, no sincere dialogue about obstacles or conflicting 20 Boyne, G., and J. G. Williams. 2003. “Planning and Performance in Public Organizations: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Management Review 5 (1): 115–132. doi:10.1080/146166702200002889. 21 Carlos, J.F. and Santos, S.P. 2019. Implementation obstacles and strategy implementation failure, Baltic Journal of Management, vol.14, No.1, pp.39-57, DOI 10.1108/BJM-11-2017-0350. 13 aspects, no sharing of interpretation of plans and events, no two-way communication, no internal opinion surveys. • Reluctance to change/fear of loss: Habit, low tolerance for change, reluctance to let go and to experiment; fear that change will upset the current balance of power between groups and departments. • Lack of a behavioral diagnosis, no assessment of readiness for change, or incorrect assessment. • People’s skills: Inadequate employee training on new tasks, inadequate timing of training. • Participation/involvement: No identification with the change, plan developed without participation, top-down approach, no middle management commitment, no empowerment. • Culture and climate: Tradition bound, paradigm persistence and/or homogeneity, stories of unsuccessful changes. • Structure: Lack of a strong power coalition pro-change, small size of power coalition; structural changes that were not required or in excess. • Extension of the change, number of departments, and people affected. • Coordination: Conflicting organizational priorities. • Resources: Limited available resources, withdrawal of resources. • Performance management: Control/reward systems reinforce paradigm and status quo, lack of adequate feedback/learning. • External events: Parent company structure, tradition, paradigm, change in its own strategy or withdrawal of support; other unanticipated external events (macro factors, stakeholders, societal culture, and so on). Specific to DRR strategies, Marshall (2020) 22 argues that effective implementation needs to be driven by risk perception and safety culture practices applied at the local level. She sees the added value of strategies only if they actively manage a change proces in the perception of risk among the population and contribute to necessary safety culture. The actual understanding of risk perceptions at the local level should bridge the gap between the objectives identified with strategic documents and their implementation. Simultaneously, recognizing risk perceptions before the strategy is designed helps build trust between stakeholders and decision-makers in both the planning and implementation phases. She concludes that “...failing to understand the cultural context of disasters and human-environment interactions, we are at risk of repeating past mistakes and misunderstanding the underlying causes of disasters.” This is also related to what Appleby-Arnold et al. (2021) 23 identifies as particularities of existing social capital which influence the creation of a culture of preparedness (for example, attitudes toward technology). Finally, Berry 24 builds on what was previously mentioned by Appleby-Arnold and recommends a shift toward more organic and interactive processes dominated by values of facilitation, innovation, collaboration, and community building rather than the simple pursuit for efficiency when strategic planning is concerned. 22 Marshall, T.M. 2020. Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.47. Link. 23 Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Celia, C., 2021, Developing a culture of preparedness: The citizens view, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.56. Link. 24 Berry, F. 2010. Understanding the Role of the Manager in Organizational Performance and Community Engagement.” Public Administration Review Special Issue, Vol.70, pp.153–155. Link. 14 Key takeaways • Applying the results to Romania, the various academic literature suggests that strategic planning, particularly with a community engagement element, and efforts for its effective implementation, is imperative for developing the NDRRS. Insights from Regional Projects ‘Enhancing Synergies for Disaster Prevention in the European Union’ (ESPREssO) project Highlighting challenges related to linking DRM and CCA approaches, this project provides several insights into Romania's upcoming process. Involving six European countries, the project focused on the following three challenges related to disaster prevention: (a) identifying ways to create more coherent national and European approaches on DRR, CCA, and resilience strengthening; (b) enhancing risk management capabilities by bridging the gap between science and legal/policy issues at the local and national levels in the countries of interest; and (c) addressing the issue of efficient management of transboundary crises. 25 The ESPREssO project’s findings highlight the following key priority needs: (a) better procedures and tools to improve knowledge-based decision-making; (b) effective implementation of whole-community governance models and enhancing the exploitation of existing synergies between policies (DRR, CCA, and Sustainable Development Goals); and (c) strengthening transboundary cooperation along the entire DRM cycle and improving legal frameworks to support informed decision-making and continuous consultation with communities involved. Related to the synergies between DRR and CCA in the six studied countries, the ESPREssO project identified the following challenges: (a) weak horizontal and vertical coordination between sectors; (b) limited capacities of local governments for implementation of CCA and DRR strategies; (c) resource limitations and poor implementation of strategies as well as lack of funding, political awareness, and risk perception; (d) inadequate platforms for stakeholder communication and engagement; (e) unequal attention paid to CCA and DRR; and (f) conflicting priorities between disaster response and risk reduction. South East Europe Urban Resilience Building Action Network (SEE URBAN) Project This project provides insights related to institutional coordination and information exchange processes on DRR. Implemented across seven European countries, one of the project’s key objectives was to formalize local-level cooperation in urban DRR. 26 SEE URBAN supported local efforts to form partnerships through a subregional DRR platform and enhance collaboration on DRR by supporting user-friendly information exchange systems. SEE URBAN identified issues such as the need for both vertical and horizontal DRR cooperation of the local governments. At the horizontal level, the local authorities expressed a clear interest in working together as part of an organized process, namely a local DRR platform existing in parallel to the National DRR platform and/or as its integral part. However, the aspiration for greater collaboration is in many countries hampered by the existing legislation, which prevents the formalization of the cooperation on DRR among municipalities. 25 ESPREssO. 2021. Link. The project was funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 700342. Focus countries include Italy, Germany, Switzerland, France, Denmark. and the United Kingdom. 26 SEE URBAN. 2017. Link. The project was financially supported by EU DG ECHO and implemented during 2017/2018. The project also sought to form a network of urban local-level DRR stakeholders, to develop an SEE URBAN electronic DRR library and strengthen local-level DRR practitioners´ knowledge on urban risks. The project was implemented in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. 15 However, this is not the case for Croatia and Serbia. In Serbia, the Association of Local Authorities plays a vital role in DRR implementation. In Chapter 2, the example of the Croatian DRR platform of counties and cities is described in more detail. The SEE URBAN project highlighted that DRR coordination across many countries often focuses primarily on higher-level governance structures and processes. This can leave municipalities and cities disconnected from the changes and reforms taking place on DRR. To address this, continuous communication, and inclusion of the local level in the debate and decision-making are of paramount importance for the DRR agenda. Key takeaways • Both ESSPREssO and SEE Urban project offer valuable insights into the process of strategic planning. ESSPREssO identifies challenges and opportunities in integrating DRR and CCA, while SEE Urban gives perspectives on local level participation in DRR planning. • Using outcomes of regional projects should be utilized during the process of drafting the NDRRS. 16 CHAPTER 2. INSIGHTS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES This chapter presents insights from 11 countries based on the review of their respective national strategies and relevant mechanisms/processes in place for the successful design/implementation of these strategies. Country case studies analyzed relate to the process of developing a strategy— including stakeholder engagement/consultations to inform the scope and content of the strategies and peer review mechanisms—as well as key elements such as the establishment of governance mechanisms for drafting, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating a strategy; integration of DRR and CCA aspects; and consideration of both structural and nonstructural measures as part of the strategy. 1. Stakeholder engagement/consultations before and during DRR strategy development Sweden 27 The case of Sweden highlights the benefits of conducting extensive consultations ahead of strategy development. In 2018, the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap, MSB) contracted Lund University to conduct an assessment and understand the perceptions among key stakeholders on the need for having a national DRR strategy. Questions considered included the following: “Why should we have a DRR strategy in the first place? Do we need it? If yes, what should be the scope of that strategy?” The study demonstrated that Sweden needs a DRR strategy as a self-standing document. Respondents provided the following justifications: (a) to fulfill international commitments toward SFDRR and consequently preserve the image of a DRR leader in the developing world; (b) to increase synergies and effectiveness and avoid duplication (in both administration/bureaucracy and funds); (c) to mainstream DRR in other sectors (primarily sustainable development and climate change); and (d) to better understand the links between DRR, climate change, and sustainable development. The consultations also highlighted potential key challenges and recommendations that have informed the national DRR strategy development. Key constraints as stated by the respondents included low political mobilization around DRR (‘DRR remains a crisis management issue’'); restrictive legislation which does not address underlying risk factors as part of crisis management; and development-oriented laws which lack understanding of the link between the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability for sustainable development. Some of the recommendations for the design of the future DRR strategy, as given by the respondents, included the following: to better use indicators to track progress, improve accountability, and produce evidence that implementation of a strategy has an impact on resilience, is cost-effective, and is relevant for both the national and local economy. New Zealand New Zealand is a good example of the evolution of strategic documents designed around the national consensus of what constitutes a DRR strategy. New Zealand is a country with rich experience in DRM, including the development of national DRR strategies. The country developed its first strategy in 2003, the second in 2007, and the most recent one in 2019. As part of the development of the 2019 National Disaster Resilience Strategy, New Zealand spent two years conducting a wide range of 27 This case study draws on review in this article: Wamsler, C., Johannessen, A. 2020. “Meeting at the Crossroads? Developing National Strategies for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience: Relevance, Scope for, and Challenges to, Integration.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 45. Link. 17 consultations with all stakeholders to analyze the status and determine vision, goals, and objectives. The strategy itself acknowledges the added value of that process. 28 The careful consultation processes underlined the strategy’s unique elements. One of them is the importance of self-protection of citizens in cases of natural and human-made disasters. New Zealand is a highly developed country with a well-established DRM system, and within this system, high importance is placed on individual preparedness. In that context, individuals and households need to be adaptable to future changes in, for example, availability of electricity, transportation networks, and telecommunication infrastructure in times of disasters, as well as to be ready for psychological stress and substantial systemic changes. Also, owing to widespread consultations which included different segments of the society, the strategy successfully ‘translates’ the SFDRR narrative into the national context. It is built on understanding the concept of resilience and how it can be used to protect the four essential capitals: human capital, natural capital, social capital, and financial/physical capital. With the vision offered for the next 10 years, the goal of the strategy and the set of identified objectives are encouraging full participation of society, presenting it as a model that can be used by all (individuals, organizations, and communities). Australia Australia also utilized a wide consultation process in the development of its National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework for 2019–2023. Over 100 participants from a diverse range of over 80 organizations came together at a three-day intensive ‘policy sprint’ in June 2018 to develop key components of the framework. Through a well-established governance mechanism for coordination of the process, this ‘policy sprint’ was then used as a basis for further development and actual endorsement of the framework. Drawing on these consultations, the strategy is designed around the concept of resilience which was introduced in 2011 under a previous strategy. Although the strategy is created for 2019–2023, the document shares the vision of DRR until 2030 and that is: “...all sectors of the society are making disaster risk-informed decisions, they are accountable for reducing risks within their control and invest in reducing disaster risk to limit the costs of disasters when they occur.” Like New Zealand, the strategy in Australia also applies a ‘business continuity’ approach. The consultation process helped identify critical societal components that need to be protected and continued in disasters, including the built environment, social environment, natural environment, and economic environment. These critical elements are protected through a set of actions organized around four national priorities: understanding of disaster risk; accountable decision-making; governance, ownership, and responsibilities; and enhanced investments. Key takeaway: the value of consultation processes • These three case studies show that consultations before and during the development of national strategies are crucial to understanding the national context (including potential challenges) as well as the scope or focus of the strategy. These examples show that investing time in understanding the context is critical as it helps make the strategy fit the local context and needs. • Applied to Romania, an early consultation process could help define the specific need and added value of an NDRRS. This process could also help identify key stakeholders and the proposed 28 Government of New Zealand. 2019. National Disaster Resilience Strategy. Link. 18 focus/structure of the strategy that can then be fully developed during consultations during the actual strategy development. 2. Institutional coordination mechanisms for developing and implementation of a strategy Germany This example shows the importance of aligning different strategic priorities in sustainable development, climate change, and DRM and how vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms can help achieve this. Germany is currently developing a national disaster resilience strategy. As part of the preparation, an assessment was conducted to understand the relationship between the different governance processes and mechanisms in place and to make them more effective. 29 The assessment looked at the established mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination within the federal government and the ones with the 16 federal states related to planning and implementing policies for sustainable development, DRM, and CCA. The assessment presented a pattern of governance utilized by the German government to align these strategic priorities. For all three sectors at the federal level, there are inter-ministerial working groups followed by working groups/alliances/pools/networks that ensure implementation and where participation of a variety of stakeholders is stimulated. That model is functional and gives results; within the report the case of the city of Bremen is described, where a successful governance structure has been created which was built on the cohesiveness between the sectors within the city administration responsible for sustainable development, CCA, and DRM. Bonn offers another success story in implementing high standards of environmental quality, particularly in the areas of air purity, water, nature, and climate protection. Within the UNDRR Make My City Resilient Campaign, Bonn is identified as a role model in implementing DRR activities at the local level. In addition to the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for the Sendai Process at the federal level, another coordination body is established (Alliance of Agencies for Adaptation to Climate Change) to ensure alignment of DRM with CCA. This federal governance structure is then transferring powers and responsibilities to the 16 states, where again a system of interconnected working bodies is established to ensure inclusion, consultation, and implementation of main decisions. The Sendai Focal Point, embedded in the structure of the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for the Sendai Process, is leading the development of a national resilience strategy. According to the assessment, this structure is functional in its national context and provides results. Those elements, although not visible in Figure 6, are vital for enforcing the governance mechanism. Some of them are as follows: • Political will—coherence between sustainable development, CCA, and DRM can happen only because of political choice and strong commitment coming from the highest level of government. • Collective instead of singular responsibility within the government—promote collective responsibility instead of single leadership of an organization. • Policy mapping—the importance of policy mapping, mapping of different strategies, and identification of corresponding links. 29 Terton, A., Begerow, J., Becker, U., et al. 2021. Coherence as the Process of Joint and Integrated Policy Making: At the Interface of Sustainable Development, Adaptation to Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management. Lessons Learned from Germany. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). Link. 19 • Joint planning, joint budgeting, and joint implementation across the government to overcome sectorial boundaries. • Importance of incentives for planning and implementation. • Importance of localization of strategic policies by documenting/promoting successful cases. • Building trust across all levels of government by involving different stakeholders and professional communities. • Understand and invest in understanding group dynamics within all governance structures (working groups) created. Having a working group established does not guarantee a successful outcome if there is no additional support (training, education) and stimulation. Figure 6. Horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms in Germany Source: GIZ 2021. Notes: Dotted lines indicate a direct thematic relationship. Key takeaway: the value of vertical and horizontal coordination structures for the design and the implementation of the strategy • DRM strategies should be linked and compatible with other strategies as much as possible. 20 • Political will and commitment to the process are critical, as well as governance structures for horizontal and vertical coordination in strategic planning and implementation. • Governments need to invest in understanding the group dynamics of various coordination bodies and mechanisms and promote a result-oriented approach in strategic planning. 3. The role of the National Platform for DRR 30 Croatia This example shows how the national platform for DRR can be a useful mechanism for strategic thinking. In this case, it was the preparation of the National Risk Assessment and the development of the upcoming national DRM strategy. Croatia established its National Platform for DRR in 2009 as an advisory body to the government. In the first few years of existence, the platform ensured political commitment from the highest levels of government, which consequently resulted in attracting all stakeholders to this consultative mechanism. In its first years, the platform succeeded in building strong links with academia, producing valuable reports and recommendations on the further development of DRR in Croatia. To further enhance the potential of the platform, in 2016, the structure behind it was reformed, and more operational roles were given to this mechanism. The most valuable lessons from the actual existence of the platform were learned through the process of developing the National Risk Assessment adopted by the government in 2019. 15 working groups attached to the platform were in the driving seat for this process, and each group was coordinated by a different national authority/ministry under the overall guidance from the Ministry of Interior’s Civil Protection Department. Owing to this mechanism, the network created over the years, and the sense of ownership among the participants in the process, Croatia finalized its National Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Management Capability Assessment. With that, the foundations were set for the upcoming national DRM strategy (expected in 2021) that will cover the next period until 2030. The main role of the national platform is to connect political, operational, and scientific stakeholders at the national level by enabling the transfer and harmonization of knowledge, proposing solutions, adopting documents, and encouraging their implementation in order to reduce disaster risks. The platform ensures horizontal and vertical cooperation in reducing risks and is considered an essential tool and mechanism to coordinate DRR activities in Croatia. Operating throughout the year, the platform encourages also other state administration bodies, civil society groups (CSOs), public and private companies and scientific institutions to act in the field of DRR. Furthermore, every year, a conference on DRR is organized by the platform so to present the results, share knowledge, and strengthen networking between all participating stakeholders and community of DRR practitioners. All participants have to prepare and submit papers on the topic of disaster risk reduction every year for the platform’s annual conference. The first conference of the Croatian Platform took place in November 2009 and was attended by over 180 participants from the public sector, large economic entities, scientific community (Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts and several colleges and institutions), CSOs and religious communities. The platform is inclusive and structured into groups pursuing specific activities. The platform consists of all relevant state administration bodies, scientific institutions, citizens' associations, and other representatives who carry out some of the measures and activities of DRR as part of usual tasks. From 30 Note that UNDRR 2020. National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction provides a summary of several platforms. Link. 21 an organizational point of view, the platform falls under the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Civil Protection Directorate of the Ministry of Interior whilst it is steered by the Board of the Croatian Platform for DRR. At the operational level, the effectiveness of the platform is ensured through the leadership of the main working group which consists of various coordinating bodies in charge of pre-identified risks. The role of the main working group is to develop DRR strategy, and risk and capacity assessments. Each individual risk is then being addressed by designated working groups consisting of a coordinating body and a risk assessment body/ies. Finally, expert working groups deal with specific topics such as safety of educational institutions, spatial planning, financing and DRR activities. Figure 7. Ogranizational sturcture of the National Platform for DRR in Croatia Source: Based on https://civilna-zastita.gov.hr/hrvatska-platforma-za-smanjenje-rizika-od-katastrofa/80. An additional positive spill-over effect of the national platform was establishing the DRR platform of counties and cities in 2013. The purpose of this self-initiated governance mechanism of the cities and counties in Croatia is to facilitate exchange, networking among cities and counties, and improve coordination in implementing DRR policies at the local level. Like the national platform, this mechanism has its governance structure and recognizable scope of activities. The difference is that it is a self-initiated mechanism based on voluntary participation of the cities and counties. Based on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis presented under the EU project SEE URBAN, this platform has proved to be resilient over the years and contributed to building synergies among its members on DRR topics. Challenges in the platform's functioning are also present and are grouped around insufficient human resources and financing for future activities. Croatia today has six cities participating in the UNDRR Make My City Resilient Campaign. Key takeaway: the value of the national platforms for DRR as a governance mechanism for strategic thinking 22 • The existence of the national platform was critical for the process of national risk assessment process, as working groups attached to the platform drove and coordinated this processed led by the Civil Protection Directorate of the Ministry of Interior. This mechanism created a sense of ownership among the stakeholders; and is useful also for future updating of the national assessments. • The platform plays an important – all year-round- role to connect political, operational, and scientific stakeholders, enabling the transfer and harmonization of knowledge, proposing solutions, adopting documents and encouraging their implementation in order to reduce disaster risks. This way, the platform ensures horizontal and vertical cooperation in reducing risks and has become an essential tool and mechanism to coordinate DRR activities in Croatia. • The platform is inclusive and structured into groups pursuing specific activities focusing on pre- identified risks or specific topics such as safety of educational institutions, spatial planning, financing and DRR activities. Switzerland Switzerland is another example of the successful use of a national platform for DRR for strategic planning. The National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT) was created in 1997 as a coordination mechanism for the prevention of natural hazards 31. It works as an advisory body on DRR matters at the national level to the Federal Council 32, a seven-member executive council that forms the federal government of the Swiss Confederation with each member heading a government department. PLANAT has three mission objectives focused on: (a) guiding the strategic thinking behind disaster prevention; (b) raising awareness of existing risks; and (c) creating synergies between all stakeholders with a view to effective disaster prevention. Switzerland's current forward-looking principles of risk management priorities focus on mainly soft measures that are nature-based over structural protections, as well as on a culture of risk embraced by the society at large, instead of a sole reliance of the government to manage risks. By adopting these principles, the platform employs an all-hazard approach to reduce vulnerabilities and ensure society is aware of, accepts and adapts to residual or remaining risks. The organizational structure of PLANAT includes a secretariat, committee, working groups and advisory groups (Figure 8). The Secretariat is composed of two persons in charge with coordinating activities under PLANAT and PLANALP (Platform on Natural Hazards of the Alpine Convention), including by organizing meetings, managing finances, supervising projects, and disseminating information externally 33. The Committee includes the president, the vice-president and three members, and its role is to oversee and prepare main activities to be discussed during the plenary sessions (twice or three times a year). The president is elected by the Swiss Federal Council, based on a nomination by the plenary. Working groups are established on a project basis, with varying membership between two and five members. Per UN review of national platforms, there are currently two working groups active related to ‘information and communication’, ‘international collaboration, 31Switzerland. The National Platform for Natural Hazards (PLANAT). Link. 32 Switzerland. The Federal Government on the Portal of the Swiss Government. Link. 33 Switzerland. The Secretariat of PLANAT. Link. 23 and three project groups. PLANAT has an allocated budget of 300’000 CHF per year. Additionally, the secretariat is payed for by the Federal Office for the Environment. PLANAT's core team consists of 18 specialists from all regions of Switzerland, who are appointed for a period of four years. Periodical change of the PLANAT’s core team enables wider involvement of the available experts within the public sector allowing inclusiveness and equal distribution of the workload to many instead of only few selected officials. PLANAT representatives includes the federal central government, cantons, faculties/researchers, professional associations, representatives of the private sector and insurance companies. Figure 8. Organizational structure of PLANAT, Switzerland Source: https://www.planat.ch/en/planat/members/organisation. Since its inception, PLANAT has been active in advocacy, law harmonization, policymaking, project implementation and the promotion of synergies with development agencies. Every three to four years since 2000, PLANAT updates its national strategic documents dealing with disaster prevention and risk management. The most recent is from 2018 and is titled "Strategy 2018: Managing risks arising from natural hazards" 34. The strategy recognizes the systemic nature of the risks and focuses its attention on preventing new risks and reducing recovery time in the event of emergency situations. Prevention is designed around the combination of structural and soft measures and communicating with the public to raise the awareness of the existing risk. In that context, Switzerland offers a good case in the effect of using hazard maps by the wider population to reduce risks. Recognizing 20 years of continuity in planning, the latest strategy in Switzerland is not supported by a current implementation plan and continues to rely on the one developed with the previous strategy. In the last two updates of Switzerland’s Strategy for the Management of Risks from Natural Hazards (2014 and 2018), PLANAT identifies climate change as a contributing factor in the overall disaster risk management process. It also creates the necessary links with the National CCA Strategy. The synergy is a result of the existing model for horizontal coordination among the Federal Office for Environment, responsible for all the hazards and risks coming from the environment and the Federal Office for Civil Protection responsible for the overall system of disaster risk management and response. Both of the offices are supplementing each other when developing strategic documents through the work of the PLANAT and the Interdepartmental Committee on Climate (responsible for the CCA Strategy). 34 Switzerland. PLANAT. 2018. “Strategy for the Management of Risks from Natural Hazards”. Link. 24 The working model behind PLANAT has been promoted at an international level as it showcases practical steps in developing and operationalizing a national DRR platform, while several important lessons learned have also derived from its implementation. For example, UNDRR has promoted PLANAT as a good practice for national forums meant to facilitate the dialogue between the different stakeholders in order to enhance knowledge sharing, skills development, as well as cooperation and coordination to the benefit of risk prevention and reduction at the national level. Furthermore, the “How to create and run a platform? 1997-2007: ten years of experience” publication of PLANAT provides concrete guidance on how to conceive and operationalize such a platform, and highlights key conditions that can ensure successful outcomes, alongside lessons learned for each step of the creation and implementation process 35. Such lessons include: (a) having the same members in the group tasked with conceptualizing the platform with those composing the platform once launched, in order to ensure and maintain commitment throughout time; and (b) considering form the start relevant stakeholders for each phase of the entire risk circle (i.e., prevention, mitigation, response and recovery) so that activities are designed and carried out more efficiently and in an integrated way with a view to maximizing impact. While PLANAT is operationalized exclusively at the national level, similar initiatives are implemented also locally, to discuss and coordinate DRR issues on a strategic and operational level. Such coordinatization and cooperation platforms are present in almost half of the 26 cantons of Switzerland. Case in point is the canton of Bern (Canton de Berne) and its working group on natural hazards set up in 2001 by the canton’s government council. The working group is responsible for coordinating tasks (e.g., spatial planning, prevention measures) and ensuring the flow of information among key stakeholders and the community in relation to floods, debris, landslides, rockfall, avalanches and earthquakes. The working group is composed of the Office for Forests and Natural Hazards, the Civil Engineering Office, the Office for Water and Waste, the Office for Municipalities and Spatial Planning, the Office for Civil Protection, Sport and the Military, the canton’s building insurance entity, and a consultant from the academia and research field with expertise in natural hazards. 36 Key takeaway: the value of the national platforms for DRR as a governance mechanism for strategic thinking • Functional DRR platforms at the national and local levels are valuable mechanisms for strategic thinking. When established properly, they can encourage buy-in from stakeholders, provide the necessary guidance, break silo thinking, and can produce specific results. At the national level, the platform has become pivotal for horizontal coordination among the Federal Office for Environment, responsible for all the hazards and risks coming from the environment and the Federal Office for Civil Protection responsible for the overall system of disaster risk management and response. • Early integration of experts in relevant and diverse fields (e.g., critical infrastructure, industries, weather services, media) ensures a smooth implementation later on. • Political leadership, commitment, and incentives are needed to support the role of the national civil protection authority in the process of establishing and maintaining national/local DRR strategies. 35 Switzerland. PLANAT. 2007. “How to create and run a platform? 1997-2007: ten years of experience”. Link. 36 Switzerland. Cantone de Berne. Link. 25 North Macedonia Complicated mechanisms do not produce results. North Macedonia is the opposite example of Croatia and Switzerland, where the usability of the National Platform for DRR is considered a tool for strategic thinking. Established back in 2009, the DRR platform in North Macedonia was the 13th platform of that type in Europe. In 2011, North Macedonia even chaired the European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction as a recognition toward implementing key principles of the HFA. Although great international attention was received on the domestic front, the platform never received the necessary buy-in from the relevant stakeholders and remained only a theoretical concept. In certain segments, the National Platform for DRR offered solutions that replaced existing disaster preparedness and response procedures, which increased the opposing arguments for its implementation. North Macedonia is already having a complicated DRM system based on the dualism of two institutions with shared roles and responsibilities, making the existence of a functional National Platform for DRR difficult. 37 In 2011, a special position in the cabinet of the Prime minister was opened to serve as a coordinator for the implementation of the National Platform for DRR. The coordinator is the national focal point for SFDRR and has roles and responsibilities toward the implementation of the national platform. Ten years later, North Macedonia has revised the national platform four times, but the essence of the platform as coordination, consultative body that unifies all national efforts toward strengthening the system for DRM in the country is still missing. The latest version of the national platform endorsed by the government in 2019 is a document that resembles more of a strategy than a national platform in accordance with the UNDRR guidelines. 38 Particularities of the complex system in North Macedonia in which the National Platform for DRR exist is described below (Figure 9). 37 European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). 2018. North Macedonia Peer Review Report. Link 38European Commission/DG ECHO (Directorate-General for Civil Protection and European Humanitarian Operations). 2018. Northern Macedonia's peer review report. Link 26 Figure 9. North Macedonia National Platform for DRR Source: Authors. Key takeaway: • Unless complex structures achieve the buy-in of all relevant stakeholders and commitment for horizontal and/or vertical coordination and cooperation, they won’t generate envisioned results. • The concept behind a national platform for DRR should be designed around the particularities of the national DRM institutional framework. For example, North Macedonia’s intricate DRM system based on the dualism of two institutions with shared roles and responsibilities hindered the successful implementation of its national platform for DRR. • In the absence of political leadership and commitment to the implementation of such a platform, this tool will remain a theoretical concept if already developed. Should the institutional and political prerequisites for establishing a platform not be met, simpler alternatives can be explored. 4. Peer review mechanisms to inform preparation and implementation of strategies Bulgaria In the last five years, Bulgaria benefitted twice from peer review/assessment process led by the EC and UNDRR and is an interesting example of how these tools can inform country-led efforts in DRR. 27 Bulgaria was the first country to be peer reviewed under the UCPM in 2015. The aim of that peer review was to support the reform of the national DRM system instigated by the floods in 2014 that caused human casualties and damages to critical infrastructure, cultural heritage, agriculture, and businesses. The peer review covered five broad areas: an integrated approach to DRM, risk assessments, risk management planning, and preparedness and public awareness. Among other documents, the peer reviewers analyzed the NDRRS for 2014–2020. The team gave six recommendations with regard to the strategy: (a) simplify and align the content of the strategy with other documents derived from it; (b) link the strategy with specific targets, budgets, indicators, and time frames covering national, regional, and local levels; (c) include multi-stakeholder engagement at all levels; (d) establish clear governance protocols for the strategy; (e) include in the strategy provision of an open system for communication and cooperation; and (f) include scientific support in the design of the strategy and its implementation. In 2020, Bulgaria was evaluated by UNDRR through an assessment process focusing on the NDRRS 2018–2030, including its National Program for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020–2024. 39 As part of this, experts used the UNDRR assessment tool with 75 sub-indicators and outputs indicators aligned with SFDRR. From the review of the list of recommendations provided, it is evident that Bulgaria accepted some of the suggestions from the UCPM peer review and used them to improve its national DRR system. However, challenges remain, especially related to the implementation of the strategy, as precise timelines of activities and allocated financial resources are still not well-defined. In this way, the review identifies the gaps that authorities need to continue to focus on and address. The peer review also demonstrates the effort led by the responsible agencies to move toward a more proactive approach. The 2020 review assessed the 2018–2030 strategy as having 25 percent of the text focusing on response, 42 percent on preparedness, and 33 percent on prevention/mitigation. In this way, the peer review process can also be used to track the overall reform agenda in the country. Key takeaway: the value of peer review mechanisms to improve DRR strategies • There are various tools for assessing the alignment of the DRR strategies, which can help identify specific gaps within a national framework. Their evidence-based approach/use of specific indicators can also draw the need/importance of measuring performance as well as having targets and outcomes and dedicated budget allocations. • The peer review process can also help track the overall focus of a national strategy on different elements of DRM, including progress to moving to a more proactive approach. • The assessment assistance from UNDRR on the alignment of the strategy with SFDRR, can be requested in each phase of the process of development of the NDRRS. 5. Structure of a strategy and the importance of monitoring mechanisms Montenegro Montenegro offers an example of a newly developed DRR strategy with a specific structure. Montenegro adopted its strategy for DRR in 2017 and thereby is one of the few countries in Europe adhering to Target E of SFDRR. Like the examples mentioned in the previous chapters, the strategy in Montenegro was also developed in a multi-stakeholder environment respecting the principle of inclusion of all relevant key stakeholders. The process also received the necessary support from the 39 Note that since November 2020, the National Disaster Risk Reduction Programme 2021–2025 is in place. 28 political establishment in the country, which facilitated its adoption. Thus, it is the first time in recent history that the country has a comprehensive guiding document focused on preventing new risks and reducing the existing ones. There are two distinctive elements specific to this strategy: its structure and the mechanism for monitoring of implementation. In the absence of a national risk assessment, the first half of the strategy presents an analysis of main hazards affecting the country and the organization of the rescue and protection system. This part of the strategy, though quite extensive, is informative and gives justification for the vision, mission, purpose, and focus of the strategy. The strategic part of the document compared to the previous one is significantly shorter. It starts with a SWOT analysis of the rescue and protection system in Montenegro, and based on that, 17 priorities have been identified for implementation between 2018 and 2023. The second distinctive element of the strategy is the level of attention given to implementation and, more importantly, monitoring of the implementation. Two-year implementation plans are being utilized to meet the objectives of the strategy. Each two-year action plan has specific activities that need to be implemented, and for each of them, there are budget estimates. The analysis of the first cycle covering 2018 and 2019 showed 46 percent implementation of activities in 2018 and 28 percent implementation of envisaged activities in 2019. Based on this analysis, the second two-year action plan covering 2020/2021 has been adopted by the government and is currently being implemented. Key takeaway: importance of the structure of the strategy to reflect the operational framework • If possible, avoid complicated structure of the strategy with many pages and instead aim at easily readable documents to facilitate monitoring and implementation. • The DRR strategy should not be confused with a strategy for organizational development or strategy dealing only with the emergency management/civil protection system. As suggested by SFDRR, the strategy should address the underlying factors of disaster risks and build resilience of the community. Usually, the underlying factors of disaster risks are not under the authority of emergency management/civil protection, and therefore DRR strategies are needed. • Following up on the implementation of the strategy is essential. This process should be transparent and based on scientific methods. 6. Structure of a strategy and implementation through a multi-stakeholder approach Serbia Although not a DRR strategy per se, the National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia is a good example of driving implementation through a multi-stakeholder approach. In 2014, Serbia experienced the most severe floods in the last 120 years, with fatalities and extensive material losses. The disaster was a milestone for the change in strategic thinking and, more importantly, for implementation of a set of priority DRM measures. In 2011, Serbia adopted the National Strategy for Protection and Rescue had been adopted, however, it was not supported with an Action plan which limited its implementation. After the devastating floods in 2014 in Serbia, the National Disaster Risk Management Program was developed to serve as a strategic document for building disaster resilience. The coordinating entity for disaster recovery and allocation of international aid is the Public Investment Management Office (PIMO) of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. It coordinates implementation of Serbia’s National Disaster Risk Management Program across all state (national, 29 regional, and local) authorities as well as preparation of the action plan that builds on the national program. Seen from outside, the observation is that Serbia is comfortable with the existence of two governmental agencies dealing with DRM for now: The Ministry of Interior’s Sector for Emergency Management and PIMO. Another important link in the actual implementation of the program is the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities. The existence of this network contributed toward a better understanding of flood risks, particularly river basins, as towns and municipalities are joining knowledge and resources to anticipate future floods and be better prepared to respond. The program is also a good example of measures implemented in partnership between the government and international organizations active in the country. By matching funding mechanisms offered by the EU, the World Bank/GFDRR, Japan, Switzerland, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the priorities set by the government, the program covered six general priority areas: institutional building; risk identification; risk reduction through structural and nonstructural measures; preparedness, response, and early warning systems; risk financing strategies; and resilience recovery. For example, all major infrastructure projects were supported with the assistance of the international community. In Serbia, since the floods in 2014, a major step was also the inclusion of towns and municipalities in DRR work. Under the initiative of the City of Kraljevo in 2016, 17 municipalities along the river basin of West Morava River joined together by setting up working protocols on disaster prevention and disaster preparedness. 40 Despite joint DRR plans and protocols, the network of 17 municipalities is also successful in engaging the local population in their activities which was also utilized during the COVID-19 response as well. The added value of this initiative was also recognized by the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities, which enabled the network to grow in other river basins as well (for example, Kolubara River). As a result, one of the priorities of the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities in Serbia today is supporting the towns and municipalities in creating such alliances and developing further their capacities. This has also been recognized with the amendments of the Law on Local Self-Government which is now allowing more opportunities for inter-municipal cooperation. 40 Serbian Department of Civil Protection. 2016. West Morava Basin (Слив Западне Мораве). Link. 30 Figure 10. Structure of the National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia Note: EWS = Early warning system. Key takeaway: The importance of disasters as opportunities for change • Serbia’s National Disaster Risk Management Program (Strategy) ensured local participation and inclusion of main stakeholders. • Serbia’s National Disaster Risk Management Program (Strategy) provides a clear vision of what the country wants to achieve and how the international community can participate in its implementation. • The upcoming NDRRS should support local initiatives and creation of alliances among municipalities that are sharing same risks. 7. Integration of DRM and CCA actions Austria Austria is offering a model for breaking the silo thinking when DRR and CCA are considered. Austria had a National Crisis and Disaster Risk Management Strategy as of 2009, covering the period until 2020. The strategy is based on the following basic principles: subsidiarity in action in times of crisis, voluntary participation in the system, civil-military cooperation, self-protection, cross-border cooperation, and respect of international relief fundamentals. With the strategy, Austria undertook a commitment to further enhance disaster prevention and risk reduction; enhance its early warning systems, preparedness for response, and immediate response after major events; and improve intersectoral coordination, inclusion of main stakeholders, and usage of innovation and technology. Although no reports on monitoring and implementation of the strategy were found, in 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recognized the results in Austria in applying the full spectrum of tools and techniques for DRM. For Romania, a relevant element of the Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change from 2012 is the links made with DRR. Although the document does not cover the National Crisis and Disaster Risk Management Strategy specifically, DRR is integrated all over the text of the strategy. Priorities for 31 action contain dedicated sections on protection from natural hazards and DRM. Envisaged activities for DRM include establishing a multisectoral communications platform for DRR, increasing the flexibility of financing and funding instruments in the field of DRM, improving risk communication in disaster prevention, applying a uniform methodology for risk analysis, conducting more research in DRM, and others. Leitner et al. (2020) 41 analyzes the relationship between DRR and CCA in Austria and suggests a new integrated model to be implemented in the country—the climate risk management model. This model builds on the knowledge created in the two sectors over the years in Austria as well as considers the lessons learned in Australia. More broadly, the model aims at an integrated approach when designing future strategies, arguing that having a single strategy will minimize mismatches and be more effective. At a more operational level, the model promotes the utilization of climate scenarios and socioeconomic changes in relation to developing disaster risk assessments and prevention planning. Considering the decentralized structure of DRM in Austria, both Leitner’s research and the Federal Ministry on Sustainability and Tourism (2018) 42 present results at the municipal/city level on the topic of synergies between DRR and CCA planning. Figure 11. Interfaces of the Austrian Adaptation Strategy with other strategies Source: Government of Austria. 2012. Austrian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. 41 Leitner, M., Babcicky, P., Schinko. T., Glas, N. 2020. The status of climate risk management in Austria. Assessing the governance landscape and proposing ways forward for comprehensively managing flood and drought risk, Climate Risk Management Journal, Vol.30. Link. 42 Government of Austria. 2018. “Flood risk management in Austria. Objectives – Measures - Good practices.” Federal Ministry of the Republic of Austria for Sustainability and Tourism. Link. 32 Switzerland Switzerland has several institutions with the mandate to prepare and implement policies in relation to DRR. The structure includes national/cantonal governments, municipalities, insurance companies, associations, private sector, and citizens. In addition to the abovementioned PLANAT there is a Steering Committee on Intervention in Natural Hazards (LAINAT) founded in 2008 in charge of forecasting and warning about natural disasters. The governance structure around DRR has recognized the relations with CCA and is proactive toward finding modalities to improve synergies. On that pathway for greater integration between the sectors, the ESPREssO 43 identifies the following challenges: institutional barriers (information flow toward the municipal level can be improved), funding arrangements (financing short-term versus long-term measures), political will/motivation, and stakeholder engagement. As a practical contribution to the debate, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has developed the Climate, Environment, and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration Guidance (CEDRIG). CEDRIG is a tool that helps development and humanitarian actors reflect whether existing and planned strategies, programs, and projects are at risk from climate change, environmental degradation, and natural hazards, as well as whether these interventions could further exacerbate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, environment degradation, or risks of natural hazards. 44 Although this tool is applied mainly in the developing world, it offers a profound understanding in Switzerland on the interconnectedness between DRR and CCA. Through a set of training modules tackling the operational and strategic levels, CEDRIG allows the users to systematically integrate climate change, environment, and DRR into an existing or planned strategy or program. Key takeaway: The importance of considering DRR and CCA jointly • Breaking silo thinking between DRR and CCA needs to be done at multiple levels, including strategic and importantly operational levels, to leverage these two agendas. • Tools like CEDRIG are designed to support greater integration of DRR and CCA at the strategic and operational levels. 8. Combination of structural and nonstructural measures Structural and nonstructural measures need to be considered as part of an overall risk management cycle, and increasingly, countries are aiming to achieve a balance between different types of measures. Drawing the “right” combination of measures needs to be informed by robust disaster risk and climate change information and consider specific spatial, socio-economic, environmental aspects. In practice, a degree of structural measures is inevitable. However, nonstructural measures are often an attractive choice as they can be more adaptive to climate change uncertainties and less dependent on specific design/performance thresholds set for hard infrastructure (such as designing a defense system for a 100-year flood). Note that this section also considers documents beyond national DRR strategies – this is the case of Austria and Italy. 43ESPREssO. 2021. See Link. 44CEDRIG (Climate, Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration Guidance). SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). Link. 33 Serbia The National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia provides a good example of combining structural and nonstructural measures. The momentum after the 2014 floods was used for implementing/introducing flood reduction infrastructure projects like building new embankments, torrent check dams, and accumulation lakes. Combined with them, nonstructural measures were also included in the program, such as procurement of rescue equipment, development of flood risk maps by river basins, and enhancement of the early warning system. New legislation is also part of this set of nonstructural measures and in that context adopted the Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management, Law on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Law on National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Law on Meteorological and Hydrological Activities, Law on Reconstruction Following Natural and Other Hazards, Law on Climate Change and amended the Law on voluntary fire service. As of May 2019, Serbia also has a new national risk assessment. The national risk assessment recognizes the existence of 11 major hazards for which 27 risk scenarios have been produced, out of which 10 scenarios have been evaluated as unacceptable. It will be interesting to observe in the future if the national risk assessment is used for reducing disaster risks and developmental purposes or only for emergency preparedness. Combining a range of measures, Serbia shows that disasters can be opportunities for positive change in the society. With proper planning, commitment from the political elites, and the support from the international community, Serbia has transformed its national DRM system by investing in both structural and nonstructural measures. While the system in Serbia has its challenges, as evident from the ongoing pandemic, and is far from being perfect, the positive change produced with the National Disaster Risk Management Program remains evident. The results from the National Disaster Risk Management Program and the newly adopted national risk assessment should serve as the basis for the upcoming DRR strategy in Serbia. Key takeaway: importance of a balanced approach • Combining structural and nonstructural measures can help drive the reform agenda and contribute to the transformation of DRM systems to become more proactive and risk informed. Austria DRM investments in Austria are divided between structural and nonstructural measures. Structural measures have long constituted a core of the country’s disaster risk prevention measures to protect existing settlement areas and make up most of Austria’s DRR investment. Structural measures seek to reduce disaster impacts through physical constructions (for example, dikes and dams, retention walls, avalanche barriers, rockfall nets, or slope stabilization measures). 45 Often co-financed by direct beneficiaries such as municipalities, structural measures are significantly more expensive and frequently focus on forestry measures (for example, maintaining forests at high altitudes). Large-scale disasters in recent years have brought to light some of the challenges of Austria’s disaster risk prevention and mitigation system. For instance, in the aftermath of recent disastrous events, a large share of damage to buildings was found in previously known hazard-prone areas. Protective infrastructures (such as dikes) could not contain the impacts of floods because their initially conceived 45 OECD. 2017a. Reviews of Risk Management Policies. Boosting Disaster Prevention through Innovative Risk Governance. Insights from Austria, France, and Switzerland. 34 level of protection was too low or because they were potentially insufficiently maintained. Going forward, the demand for structural protective infrastructure seems to exceed supply that can be co- financed by the central government. This makes prioritization crucial if investments are to remain efficient and equitable. Furthermore, there is a large stock of protective infrastructure that needs to be maintained and for which additional investments also exceed the available budget and technical capacities of municipalities that are responsible for this. Nonstructural measures, with comparatively lower direct costs, encompass hazard zone mapping, risk mapping, spatial planning, building code enforcement, risk communication measures, or business continuity planning. Nonstructural measures have become an increased focus in recent years, especially following several consecutive large-scale floods that highlighted the limits of structural measures given that a large share of Austria’s building stock is presently located in at-risk areas. Improving the integration of hazard zoning in land use decisions may therefore yield a high return in terms of reducing exposure to risks. Physical measures are used on an emergency basis and may consist of mobile protection measures used in the event of floods or automatic weather stations to provide early warning information. 46 The importance of nonstructural measures has been recognized and highlighted in Austria’s National Flood Risk Management Plan, where two of the four main goals have been exclusively dedicated to the reduction of new risks through nonstructural measures and the reinforcement of risk and hazard awareness among citizens to counter the rapid decline in awareness as time passes after a disaster event. Public awareness and outreach activities are a key non-structural measure highlighted in several strategic documents, including Austria’s NDRRS and other documents addressing specific hazards, such as its National Flood Risk Management Plan. Austria’s NDRRS foresees measures to intensify cross-departmental and cross-organizational trainings for civil protection staff, dedicating an entire module to ways to handle risk communication within the strategy’s framework and at a high level of quality. The Strategy also notes the importance of expanding, to the extent possible, dialogue with key stakeholders such as owners and operators of critical infrastructures in order to involve them in all measures of prevention, prevention, response, and recovery. Concurrently, Austria’s NDRRS notes that outreach and citizen engagement activities carried out by the Austrian Civil Protection Agency such as through safety information centers, city safety tours, the annual test alarm, and information materials must be continued and intensified, when possible 47. The National Flood Risk Management Plan points out how flood risks are to be reduced significantly by means of an integrated approach consisting of structural and non-structural measures. To this end, raising awareness is highlighted as an area of importance together with other measures such as spatial planning, building regulations, and emergency management. More specifically, raising awareness of the need to better understand flood risk management and encouraging the entire society to contribute to risk reduction is considered crucial in the context of an overload of floods and failures of various structural measures. Furthermore, activities to raise and increase awareness should be constant and informed by experience with similar actions. The Austrian National Flood Risk Management Plan describes how the past, has shown that awareness among the society decreases rapidly after an event, even among those directly affected, and reaches its former, low level after a maximum of 10 years. Targeted 46 OECD. 2017a. 47 Austrian Government. National Crisis and Disaster Protection Management (SKKM). 2009. “SKKM Strategy” 35 measures in the areas of information, consulting, participation, and education help to raise flood risk awareness to a high level and maintain it. Figure 12. Raising awareness activities in the Austrian National Flood Risk Management Plan Source: Austrian National Flood Risk Management Plan. Italy Italy is also a country that has been promoting the use of non-structural measures. The Italian Civil Protection system has made major efforts to integrate soft measures (production of risk data, communication and public awareness, other preparedness measures) with dedicated budget lines alongside structural measures. In 2003, the Laboratories University Network of seismic engineering (ReLUIS) 48 was established, as a platform for cooperation between the government, research institutions, and the private sector, to promote the development of applied science in support of public policy design and implementation. The Italian Civil Protection commissions RedLUIS in the development of research according to its policy and operational needs. Italy has also tried to create incentives for safer reconstruction following a disaster. One such example is the creation of the National Plan for Seismic Risk Prevention, developed in 2009 after the 48 http://www.reluis.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=53&lang=en. 36 Abruzzo earthquake. 49 With the Plan, the government allocated EUR 965 million to be used to reduce the seismic and vulnerability of public and private buildings. An additional incentive was introduced in 2013 with the Sisma Bonus, specific tax deduction for works carried out to make earthquake proof buildings located in high seismic zones. According to Paleari, the tax incentive led to an increase of anti-seismic risk interventions from EUR 13.4 billion in 2011 to EUR 25.7 billion in 2016. In 2017, new legislation was passed supporting purchasing houses in earthquake high risk zones which were demolished and reconstructed according to the standards for seismic building. Similar efforts are being planned/implemented with the National Program for reducing hydrogeological risks. The National Program is based on the various River Basins Hydrogeological Management Plans and envisages EUR 9.9 billion budget for the period 2015-2023. Key takeaways: value of nonstructural measures for successful implementation of structural ones • Public awareness and outreach activities are critical non-structural measures to be included in the NDRRS and corresponding action plans. To support the adoption of positive behaviors, communication and knowledge materials need to be developed focusing on the different target audiences. Public awareness and outreach require dedicated funding and continuity. They need to be monitored to demonstrate how effective they are in engaging key stakeholders, including citizens, and, thus, in contributing to the successful implementation of the NDRRS. • Nonstructural measures can support and directly contribute to the implementation of structural measures, for example, through generation of risk science or innovative approaches, such as using tax deductions as incentives for specific risk prevention and mitigation measures. 9. Using strategy as a dissemination and outreach tool New Zealand New Zealand’s 10-year National Disaster Resilience Strategy 50 is also a good example of clear communication and disseminating information to various target groups to increase resilience across society. The strategy has a well-defined vision “to strengthen the resilience of the nation by managing risks, being ready to respond to and recover from emergencies, and by empowering and supporting individuals, organizations, and communities to act for themselves and others, for the safety and wellbeing of all” (National Disaster Resilience Strategy, 2019). It has a dedicated section in which it details the priorities, high-level objectives, and success measures and translates them into a range of recommended actions for different audiences: individuals and families/whānau, businesses and organizations, communities and hapū, cities and districts, and government and national organizations. 49 European Commission. 2014 – 2020. Country Data for: Italy. European Structural and Investment Funds. Link. 50 Government of New Zealand. 2019. National Disaster Resilience Strategy. Link. 37 Figure 13. New Zealand's National Disaster Resilience Strategy 2019 (Customized messages for target groups) Source: New Zealand's National Disaster Resilience Strategy 2019. Link. The strategy is a lean document with an appealing layout making it easily accessible to a wide audience with multiple graphics (Figure 10). The strategy seeks to enable and empower communities everywhere to take action to look after themselves and others in times of crisis. This is communicated through clear language, and easy-to-understand concepts—such as promoting an ‘all hazards-all-risks’ approach that integrates across the ‘4R’s’ of Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery. In addition, resources are available online at www.civildefence.govt.nz, including factsheets to support specific groups in their resilience endeavors. These include pointers on finding more information and support and how one can participate in building the nation’s resilience to disasters. 38 Figure 14. New Zealand National Disaster Resilience Strategy: Example of an appealing layout Source: Government of New Zealand. 2019. National Disaster Resilience Strategy Australia Australia’s National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2018 51), which fulfills the role of an NDRRS, is also a good example of using the strategy as a communication tool to connect to wider segments of society. The framework sets out three key goals by 2030 of (a) taking action to reduce existing disaster risk, (b) minimizing the creation of future disaster risk through decisions taken across all sectors, and (c) equipping decision-makers with the capabilities and information they need to reduce disaster risk and manage residual risk. In addition to a national-level vision, the Australian strategy includes a more granular vision, such as what a resilient community in a town or neighborhood looks like—this again helps the general public better understand the main concepts and support the implementation of such a strategy. Similar to the case of New Zealand, the strategy is a lean document with an appealing layout. There are several charts explaining the different aspects that the framework considers and how it links to broader frameworks, including SFDRR. In addition to the framework, Australia has a broad range of tools to find information about the impact of various hazards in the country. Case in the point is the visual representation of disaster resilience available through Australia’s interactive platform, ‘The Disaster Mapper’. 52 This map showcases the vast natural hazards that Australia and its surrounding states have experienced since 1869. The interactive map contains event information on tsunamis, earthquakes, landslides, flood, cyclone, bushfires, and biosecurity, criminal, and industrial disasters and events. 51 Government of Australia. 2018. National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. Link. 52 AIDR (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience). Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub. Link. 39 Figure 15. Australia National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework: Example of an appealing layout Source: Government of Australia. 2018. National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. Key takeaway: value of DRR strategies as communications/awareness tools • Clear language, appealing layout with graphics, and information directly relevant to wider audience can help the strategy to serve as a communication and awareness-raising tool. • Having a package of accessible information online in the form of briefs or interactive maps and so on linked to the strategy can help communicate the findings, expected results, and dissemination of knowledge to different segments of society. 40 CHAPTER 3. KEY INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROMANIA While there is no single model and no ‘perfect’ example of a NDRRS, there are good practices that can inform Romania’s efforts in this regard. In that context, the report suggests the following aspects Romania to consider. Figure 12 includes a proposed process for Romanian authorities to consider. Some of the main challenges encountered by national DRR strategies reviewed are the following: (a) limited focus on specific hazards rather than a comprehensive way, and connection with the climate change agenda; (b) lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities for implementation; (c) limited active role with specific commitment beyond institutional stakeholders – i.e., private sector, academic and CSOs, (d) lacking action plan with a predictable budget, and monitoring framework; (e) lacking highest-level commitment for DRM agenda which inhibits implementation; and (f) insufficient communication/dissemination of the strategy. The following elements are considered critical for the successful development and implementation of a national DRR strategy, falling under broad groups of (a) enabling environment, stakeholder engagement and consultations, (b) financing and monitoring, and (c) communications and outreach. A successful strategy needs a strong enabling environment Institutional leadership and commitment are critical to develop and implement future NDRRS. The strategy needs to be linked to an entity/coordination body with a mandate to coordinate/oversee the preparation and the implementation of the strategy across other national and sub-national institutions and other stakeholders. Highest-level commitment can help secure institutional support throughout the whole process. A successful strategy needs engaged stakeholders Stakeholder engagement process is essential to determine the vision and the scope/activities of the future NDRRS and assure commitment to the agreed results. By capitalizing on the recent achievements with the RO-RISK and the DRM Plan, the GIES can lead the consultation/engagement process, ensuring the necessary support from the wider professional and nonprofessional community for the steps that will follow. As shown, countries like Sweden, New Zealand, and Australia have all benefited by investing significant efforts in this element when drafting their DRR strategies. The outcomes from the consultation process will also inform the actual structure of the NDRRS to reflect the real needs of Romanian society. Beyond institutional and social resilience, NDRRS is also an opportunity to strengthen the relationship with and understanding for the private sector and CSO community. The engagement with CSOs, business committee should aim to go beyond “consultative role” but focus on also on agreeing on specific commitments from these groups closely linked to their roles and interests. A successful strategy can function as a vehicle for coordination The strategy development process should consider leveraging or continuing existing coordination mechanisms and can benefit from international peer review/assessments. The review of international examples shows that if the National Platform for DRR is established as a forum that unites policymakers, academia, and practitioners, it can be quite an effective mechanism for strategic planning. Croatia, Switzerland, and North Macedonia offer valuable lessons in this regard. 41 International experience shows that there is value in ensuring the continuation of networks and working groups included in the process of drafting the NDRRS by assigning them clear roles and responsibilities. As in the case of Germany, it is not enough to only form a working group and expect it to deliver results. The working group and its members need to be motivated constantly and their capacities developed continuously to produce results. A successful strategy learns from others There is a breath of relevant international and national good practice or lessons learned to consider. Beyond several examples of national DRR strategies and reach out to specific countries for peer-to- peer information-sharing, there are also opportunities to review the process of development of national strategies, such as in this case the NSRRS or others. Beyond this, there are also available mechanisms for outside support when drafting the NDRRS. These include the assessment tool offered by UNDRR and the peer review program of the UCPM. Bulgaria is, for example, a country that used such mechanisms. A successful strategy needs to be linked to other strategies and investments In the process of drafting the NDRRS, synergies with other sectors like CCA and sustainable development need to be built. Achieving the goals of NDRRS needs to be linked to other supranational/national/local-level efforts related to sustainability and climate change. Austria is a good example that DRR and CCA can be integrated at the strategic level. Beyond CCA, the strategy needs to bring together actions across the different areas of DRM. These may include efforts of other line ministries that relate to different aspects of achieving SFDRR targets, including understanding risk, risk reduction, emergency preparedness and response, early warning, public awareness building, and financial protection, etc. A successful strategy needs to consider a range of activities and investments Fifth, combining structural and nonstructural measures can help drive the reform agenda and contribute to the transformation of DRM systems to become more proactive and risk informed. The example of Serbia shows that articulating a balanced set of measures can facilitate the achievements of both engineered (such as large infrastructure) investments as well as drive reform agenda or building up of risk information for future interventions, promoting reforms, public awareness, etc. Serbia is also a good example of having a strategy that engages both national and international organizations in the implementation of different measures. A successful strategy needs financing The Government needs to allocate funds for the development and implementation of the NDRRS. The NDRRS’s vision, targets, time frames, and deliverables need to be supported by budget allocations. There are opportunities to link NDRRS financing also with funds allocated to sustainable/climate change investments from national resources and funds from the European Commission. The NDRRS could also set public spending targets, which could help promote increased expenditure in DRM. A successful strategy needs to be monitored and regularly assessed The strategy needs to have robust monitoring arrangements to support implementation, review and generating of lessons learned. This is needed to avoid creating the NDRRS as a declaration with good 42 intentions but with limited chances for implementation. Progress monitoring and regular reviews/updates are critical for sustaining efforts prioritized in such a strategy, which is the greatest challenge for countries. Specific targets need to be set within the respective parts of the strategy, and these need to be communicated to the stakeholders, so that the implementation of different strategies can reinforce each other. The National Disaster Risk Management Program in Serbia offers a good example of this element. From examples reviewed, most strategies are complemented with an implementation plan. The period covered by these plans varies from one year to the entire time frame covered by the strategy. There are opportunities to learn from Romania’s NSRRS, which will include specific targets and indicators and the investment program that is being developed by MPDWA. A successful strategy can become a tool for outreach and public awareness Strategies can serve as communications and awareness tools to reach a wider audience. Clear language, appealing layout with graphics, and information directly relevant to wider audience can help the strategy serve as a communication and awareness-raising tool. Moreover, having a package of accessible information online in the form of briefs or interactive maps and so on linked to the strategy can help communicate the findings, expected results, and dissemination of knowledge to different segments of society. Examples of well-designed and appealing strategic documents include New Zealand and Australia. To achieve this, such strategy needs to have robust participatory and communications aspects integrated into the design. Budget needs to be allocated to design clear, attractive, multidisciplinary, multimedia, audience-tailored messages and a broader communication/outreach strategy that consider different audiences, their needs/interests, and their role in the implementation of the strategy. There should also be regular communication to promote adequate behavioral patterns (for example, in situations following disasters). Communications impact assessment tools can help ensure the management of various dissemination methods/products, which can then be adjusted accordingly. Figure 16. Proposed process for the development of a national DRR strategy 43 ANNEXES Annex 1. Case Study Details Eleven countries, comprising EU MS (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, and Sweden), European countries (Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Switzerland), and non-European countries (Australia and New Zealand), were analyzed. Not all 11 countries have the NDRRS, as some of them are in the process of developing it. For those countries, other elements were considered which are relevant for strategic planning and implementation. For each country analyzed in this Annex, areas of specific interest for Romania were identified. While the details are shown below, the summary of those specific areas for Romania are as follows: • Use academia when conducting prior consultation to identify the scope, vision, and objectives of the NDRRS. Investing in consultations prior to the strategy is not wasted time. • Ensure transparency of the process of drafting the NDRRS by ensuring vertical and horizontal coordination and inclusion of relevant factors. Appropriate communication strategy needs to follow the entire process of drafting the NDRRS, to inform the public and to ensure their support. • Consider the role of the National Platform for DRR as a governance tool for the process of drafting the NDRRS. Simple but effective governance structures with clear roles and responsibilities can make a difference. • Use the tools offered by the UCPM and UNDRR for peer review/assessment of the NDRRS no matter if the strategy is in draft version or completed. • Use the NDRRS to create links with the CCA sector and others (sustainable development, critical infrastructure protection, etc.). • Consider the proper balance between structural and non-structural DRR measures when drafting strategy. • The purpose of the strategy is its implementation. Proper mechanisms for tracking results, monitoring, and evaluation need to be established. EU MS Sweden • Strategy vision. The vision of Sweden’s National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience will be based on the outcomes from the research 53 done by MSB in 2018. • How was it developed? Sweden does not currently have a National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience. To help with the elaboration of a potential future strategy, MSB commissioned, in 2018, Lund University to draft a study 54 exploring if, and how, a National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience could be developed and implemented in Sweden. The university’s research methods for the study included document reviews, interviews, group discussions, and participatory observation aimed at systematizing current knowledge and experiences of key stakeholders at the international, national, regional, and local levels. The results of the study show that there is a clear need and vast support for the development of a 53 In 2018, MSB commissioned Lund University to explore if, and how, a national strategy for disaster risk reduction and resilience could be developed and implemented in Sweden. 54 Government of Sweden. 2019a. RESEARCH/STUDY - Developing a National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in Sweden. Recommendations for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework Global Target E. MSB (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency). 44 National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in Sweden to improve current approaches, address shortfalls and build on the existing strengths. • Key aspects considered: (a) fulfilling international commitments toward SFDRR and preserving the image of a DRR leader in the developing world; (b) increasing synergies and effectiveness and avoiding duplication (in both administration/bureaucracy and funds); (c) mainstreaming DRR in other sectors, mostly sustainable development and climate change; and (d) better understanding the links between DRR, climate change, and sustainable development. • Implementation/coordination. In the absence of an NDRRS, the operationalization of DRM priorities is guided by Sweden’s National Risk and Capability Analysis (2019) 55 and the National Climate Change Strategy (2018). 56 The 2019 National Risk and Capability Assessment provides a good overview of DRM priorities and actions to be taken by each stakeholder with a DRM responsibility. However, the 2018 research shows that the Sendai Framework is currently inadequately addressed in Sweden. Long-term, multisector, and all risk plans and commitments are missing, together with an overarching and long-term approach for building resilience across the society and for setting priorities, addressing gaps, and creating synergies for DRR. • Funds allocated. The strategy aims to include concrete measures and associated budgeting for the strategy to become useful and effective for the Swedish society. • Challenges/lessons learned. As per the 2018 research, there are important shortfalls in, and fragmentations of, current DRR work that reduce societal resilience, safety, and security in Sweden. Main challenges refer to (a) risk awareness; (b) limited and fragmented DRR approach; (c) work that is executed in silos; (d) unclear responsibilities, mandates, and tasks; (e) lack of national support for DRR and resilience building; and (f) financial losses due to uncoordinated or duplicate efforts. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. Using academia in identifying the scope of the future NDRRS. Germany • Strategy vision. Germany is currently in the process of developing an NDRRS. • How was it developed? The new strategy will build on previous efforts to identify and assess risks and propose ways to address them at the national, federal state, and municipality levels, such as through its National Risk Assessment, National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (2009) 57, and Protecting Critical Infrastructure Guidance Tool (2020) 58. Germany’s National Risk Assessment benefits from substantial exposure at the highest level of government. According to an OECD analysis 59 of national risk assessments in several countries, including Germany, since 2012, main risk analyses carried out by Germany focused on floods (2012, the most recent from 2019) 60, extraordinary epidemics (2012), winter storms (2013), storm surge 55 Government of Sweden. 2019b. National Risk and Capability Assessment (Partial Document Publicly Disclosed). MSB (Swedish Civil Contingency Agencies). Link. 56 Government of Sweden. 2018. National Strategy for Climate Change. Link. 57 Government of Germany. 2009. National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP Strategy). BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. 58 Government of Germany. 2020a. Protecting Critical Infrastructures: A Seven Step Identification Process. Guidance Tool for Use in Civil Protection. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. 59 OECD. 2018. National Risk Assessments: A Cross Country Perspective. Germany. 60 Government of Germany. 2019. Assessing Vulnerability to Flood Events at a Community Level. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. 45 (2014), release of radioactive substances from a nuclear power plant (2015), release of chemical substances (2018/2019), and vulnerability to heatwaves and heavy rainfall at a community level (2019) 61. Previously, during 2004–2005, each federal state conducted a first uniform estimation of hazards (technical, human-made, and natural) faced by the civil population in 2004–2005. Sixteen hazard estimations were combined with information on national-level hazards (such as epidemics, failure of national infrastructure) to form the first National Joint Hazard Estimation in 2006. Subsequently, the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) developed a risk analysis methodology for civil protection that could be conducted in a consistent fashion at all administrative levels. The methodology is constantly reviewed, updated, and improved in line with new developments. BBK has also developed guidelines for the implementation of the methodology considering the particular needs of different administration levels. • Key aspects considered. BBK has identified 18 hazardous events with potentially national significance and used the methodology it has proposed to conduct its own analysis of selected risk scenarios. The results of these analyses have been reported to the Federal Parliament. • Implementation/coordination. In the absence of a national strategy, the federal government, in cooperation with the federal state, compiles a nationwide risk analysis for civil protection, in accordance with the 2009 Federal Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance Act. At the federal government level, risk analysis is carried out by (a) a Steering Committee of representatives from federal ministries, coordinated by the Ministry of the Interior, which is charged with decisions on the overall methodological framework for risk analysis at the federal level (damage parameters, classification+), selection of hazards to be assessed, the tasking of subordinate groups, and evaluation of their results; (b) a Working Committee of representatives from federal agencies chaired by BBK, which is charged with developing scenarios for specific hazards, conducting risk analyses, and preparing reports for the Steering Committee, including an annual report to the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag); and (c) hazard-specific subgroups of subject matter experts, led by specialized lead agencies and BBK, which carry out the risk analysis for these scenarios. BBK participates directly in the work of the hazard working groups and the Steering/Working Committee, among others, to control for bias in their deliberations. 62 • Funds allocated. The NDRRS is in process, and there is no consolidated information on funds allocations. • Challenges/lessons learned. Several key lessons learned from Germany are related to how to best carry out and leverage risk scenarios and assessments. Although BBK has not completed enough scenario analyses to describe a comprehensive ‘risk profile’ for Germany, the first attempts to analyze risk scenarios have helped it identify key factors driving societal vulnerability in the future: demographic changes and, in particular, the uneven distribution of elderly citizens coupled with an increasing trend of urbanization, with young people, in particular, leaving rural communities for jobs in cities. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. Two key good practices, in particular, are to be considered from Germany’s experience: (a) consulting with other countries on international key terminology to be used and how to respect international standards and (b) ensuring transparency and accountability across the entire process of assessing and managing risks. In 61 Government of Germany 2019. 62 OECD 2018. 46 developing the risk analysis methodology, BBK considered existing international standards (ISO31000 and ISO 31010) and consulted a number of other nations, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Norway, and Sweden. Collaboration between the different levels of government and agencies is central to the risk analysis process. For example, the analysis of the risk posed by severe winter storms was conducted in a working group led by the German Weather Service, and over 20 federal agencies were involved. Furthermore, BBK ensures that results of the work on the national risk assessment scenarios is continuously communicated to the federal states during the analysis phase to ensure transparency between national and federal governments. Transparency and accountability in front of lawmakers are ensured through an annual report on in-depth risk analyses for a wide range of scenarios that are submitted annually to the Federal Parliament since 2010. Similarly, BBK transparently communicates about the capacity of civil protection and informs on results achieved through dedicated communication materials. 63 Croatia • Strategy vision. In the absence of an NDRRS, this report analyzes Croatia through its National Platform for DRR. • How was it developed? The National Platform for DRR was established in 2009 as an advisory body to the government. Until 2016, it served as a gathering point for all relevant stakeholders in the country on DRR issues. By organizing annual events, professional and scientific reports were produced directed toward systemic changes in DRR. By involving the President of the country in the first years of existence, the platform ensured political visibility as well, enabling the network to grow. In 2016, the platform evolved into a more proactive mechanism exposing the already established network of organizations and experts to the process of designing the national risk assessment. The structure of the platform envisages the existence of various working groups. Each working group has a coordinator for each risk in each line ministry; each coordinator is responsible for further discussions and partnerships with relevant stakeholders (for example, public institutions, academia, and practitioners). With the recent earthquakes in Zagreb and Petrinja in 2020, the members of the platform played important roles in assessing, advising, and coordinating. • Key aspects considered. The platform is an active body offering structure that is involved in developing strategic risk reduction documents as well as implementing them. The platform cooperates with the scientific community in all its activities and connects the scientific community and the decision-makers as well as the experts and high-level officials. Therefore, the platform ensures both horizontal and vertical cooperation in reducing risks and is considered an important tool and mechanism to coordinate DRR activities in Croatia. • Implementation/coordination. The development of the NDRRS is coordinated by the Ministry of Interior’s Civil Protection Department. • Funds allocated. Activities of the platform are budgeted by the Ministry of Interior’s Civil Protection Department. Funding for DRM activities is allocated through the Ministry of Finance and project assistance through utilization of EU funds. 63Government of Germany. 2020b. Services for Modern Civil Protection. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. 47 • Challenges/lessons learned. Although considered a useful mechanism for risk governance, the platform is not recognized by the Civil Protection Act. It was established in 2009 as a temporary body with the decision of the Croatian government. According to the national legislation, such temporary bodies can last for a maximum of one year. Although considered an issue of a legal nature and does not affect the results so far achieved, the platform needs to be integrated into the system properly. The recent survey that was conducted 64 with the members of the platform shows that over 90 percent of its members think that each ministry needs to have a permanent representative in the platform; 46.7 percent believe in the need for the platform to provide a stronger coordination mechanism while 53.3 percent believe that sectorial platforms should also be organized as part of the mechanism. These findings give valuable inputs for further development of the platform in Croatia. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. The role of the National Platform for DRR as a risk governance tool and tool for strategic thinking in Romania should be considered. Functional analysis of the existing platform in Romania is recommended to identify areas of improvement for greater effectiveness of the national platform. Austria • Strategy vision. Austria’s National Crisis and Disaster Management Strategy for 2009–2020 65 commits to further enhancing disaster prevention and risk reduction, as well as its early warning systems, immediate response measures after major events, intersectoral coordination and engagement with main stakeholders, and usage of innovation and technology. Austria also has local DRR strategies adopted and implemented by 20 percent of local governments/municipalities in the country. These were supposed to be aligned to the NDRRS in 2019 66 after the strategy was developed in 2018. • How was it developed? Austria’s NDRRS is complemented by the SKKM 67 Strategy, which also incorporates DRR elements. 68 Austria also has a National Risk and Threat Assessment titled ‘NaTRAn’. In addition, Austria conducted a financial analysis of the short- and long-term budgetary impacts caused by natural disasters. Austria’s flood risk management plan 69 provides crucial information about the country's context and potential socioeconomic impacts of floods, which are the country’s most costly natural hazards because of its 100,000 km of rivers, creeks, and about 9,000 lakes. To fulfill its vision of becoming a climate-neutral country by 2050, Austria bases its efforts on its National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (2011 70) and the Long-term Strategy for 2050 (2019 71) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and the Council on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. 64 Holcinger, N., and Z. Simac. 2021. “Importance of National Platforms in Disaster Risk Governance.” Proceedings from the 1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 22-24 March 2021, Zagreb. 141–144. Link. 65 Government of Austria. Staatliches Krisen - Und Katastrophenschutzmanagement (SSKM). “Strategy 2020.” 66 United Nations. 2017. Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review - Report - Austria. Link. 67 Government of Austria. National Crisis and Disaster Management (SKKM). Civil Protection in Austria. Federal Ministry of Interior. Link. 68 United Nations. 2017. 69 Government of Austria. 2018. Link. 70 Government of Austria. 2011. National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. Link. 71 Government of Austria. 2019. 2019. Long-Term Strategy 2050 – Austria Period through to 2050 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action as per Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 35 in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 19 of the Paris Agreement. Federal Ministry of the Republic of Austria for Sustainability and Tourism. UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Link. 48 • Key aspects considered. Risk assessments are carried out at all governmental levels. 72 The Austrian national risk assessment currently comprises 18 risk scenarios, 11 of which are due to natural hazards and 7 due to human-made hazards. All selected scenarios are of national relevance, whereas events that have to be managed within the responsibility of the federal states are not subject to the national risk assessment. Pandemics and heat waves are particularly relevant as these scenarios potentially lead to high human losses and major health problems. Furthermore, climate change and the interruption of the electric power supply, floods, and nuclear power plant accidents are also areas of particular importance. • Implementation/coordination. Subnational governments, together with critical infrastructure providers, the private sector, academia, volunteers, and local interest groups (in the form of water boards), play a crucial role in managing disaster preparedness and responses to disasters. Among citizens, there is a long established, and strong volunteer force that can be mobilized during disasters and a significant willingness to donate to help victims in the aftermath of a disaster. About 50 percent of the Austrian population engages in voluntary activities, while key DRM actors such as rescue organizations and fire services are built with and greatly dependent on volunteers. 73 Strong, internationally renowned technical expertise, coupled with widespread local historical knowledge about prevailing hazards, has informed the development of advanced and detailed hazard information systems. • Funds allocated. Austria spends around EUR 400 million annually on disaster prevention from the budgets of federal state provinces and municipalities. On average, EUR 250 million is spent annually on prevention and mitigation measures against floods and Alpine hazards at the federal level. 74 The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) are accessed the most for DRM investments. • Challenges/lessons learned. Austria has recognized additional factors that could potentially drive its future and longer-term vulnerability to disasters. For example, significant demographic changes may have an immediate impact on its DRM capacities, such as its aging population structure or diminishing population in some mountainous areas. These factors could reduce the availability of volunteers that have become an essential part of Austria’s emergency response capacity. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. Austria is successful in many areas of DRM, particularly in ensuring collaboration across many stakeholders in the society and communicating about existing or potential risks to both relevant authorities and the general public. Citizens are engaged heavily at the local and national levels, including in planning activities and in the elaboration of local hazard maps and risk management plans, as well as through participation in local and regional forums. Comprehensive information about hazards and risks is made available to the general public mainly on the internet, and national information portals are available for natural hazards, radiation protection, and other risks. The Austrian Civil Protection Association, a nongovernmental organization (NGO), is a key partner in ensuring collaboration among various stakeholders and informing about self-protection and adequate behavior in emergency situations. To warn the population, the Ministry of the Interior and the federal states installed a national warning system consisting of more than 8,000 sirens that can be triggered nationwide or regionally. The Austrian 72 European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). 2019. Austria: Overview of the National Disaster Management System. Link. 73 GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2016. Understanding Risk - Proceedings from UR Austria. BMI (Federal Ministry of Interior of Austria). Link. 74 OECD 2017a. 49 National Weather Service operates a warning system for extreme weather conditions, which is used to warn the authorities and response organizations, but it is also available to the media and the public on the internet. Bulgaria • Strategy vision. The vision of the NDRRS is aimed at providing a sustainable and safer living environment for the population in Bulgaria. It encourages active involvement of the public, private, and scientific sectors together with civil society organizations and the citizens. In that context, the NDRRS is foreseen as a tool to achieve sustainable development, and to achieve that, DRM must be considered, executed properly, and integrated into the different sectors and should go hand in hand with climate change adaption efforts. • How was it developed? The basis for the strategy lies with the Disaster Protection Act. The strategy in its introductory part focuses on the losses and damages caused by disasters and the changes that are expected to happen with global warming. In that context, the strategy inclines toward systemic efforts to prevent future risks and reduce the residual risks. The Strategy also includes a SWOT analysis of the national protection and rescue system and with that is setting the priorities for action: understanding disaster risk, strengthening institutional capacities for DRM, investing in DRR, introducing policies for financial DRM, enhancing disaster preparedness, and implementing ‘build back better’ when recovering. Thus, the strategy relies on the National Program for DRR as an operational document with specific objectives, activities, and responsible institutions for implementation. • Key aspects considered. At the national level, the Council of Ministers determines the policy for disaster protection and is assisted by the Disaster Risk Reduction Council, which acts as the National Platform for DRR. The council includes relevant ministries, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, universities, the municipalities association, the Bulgarian Red Cross, and other organizations working on DRR. At the regional level, governors for each region coordinate DRM and are assisted by Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Councils. Civil protection activities are carried out by mayors jointly with Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Councils at the municipal level. The Directorate General Fire Safety and Civil Protection under the Ministry of Interior is the national specialized structure for fire safety, rescue, and disaster protection pursuant to the Disaster Protection Act. The NDRRS 2018–2030, adopted in April 2018 by the Council of Ministers, provides the overarching vision and principles, expected outcomes, and strategic goals, as well as priority areas measures. • Implementation/coordination. The Directorate General Fire Safety and Civil Protection has developed guidelines for the development and implementation of district and municipal DRR programs aimed at guiding a unified approach at the local level. In that context, a crucial role is played by the National Association for Municipalities, a member of Bulgaria’s National Platform for DRR, and with whom DRR programs and plans are being implemented. • Funds allocated. DRM activities are financed through state and municipal budgets as well as from funds and grants from the EU and international organizations. Bulgaria’s prevention and preparedness program has financial limits that do not allow projects to be funded with more than EUR 2 million each. Hence, EU funds are a crucial financial resource, particularly for DRM needs. EU funds are the preferred instruments for financing DRM activities in Bulgaria because they provide flexibility that the DG ECHO Track 1 Fund currently lacks. Other benefits include operational costs covered to a large extent or fully and additional flexibility in addressing 50 shortcomings that may arise throughout implementation. The authorities are currently discussing with the EC the next Operational Program ‘Environment’ for 2021–2027. Furthermore, Bulgaria’s Operational Program ‘Regions in Growth’ proved useful as over 20 buildings for civil protection services have been renovated and benefited from energy efficiency improvements. The initiative of DG ECHO concerning Track 1 is regarded as important and valuable. However, Bulgaria decided not to apply it thus far mainly due to several constraints it has identified, including human and technical capacity constraints and co-financing rate, which triggers complicated internal procedures. • Challenges/lessons learned. As recommended with the UNDRR assessment in 2020, the NDRRS in Bulgaria could benefit more if the National Program for DRR or the national plans contain precise timelines of activities and allocated financial resources. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. Utilizing the peer review/assessment tools offered by the EC and UNDRR when drafting the NDRRS. Precise structure of objectives, indicators, activities, and budgetary allocations facilitates easier implementation and monitoring of results. European Countries: North Macedonia • Strategy vision. In the absence of an NDRRS, this report analyses North Macedonia through its National Platform for DRR. • How was it developed? Committed to the implementation of HFA 2005–2015, the government adopted the first version of the National Platform for DRR in 2009. The leading institution in development of the first edition of the platform was the Crisis Management Center through a consultation process including all main stakeholders in society (ministries, governmental agencies, municipalities, public enterprises, and services, NGOs, academic institutions, universities, research centers, and laboratories as well as the business community and religious communities). The process included signing official memorandums for cooperation between the various participants in the platform as a source of guarantee for implementation. The National Laboratory Network and the National Network of Experts were envisaged together with three advisory councils: Legal, Economic-Social, and Academic-Expert Councils. To support the implementation of the platform in 2010, the government established the position of a National Coordinator for Implementation of the National Platform for DRR. Despite all these efforts, the platform never produced results. Ten years later, in 2019, the government adopted the fourth edition of the National Platform for DRR. The development of the current version was overseen by the national coordinator. • Key aspects considered. All four editions of the National Platform for DRR are designed around the existence of two parallel systems with competing responsibilities in DRR. In 2005, with the reforms in the defense sector, it was decided that what was previously known as a department for civil protection within the Ministry of Defense and the one for early warning should be separated by forming two independent governmental agencies: Protection and Rescue Directorate and Crisis Management Center. In the years that followed, appropriate legislation was adopted to enable both institutions to function in their own segments, often coercing each other over roles and responsibilities. • Implementation/coordination. Existing in a complicated disaster management system, the National Platform for DRR never produced tangible results as intended. While the first version of the platform received international recognition on the domestic front, it was never accepted and 51 remained a purely theoretical concept. The additional three revisions in the years that followed were attempts to find a less complicated design for the platform that will secure ownership and buy-in from all relevant stakeholders, again without any effect. Now with the fourth edition from 2019, North Macedonia has a National Platform for DRR in the form of a narrative document which resembles more of a strategy than a DRR platform. The implementation of this document remains questionable. • Funds allocated. The National Platform for DRR does not have a dedicated budget for its activities. • Challenges/lessons learned. Until the national disaster management system is positioned around the existence of two institutions, the National Platform for DRR will have limited chances for results. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. In designing both the NDRRS and the National Platform for DRR as a governance tool, prior consultations and ensuring buy-in from all relevant entities in the Romanian DRM community is essential. Investing time in consultations is not wasted time; on the contrary, it creates a sense of ownership and purpose and supports the implementation. On that pathway, Romania should avoid complicated structures and theoretical concepts which cannot be implemented. Serbia • Strategy vision: The paper analyzes the country through its National Disaster Risk Management Program developed after the floods in 2014. Serbia is working on its NDRRS as we speak. • How it was developed: Serbia established the Office for Assistance and Recovery of Flooded Areas in May 2014, providing strong institutional framework for coordination of all recovery efforts. Already in November 2015, the government rebrands the Office into something that is currently the Public Investment Management Office (PIMO) transforming it from an ad hoc body into a permanent governmental organization. PIMO, as a lead coordination agency, oversees the implementation of the National Disaster Risk Management Program and its subsequent action plans. The National Disaster Risk Management Program adopted by the government was a product of internal governmental consultations supported by the EU, the World Bank/GFDRR, Japan, Switzerland, and UNDP. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined between PIMO and the Ministry of Interior – Sector for Emergency Management to avoid institutional coercions. • Key aspects considered: The objective of the National Disaster Risk Management Program was not only to support the recovery efforts after the floods but also to serve as an umbrella document for introducing changes in the national DRM system. Based on the Recovery Needs Assessment (2014) 75 the government identified priorities towards improvement of the national DRM system. In a period between 2014-2019 the following laws were adopted: Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management, Law on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Law on Fire Protection, Law on National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Law on Meteorological and Hydrological Activities, Law on Reconstruction Following Natural and Other Hazards, Law on Climate Change, amendments to the Law on voluntary fire service and amendments to the Law on Local Self Government. • Implementation and coordination: The coordinating entity for the implementation of the National Disaster Risk Management Program was PIMO in close cooperation with the Sector for 75 World Bank, United Nations Serbia, European Union, et al. 2014. Serbia Floods.2014. European Commission/ FPI (Service for Foreign Policy Instruments). Belgrade 2014. Link. 52 Emergency Management and by involving all relevant ministries and others in the process. Action plans were the main operational tools used for implementing the Program. Activities were designed based on clear goals, targets, indicators, and budget allocations. By producing regular progress reports, the government was informed about the progress. • Funds allocated: The implementation of the National Disaster Risk Management Program was supported by the national budget and by the EU, the World Bank/GFDRR, Japan, Switzerland, and UNDP. The Program, among other things, also supported purchasing of mobile flood protection equipment, rescue equipment for the first responders, improvements of the early warning system, and risk mapping capabilities. • Challenges/lessons learned: In 2019, the national DRM system was peer reviewed under the framework of the UCPM. 76 The outcomes of the report are suggesting further localization of DRM policies, utilization of multi-hazard impact assessments, complete the national register for disaster losses, complete the national siren system, improve trainings on all levels of jurisdiction and proceed forward with campaigns for raising public awareness. Ensuring regular funding to complete these activities remains the biggest challenge. • Areas of specific interest for Romania: The structure of the National Disaster Risk Management Program and its respective Action Plans, combined with the governance mechanisms, provides a good example for implementation of a strategic document. Serbia succeeds in including the international community in the process, and more importantly, it succeeds in including the local authorities – cities, and municipalities. The network of cities and municipalities shearing the same risk is an example that might be utilized by Romania as well. Switzerland • Strategy vision. The strategy aims to protect society and the economy against natural hazards. • How was it developed? The process of strategic planning in Switzerland reflects the constitutional organization of the country and the tradition based on consultations and inclusiveness. The governance structure in Switzerland on the issue of DRR includes national/cantonal governments, municipalities, insurance companies, associations, the private sector, and citizens. In that context, the country possesses the skills, ability, and willingness to innovate while implementing a forward- looking, whole-of-society approach to DRM. 77 The National Platform for DRR (PLANAT) is the main governmental body that in 2018 updated the strategy ‘Management of risks from natural hazards. • Key aspects considered. The effects of natural events should be bearable by both society and the economy. While there is no guaranteed protection against future disasters, society and the economy should be capable of rapidly regaining functional capacity after external shocks. At the same time, through the implementation of risk-oriented approaches, society and the economy should be easily adaptable to changes and conditions. Finally, DRM involves everyone and requires the engagement of the citizens as well. • Implementation/coordination. PLANAT is the governance mechanism for implementation and regular updates of the strategy. One specific element of the current strategy is that it relies on the action plan for implementation of the previous strategy from 2016. 76 European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations).2019. Serbia Peer Review Report. Link. 77 OECD. 2017b. Boosting Resilience through Innovative Risk Governance: The Case of Natural Disasters in Switzerland. 53 • Funds allocated. Approximately EUR 2.8 billion is spent on natural hazard risk management in Switzerland every year. Of this, EUR 1.6 billion is raised by private individuals, of which EUR 830 million is covered by insurance companies. 78 Switzerland is a best practice example in terms of achieving near-universal coverage against natural disasters through insurance. Swiss citizens and businesses enjoy affordable access to full coverage of damage caused by most natural hazard events. Protective infrastructure investments have been a central part of Switzerland’s disaster risk prevention measures, but much of this infrastructure was constructed in the nineteenth century and is now an aging, built-in response to disasters as opposed to being developed in a forward-looking manner which takes long-term risk evolution into account. 79 • Challenges/lessons learned. Enhance understanding of the possible links and cascading effects of natural disasters and risks highlighted in the Swiss national risk assessment, including pandemics, power outages, or nuclear accidents. Establish a more systematic approach to disaster loss data collection, especially regarding socioeconomic impacts, across all cantons, including those where the natural hazard insurance is not organized by public insurance companies. Expand the current natural hazards database to include socioeconomic damages caused by disasters stemming from meteorological and earthquake hazards and consider including indirect economic losses. Ensure that DRM operates on adequate scales to strengthen particularly cross-jurisdictional risk prevention actions and transboundary cooperation in risk management. • Areas of specific interest to Romania include structure, roles, and responsibilities of the National Platform for DRR; structure and wording of the NDRRS; the role of the insurance sector in the process of DRR; structural investments in DRR; and integration of DRR and CCA at strategic and operational levels. Montenegro • Strategy vision. The strategy aims to reduce and prevent the occurrence of new risks and strengthen the capacity of the society and state institutions in responding to various types of natural and other disasters. • How was it developed? In 2017, the Government of Montenegro adopted the NDRRS and the Dynamic Plan of Activities for 2018–2023. The strategy was developed by an established working group with over 40 representatives from the government sector, including representatives from academia and the Red Cross as well. With that, the country, for the first time in its modern history, produced a comprehensive strategy that addresses all aspects of DRR at the national and local levels. The strategy envisages the following priorities: development of local DRR strategies, the national risk assessment, local risk assessments, national plans for rescue and protection, and local plans for rescue and protection; adjustment to the legislation to suit the needs of DRR; maintaining of an active National Platform for DRR; awareness raising on DRR; international cooperation on DRR; enhancement of early warning systems; application of multi-stakeholder approaches in DRR; implementation of DRR in education; capacity building of national institutions on all aspects of DRR; and project management in DRR. The implementation tool of the strategy is its Dynamic Action Plan for Implementation for 2018–2023, which is then divided into two-year action plans. The structure of the action plans is in the following order: objective-activity-lead 78 ESPREssO 2021. (see also Link). 79 OECD. 2017b. 54 agency-supporting agency-estimated starting time-estimated end date-financial implications- source of funding-success indicators. • Implementation/coordination. It is the role of the Ministry of Interior’s Sector for Rescue and Protection to oversee the implementation of the action plans and report to the government about results and achievements. With the first report covering the period 2018/2019, the analysis showed that in 2018, 45.65 percent of the envisaged activities were completed, and in 2019, 28 percent of activities were completed. • Funds allocated. The new action plan for 2020/2021 operates with the amount of EUR 6,102,000 needed for full implementation. The national budget, local budgets, and project support are envisaged as a source of funding. • Challenges/lessons learned. Implementation and monitoring results are challenging even if the planning documents provide the necessary structure to facilitate that process. Implementation depends on many variables that often are not related to the text of the strategy itself. Monitoring of implementation can be easily done at the activity level if the structure of the document allows it. Monitoring the actual results from the strategy and answering the question if we are really reducing disaster risks in the community is a different process that requires a different approach. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. A Dynamic Plan of Activities as an implementing tool of the NDRRS in Montenegro can be considered as a good example offering appropriate structure to implement envisaged activities and monitor results. Global Examples New Zealand • Strategy vision. The 10-year National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019) 80 of New Zealand elaborated under the Civil Defense Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 81 foresees a country having a disaster-resilient nation that acts proactively to manage risks and build resilience in a way that contributes to the well-being and prosperity of all New Zealanders. The strategy outlines the vision and long-term goals for CDEM governed in New Zealand by the CDEM ACT. To achieve its vision, the strategy has an overarching goal which is “to strengthen the resilience of the nation by managing risks, being ready to respond to and recover from emergencies, and by empowering and supporting individuals, organizations, and communities to act for themselves and others, for the safety and wellbeing of all” (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, 2019). Furthermore, the strategy outlines three main priorities with six objectives for each. The priorities are centered around (a) managing risks; (b) providing an effective response to and recovery from emergencies; and (c) enabling, empowering, and supporting community resilience. The strategy also includes tailored recommendations for different groups in the society in order to enhance community resilience. 80Government of New Zealand. 2019. 81The CDEM Act was enacted in 2002 and provides the formal structure for CDEM in New Zealand. The CDEM Act also (a) sets out the powers and obligations of the Minister for Emergency Management; (b) establishes statutory positions – for (i) the Director of Civil Defense Emergency Management, (ii) the National Controller, and (iii) the National Recovery Manager - and sets out their roles, functions and powers; (c) stipulates the establishment of CDEM Groups; (d) institutes Group Controllers (who have specific powers during situations of national and local emergencies); (e) institutes Group Recovery Managers (who have responsibilities and some powers in managing the recovery after an emergency). 55 Figure 17. New Zealand's National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2019) – Vision, Goal, Three main priorities Source: New Zealand's National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2019) • How was it developed? When coming into effect on April 10, 2019, the National Disaster Resilience Strategy replaced the National Civil Defense Emergency Management Strategy (second edition, from 2007) that set out the overall direction for CDEM in New Zealand from 2002 to 2018 82. Elaboration of the strategy consisted of a two-year process that included a wide range of consultations with stakeholders to analyze the current situation, and then jointly agree on a common vision, goals, and objectives. Consultations were led by a Technical Advisory Group within the Ministry of CDEM. The following elements influenced and / or contributed to the elaboration process: (a) extensive previous experience in dealing with incidents and emergencies gained since the CDEM Act was enacted (2002); (b) enhanced level of understanding on how to improve processes for identification, assessment, monitoring, and ownership of risks; (c) global agreements (e.g., the Sendai Framework 2015-2030); and (d) a Ministerial Review (2017) on Better Responses to Natural Disasters and Other Emergencies. Furthermore, the strategy aimed to incorporate lessons learned from previous events in New Zealand and overseas. To this end, the Ministry of CDEM has reviewed best practices from various countries, such as for emergency management systems of jurisdictions from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. • Key aspects considered. The strategy has a strong focus on well-being. It incorporates New Zealand’s Living Standards Framework 83 and considers the types of resilience needed to protect and enhance well-being. It also seeks to enable and empower communities everywhere to take action to look after themselves and others in times of crisis. Key strengths of the strategy include 82 Under the Civil Defense Emergency Management Act 2002, the Minister of Civil Defense must complete a National CDEM Strategy. The Strategy is an important pillar of the wider emergency management framework, which includes the National CDEM Plan and Guide, and supporting guidelines issued by the Director CDEM. The Strategy sets out the overall direction for CDEM in New Zealand. Two CDEM strategies were developed under the CDEM Act, a first one in 2003 and a second one in 207. In 2018, the National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019) replaced the National CDEM Strategy (2007). Link. 83 The Living Standards Framework (LSF) is a New Zealand-specific framework that draws on a range of national and international approaches to wellbeing, such as on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s “How’s Life?/Better Life” model. The Framework looks at several aspects that contribute to one’s well being in life, such as housing, income, employment, education, community engagement, enjoyment of environmental amenity and health, and safety. Measures of these aspects provide a snapshot of current wellbeing in the country. 56 (a) an ‘all hazards-all-risks’ approach; (b) connections to the wider national security system; (c) the integration across the ‘4R’s’ of Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery; and (d) the emphasis on engaging communities in emergency management. The strategy is linked with policies across key sectors and, in turn, promotes or requires resilient practices in each sector considered. Figure 18. New Zealand's National Disaster Resilience Strategy linkage Source: New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy (2019) • Implementation/coordination. The strategy covers a period of 10 years from 2019 onwards and sits within the broader framework of the emergency management system, a key part of New Zealand’s wider National Security System. It is implemented under the leadership of the Minister for Emergency Management by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) that was established in December 2019 as part of the Government’s modernization plan. About NEMA 84 NEMA is an autonomous departmental agency hosted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and leading New Zealand’s emergency management system. It has 80 staff based in Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch and its current annual budget is of US$28.9 million. It replaced the former Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM), a business unit of the DPMC. NEMA reports to the Minister for Emergency Management. The agency is headed by a Chief Executive 85 that appoints the Director of Civil Defense and Emergency Management. NEMA’s role is to work with central government and local government and the full range of stakeholders (e.g., , 84 NEMA. 2020. “Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Emergency Management”. Link. NEMA’s website is available at: https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/ 85 NEMA. 2021. “Senior leadership team”. Link. 57 communities, iwi, science, research and not-for-profit organisations, businesses) to create an emergency management system that provides an effective and integrated response to, and recovery from, emergencies. Among NEMA’s priority areas are the: (a) the operationalization of the CDEM Act, (b) the implementation and renewal of the National CDEM Act (covering the period from 2015 - 2020), and (c) the elaboration of a roadmap of actions for the National Disaster Resilience Strategy (scheduled for 2021), all of them under the leadership of the Minister for Emergency Management. A key feature of New Zealand’s emergency management system is the important role played by local government through the Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEM Groups). There are currently 16 such groups in New Zealand and they are established as joint committees of local authorities under the CDEM Act (2002). The CDEM Groups are responsible for working with emergency services, government agencies, lifeline utilities and others to deliver regional/local scale civil defense emergency management in their respective region. The collaboration between NEMA, the Minister of Emergency Management and CDEM Groups is pivotal for an integrated and efficient implementation of the Emergency Management portfolio. • Reporting on the strategy is ought to take place biennially, with a significant review of progress in year four. The strategy promotes a holistic approach to resilience that connects a range of agencies and sectors in order to deliver improved outcomes for New Zealanders. • The implementation of the strategy is guided by a set of national strategic documents that offer more in-depth details on specific measures to be applied within each stage of the DRM cycle, corresponding budget allocations, relevant instruments and/or platforms and success indicators. These documents are (a) the National CDEM Plan (2015-2020) 86, (b) an initial roadmap 87 for the strategy and the 10-year period it covers and scheduled to be developed in early 2021, and (c) a longer-term roadmap to be developed based on the 2015 National CDEM Plan. 86 The CDEM Act requires a National CDEM Plan that sets out the hazards and risks to be managed at the national level, and the activities necessary to manage those hazards and risks. Many all-of-Government response arrangements (for example, the National Security System, critical national infrastructure arrangements and internal agency approaches to managing events) are based on the National CDEM Plan. The National CDEM plan expired on November 30, 2020; however, it remains into force until it is replaced. The Plan identified 16 hazards and risks to be managed through coordination at the national level, including earthquakes, volcanic hazards, landslides, tsunamis, coastal hazards, floods, severe winds, snow, droughts, wildfires, and urban fires. 87 The initial roadmap of actions will be developed in 2021 and will set out the way the New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy is to be implemented and evaluated. The roadmap will have a three - five-year focus and is intended to be updated regularly to reflect progress and changed circumstances. The Minister for Emergency Management will lead the drafting process and its approval through Cabinet (if required). The roadmap will include initiatives focused on: (a) implementing emergency management system reforms to improve how New Zealand responds to natural disasters and emergencies; (b) revising CDEM Group plans and the National CDEM Plan; (c) local government planning, including long- term plans, annual plans, and asset management plans; (d) reviewing and reforming key legislation that contributes to risk management and resilience and any guidance on its implementation; and (e) planning and carrying out climate change adaption measures. 58 Figure 19. Operationalization of the Civil Defense Emergency Management (CDEM) in New Zealand Source: National CDEM Plan (2015-2020). • While the strategy is mainly focused on providing a vision and the concept behind a whole-of-a- society approach aimed to enhance resilience among all New Zealanders, the National CDEM Plan (2015-2020), outlines concrete priority areas and corresponding activities for addressing natural hazards and risks under reduction, readiness, response, and recovery stages at the national level. In view of this, ‘reduction’ 88 activities include, among other measures: (a) land use planning; (b) regulations for the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances; and (c) performance standards and codes for the design and construction of buildings and other structures. 89 To build capacity and capability, as well as for an effective response to, and recovery from, emergencies, ‘readiness’ 90 activities include: (a) planning; (b) development of capability; (c) exercising and testing of arrangements; (d) monitoring and evaluation; and (e) public education and community engagement. 91 ‘Response’ 92 measures are enabled through: (a) the national warning system and advisories coordinated by the Meteorological Service of New Zealand (severe weather), the GNS Science (earthquakes, volcanic activity, and landslides), and the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (tsunamis); (b) the National Crisis Management Centre 88 As per the 2015 CDEM National Plan, ‘reduction’ involves identifying and analyzing risks to life and property from hazards, taking steps to eliminate those risks if practicable and, if not, reducing the magnitude of their impact and the likelihood of their occurrence to an acceptable level. Link. The objective of reduction is to take preventive steps to avoid or mitigate adverse consequences. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2015b. National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order. Link. 89 Government of New Zealand. 2015c. “Recovery at National Level.” In CDEM National Plan. Link. 90 As per the 2015 CDEM National Plan, ‘readiness’ involves developing operational systems and capabilities before an emergency happens, including making arrangements with emergency services, lifeline utilities, and other agencies and developing self-help and response programs for the general public. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2015b. Link. 91 Government of New Zealand. 2015c. 92 Government of New Zealand. 2015c. 59 facilitating an all-in-government response during crises; (c) the Emergency Information Management, (d) public information management; (e) mass evacuation, if/when needed, and dealt at the local level; and (f) international assistance. ‘Recovery’ 93 activities are handled by CDEM Groups and mostly focus on ensuring a smooth transition from the response phase by establishing an exit strategy that describes the assistance required in the long term, needs for transition to business as usual, long-term planning and reporting, how to communicate public information. • Funds allocated. In addition to the above-mentioned strategic documents focused on medium/long-term actions, NEMA’s activity is guided by annual strategic business plans designed in the framework of a four-year work plan. These plans outline the strategic directions, respective goals, and objectives, as well as planned programs and projects alongside their corresponding financial allocations. As per NEMA’s the most recent plan (elaborated by the agency that preceded NEMA) for 2018–2022, NEMA’s operating budget for 2018-2019 94 amounted to a total of US$15.530 million and was split into four categories (Table 4.). Table 4. Operational budget of NEMA (former Ministry of Civil Defense & Emergency Management, MCDEM) Funds (US$, Category millions) Community awareness and readiness. Development and delivery of long-term national 1.938 programs to raise individual and community awareness and preparedness Emergency sector and support and development. Developing and implementing 5.644 operational policies and projects, advice, assistance, and information to the CDEM sector Management of emergencies. Management of national emergency readiness, response 7.005 and recovery, including support to local civil defense emergency management organizations, maintaining the National Crisis Management Centre in a state of readiness, national training and exercises, coordination and management of central government's response and recovery activities and administration of related expenses Policy advice (emergency management). Provision of advice to support decision-making by 0.943 ministers on government policy matters relating to civil defense emergency matters Source: Business plan 2018 – 2020 (issued on September 2018) of the MCDEM available at Link • Challenges/lessons learned. A key challenge of the emergency management system of New Zealand is the variations in practice and uneven capability across the country, coupled with different understandings about roles, responsibilities, and authority. The public confidence in the system always calls for further strengthening with the increasing number of natural hazards faced in the country. There is also a need for far greater professionalization of emergency management in the CDEM system. That is because key roles in the system are often part-time, and there is no real career path, which hinders the attraction of highly competitive people in this sector. Additionally, training and professional development are patchy, and there are no required professional standards or national accreditation for key roles. Finally, the local response needs to be backed by the national capability that can be deployed as required. ‘Fly-in’ teams are considered a valuable resource that provides assurance to the public and the government during emergency response filling in critical gaps of local response. However, flying in staff from local and central government does not always translate into prompt support to local response, as deployment can often take place even with a two-day delay. 95 93 Government of New Zealand. 2015c. 94 Government of New Zealand. 2018. Business Plan 2018–2019. Link. 95 Government of New Zealand. 2017. Ministerial Review: Better Response to Natural Disasters and Other Emergencies. Link. 60 • Areas of specific interest to Romania. New Zealand’s approach to increasing the country resilience in the face of natural hazards and risks as well as responding to and recovering after a crisis has many good practices to be considered, including these two: (a) increasing capability of the human resource employed by agencies that are tasked with a DRM mandate and (b) communicating and disseminating information to various target groups to increase resilience across the society. • The Government of New Zealand puts a strong emphasis on increasing its capability to deliver under the National Disaster Resilience Strategy. To this end, it has produced two assessments—a first one in 2012 and a second one in 2015 96—that provide a national snapshot of CDEM capability across the country. To increase capability, several trainings are available on a mandatory or optional basis for staff of relevant government agencies to ensure suitably trained and competent personnel. Case in point is the Controller Development Programme, and the Integrated Training Framework (ITF) Gains designed to build response capability across a diverse range of functions. The ITF is led by CDEM Groups and supported by NEMA. According to the 2015 CDEM National Capability Assessment Report, the training has contributed significantly to the growing skill base within the Emergency Operations Centre environment. Furthermore, the inclusion of multiagency staff in capability building has created foundations for connectivity between agencies during emergencies. • The strategy has a dedicated section in which it takes the priorities, high-level objectives, and success measures and translates them into a range of recommended actions for different audiences: individuals and families/whānau, businesses and organizations, communities/hapū, cities and districts, and government and national organizations. Resources are available online at www.civildefence.govt.nz, including fact sheets to support specific groups in their resilience endeavors. These include pointers on how to find more information and support and how one can participate in building the nation’s resilience to disasters. Australia • Strategy vision. Through its National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2018 97), fulfilling the role of an NDRRS, Australia explicitly states its vision for 2030 in this area. That is to have all sectors of the society (a) make disaster risk-informed decisions, (b) be accountable for reducing risks within their control, and (c) invest in reducing disaster risk to limit the cost of disasters when they occur. By 2030, Australia has three main goals to achieve: (a) take action to reduce existing disaster risk, (b) minimize creation of future disaster risk through decisions taken across all sectors, and (c) equip decision-makers with the capabilities and information they need to reduce disaster risk and manage residual risk. Furthermore, Australia identifies four national priorities that guide action to reduce disaster risk. Each priority has five-year outcomes that are supported by strategies for action: 2019–2023. The four priorities are aligned with SFDRR and refer to (a) understanding disaster risk; (b) making accountable decisions; (c) enhancing investments; and (d) focusing on governance, ownership, and responsibility. Australia goes one step further with its vision by describing how a resilient community looks (for example, a town or a neighborhood). According to this, a resilient community is one that (a) has well-rehearsed emergency plans, (b) superior fire mitigation processes in the cooler months, (c) appropriate building controls suitable 96 Government of New Zealand. 2015a. CDEM National Capability Assessment Report. Link. 97 Government of Australia. 2018. National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. Link. 61 to local hazards and risks, and (d) widely adopted personal and business financial mitigation measures (for example, insurance suitable to the risks). Eventually, this community is said to be likely to suffer less during extreme weather events and is more likely to have the capacity to recover faster. • How was it developed? In early 2018, the Australian government invited all states and territories, local governments, and key private sector representatives to work together to co-design and develop this framework. The exercise was led by the National Resilience Taskforce within the Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. Over 100 participants from over 80 organizations came together at a three-day intensive ‘policy sprint’ in June 2018 to develop key components of the framework. The National Resilience Taskforce worked closely with an inter- jurisdictional Steering Committee to develop, refine, and undertake further broad consultation on the framework. The 2018 National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework builds on Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2011). 98 This was the first whole-of-nation resilience- based approach to disaster management in the country that proposed a national, coordinated, and cooperative effort to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters. This elaboration process of the strategy was coordinated by the National Emergency Management Committee (NEMC) at the request of the Council of Australian Governments. The strategy was developed by a working group consisting of federal, state, and territory representatives under the auspices of the NEMC. The strategy was operationalized under the guidance of a national implementation plan. • Key aspects considered. The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework outlines a coordinated approach to reducing disaster risk. It is designed to leverage the work and progress made across all sectors since the release of the NDRRS in 2011 to better understand and reduce disaster risks, improve resilience, and bolster the capability and capacity of communities to withstand natural hazards. It focuses only on natural hazards: shocks caused by a natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury, damage, and disruption. Natural hazards include bushfires, floods, cyclones, storms, heatwaves, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Furthermore, in 2017, Deloitte Access Economics, reporting to the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, found that over the past 10 years, disasters have cost the Australian economy around US$18 billion per year. Assuming current development patterns and population growth continue, this is forecast to reach US$39 billion per year by 2050. This forecast does not account for the effects of a changing climate, which are expected to magnify these costs, nor does it account for losses that cannot be quantified but are no less important to people. Deloitte Access Economics found in 2015 that the intangible costs of disasters—including increased family violence, mental health impacts, chronic disease, alcohol and drug use, short- and long-term unemployment, changes to school academic outcomes, and crime—are at least equal to, if not greater than, tangible costs. • Implementation/coordination. The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework guides national, whole-of-society efforts to proactively reduce disaster risk to minimize the loss and suffering caused by disasters. The framework will be reviewed and updated at the end of this five-year period to ensure its relevance and accuracy across the remaining years to 2030. The framework will be supported by a five-year national implementation plan to be developed in conjunction with 98 Council of Government of Australia. 2011. National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Building the Resilience of Our Nation to Disasters. Link. 62 all levels of government and non-government sectors. The national implementation plan, to be released in 2019, will detail initiatives to be undertaken by all sectors of society to reduce disaster risk and limit the impacts of disasters on communities and the economy. • Funds allocated. Current federal and state government spending on direct recovery from disasters is already around US$2.75 billion per year, and indirect recovery costs may be borne by many sectors across multiple years. Australia recognizes that much of the work needed to reduce disaster risk and contain this growing cost will require an up-front financial investment. • Challenges/lessons learned. A key lesson learned from Australia’s experience is that DRR requires strong governance to ensure that any transfer of risk from one sector/entity to another is informed and understood by all relevant sectors. In this sense, Australia recognizes the need for a nationally owned and multi-stakeholder-led coordination mechanism to DRR outcomes. Such a mechanism could bring together relevant cross-sectoral expertise to support effective implementation and monitoring of DRR efforts across the country. It would provide an important link between local and national efforts. • Areas of specific interest to Romania. To put the framework to best use, the Australian government included a chart indicating the document’s relevance to key stakeholders based on the information it contains and the potential support it can provide to decision-making (Figure 13). In addition to the framework, Australia has a broad range of tools to find information about the impact of various hazards in the country. Case in the point is the visual representation of disaster resilience available through Australia’s interactive platform, ‘The Disaster Mapper’. 99 This map showcases the vast natural hazards that Australia and its surrounding states have experienced since 1869. The interactive map contains event information on tsunamis, earthquakes, landslides, floods, cyclones, and bushfires, as well as biosecurity, criminal, and industrial disasters and events. Understanding the importance of a well-functioning governing system, Australia explicitly requests decision-makers to actively address disaster risk within their areas of responsibility. For example, in 2017, Infrastructure Australia released national guidelines requiring that all project proposals consider climate risk. Table 5. Types of decision-making relevant to the framework and indicative relevance to various sectors Source: Australia Government 2018. 99 AIDR (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience). The Disaster Mapper. Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub. Link. 63 Annex 2. Country Examples Considered Table 6. Overview of select DRM funding and strategic DRM documents Selected strategic documents dedicated to DRM Country In Implementation In Development Austria • National Strategy for Disaster Risk Prevention — • Strategy on the Foresight of the Development of Disaster Prevention Bulgaria • National Platform for DRR • DRM Plan • National DRR Strategy • National DRR Programme (adopted November 2020) Croatia • Two risk assessments • Third Risk Assessment • National DRR Strategy France • Local Prevention Plans 100 — • Plan Submersion Rapide (PSR) • National Flood Risk Management Strategy Greece • DRM Plan Italy • Internal strategies for each institution — Lithuania • Public Security Development Program • National Progress Program • National Risk Analysis Montenegro • Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction — • National Risk Assessment (2017) • Dynamic Activity Plan for 2018–2023 has been an integral part of the strategy Netherlands • The National Security Strategy (2019) 101 — • Dutch National Risk Assessment 2019 102 • National DRR Strategy Norway • Analysis of Crisis Scenarios 2019 (replaced the — 103 National Risk Assessment) • The other three threat and risk assessments are published every year by other institutions. Poland • National Risk Assessment — • National Crisis Management Plan • Report on Threats to National Security Serbia • National Disaster Risk Management Program and — Action Plan Slovak • National Strategy for Security Risk Management — Republic (2015) • National Risk Assessment and National DRR Strategy (completed during 2016–2020) • National Risk Matrix Spain • National Civil Protection Strategy (2019) • National Civil Protection • National Security Strategy (2017) 104 System Strategy 100 Programmes d’Action de Prévention des Inondations (PAPIs). Link. 101 Government of the Netherlands. 2019. The National Security Strategy (Nationale Veiligheid Strategie). NCTV (Ministry of Justice and Security). Link. 102 The National Network of Safety and Security Analysts. 2019. Dutch National Risk Assessment. NCTV (Ministry of Justice and Security). Link. 103 DSB (Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection). 2020. Analysis of Crisis Scenarios 2019. Link. This replaced the National Risk Assessment and is one of four threat and risk assessments published every year. The others are published by the Norwegian Police Security Service, the Norwegian Intelligence Service, and the Norwegian National Security Authority. 104 Government of Spain. 2017. National Security Strategy 2017. Link. 64 Selected strategic documents dedicated to DRM Country In Implementation In Development Sweden • National Risk and Capability Analysis (2016) 105 • Evaluation report of MSB to be • National Climate Change Strategy (2018) 106 published in 2021 105 Available English publications of MSB. Sweden. Link. 106 Government of Sweden 2018. 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY AIDR (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience). Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub. Link. AIDR (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience). The Disaster Mapper. Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub. Link. Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Celia,C. 2021. Developing a culture of preparedness: The citizens view, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.56. Link. Berry, F. 2010. Understanding the Role of the Manager in Organizational Performance and Community Engagement.” Public Administration Review Special Issue, Vol.70. Link. Boyne, G., and J. G. Williams. 2003. “Planning and Performance in Public Organizations: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Management Review 5 (1): 115–132. doi:10.1080/146166702200002889. Carlos, J.F. and Santos, S.P. 2019. Implementation obstacles and strategy implementation failure, Baltic Journal of Management, vol.14, No.1, pp.39-57, DOI 10.1108/BJM-11-2017-0350. CEDRIG (Climate, Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration Guidance). SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). Link. Council of Government of Australia. 2011. National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Building the Resilience of Our Nation to Disasters. Link. DSB (Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection). 2020. Analysis of Crisis Scenarios 2019. Link. ESPREssO (Enhancing Synergies for disaster Prevention in the EurOpean Union). 2021. EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 700342. Link. European Commission. 2014 – 2020. Country Data for: Italy. European Structural and Investment Funds. Link. European Commission. 2018. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Common Provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and Financial Rules for Those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument COM/2018/375 final - 2018/0196 (COD). May 29, 2018. Link. European Commission. 2020. “European Semester. Country Report. Romania.” Link. European Commission. 2020. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. June 2, 2020. Link. European Commission. 2021. Legislative Train Schedule: A Stronger Europe in the World: Union Civil Protection Mechanism 2021–2027. Link. European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). 2018. North Macedonia Peer Review Report. Link European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). 2019. Austria: Overview of the National Disaster Management System. Link. European Commission/ DG ECHO (Directorate-General European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). 2019. Serbia Peer Review Report. Link. European Commission/ Directorate-General Climate Action. 2018. “Adaptation preparedness scoreboard: Draft country fiche for Romania.“ Link. European Commission/ Directorate-General for Climate Action. 2021. Ex-ante Impact Assessment of the New European Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. Link. 66 GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2016. Understanding Risk - Proceedings from UR Austria. BMI (Federal Ministry of Interior of Austria). Link. Government of Australia. 2018. National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. Link. Government of Austria. 2011. National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. Link. Government of Austria. 2012. Austrian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management (Lebensministerium), Division Air Pollution Control and Climate Protection. UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Link. Government of Austria. 2018. “Flood risk management in Austria. Objectives – Measures - Good practices.” Federal Ministry of the Republic of Austria for Sustainability and Tourism. Link. Government of Austria. 2019. 2019. Long-Term Strategy 2050 – Austria Period through to 2050 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action as per Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 35 in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 19 of the Paris Agreement. Federal Ministry of the Republic of Austria for Sustainability and Tourism. UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Link. Government of Austria. National Crisis and Disaster Management (SKKM). Civil Protection in Austria. BMI (Federal Ministry of Interior). Link. Government of Austria. Staatliches Krisen - Und Katastrophenschutzmanagement (SSKM). “Strategy 2020.” Government of Germany. 2009. National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP Strategy). BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. Government of Germany. 2019. Assessing Vulnerability to Flood Events at a Community Level. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. Government of Germany. 2020a. Protecting Critical Infrastructures: A Seven Step Identification Process. Guidance Tool for Use in Civil Protection. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. Government of Germany. 2020b. Services for Modern Civil Protection. BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance). Link. Government of New Zealand. 2015a. “CDEM National Capability Assessment Report”. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2015b. National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2015c. “Recovery at National Level.” In CDEM National Plan. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2017. Ministerial Review. Better Response to Natural Disasters and Other Emergencies. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2018. Business Plan 2018–2019. Link. Government of New Zealand. 2019. National Disaster Resilience Strategy. Link. Government of Romania. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. 2013. “National Climate Change Strategy 2013-2020”. Link. Government of Serbia. 2016. West Morava Basin (Слив Западне Мораве). The Department of Civil Protection of Serbia. Link. Government of Spain. 2017. National Security Strategy 2017. Link. 67 Government of Sweden. 2018. National Strategy for Climate Change. Link. Government of Sweden. 2019a. RESEARCH/STUDY - Developing a National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in Sweden. Recommendations for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework Global Target E. MSB (Swedish Civil Contingency Agencies). Government of Sweden. 2019b. National Risk and Capability Assessment (Partial Document Publicly Disclosed). MSB (Swedish Civil Contingency Agencies). Link. Government of the Netherlands. 2019. The National Security Strategy (Nationale Veiligheid Strategie). NCTV (Ministry of Justice and Security). Link. Hallegatte, S., Maruyama Rentschler, J. E., and Rozenberg, J. 2020. Adaptation Principles: A Guide for Designing Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. World Bank. Link. Hardoy, Jorgelina, María Evangelina Filippi, Ebru Gencer, Braulio Eduardo Morera, and David Satterthwaite. 2019. Words into Action Guidelines: Implementation Guide for Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Strategies. UNDRR. Link. Holcinger, N., and Simac Z. 2021. “Importance of National Platforms in Disaster Risk Governance.” Proceedings from the 1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 22-24 March 2021, Zagreb. Link. Leitner,M., Babcicky, P., Schinko. T., Glas, N. 2020. The status of climate risk management in Austria. Assessing the governance landscape and proposing ways forward for comprehensively managing flood and drought risk, Climate Risk Management Journal, Vol.30. Link. Marshall, T.M. 2020. Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 47. Link. OECD. 2017a. Reviews of Risk Management Policies. Boosting Disaster Prevention through Innovative Risk Governance. Insights from Austria, France, and Switzerland. OECD. 2017b: Boosting Resilience through Innovative Risk Governance: The Case of Natural Disasters in Switzerland. OECD. 2018. National Risk Assessments. A Cross Country Perspective. Germany. Paleari, S. 2018. Natural Disasters in Italy: do we invest enough in risk prevention and mitigation?, International Journal of Environmental Studies. Link. Programmes d’Action de Prévention des Inondations (PAPIs). Link. ReLUIS website (Laboratories University Network of seismic engineering) Link. SEE URBAN (South East Europe Urban Resilience Building Action Network). 2017. DG ECHO (European Union’s Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations). Link. Terton, A., Begerow, J., Becker, U., et al. 2021. Coherence as the Process of Joint and Integrated Policy Making: At the Interface of Sustainable Development, Adaptation to Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management. Lessons Learned from Germany. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). Link. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2017. Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Link. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2019. Developing National DRR Strategies: Words into Action. Link. 68 UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2020. National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction. April 2020. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2019. The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient. Link. UNISDR. 2017a. How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government Leaders. Link. UNISDR. 2017b. Disaster Resilience Scoreboard for Cities. Link. United Nations. 2017. Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review - Report - Austria. Link. Wamsler, C., Johannessen, A. 2020. “Meeting at the Crossroads? Developing National Strategies for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience: Relevance, Scope for, and Challenges to, Integration.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 45. Link. World Bank, United Nations Serbia, European Union, et al. 2014. Serbia Floods.2014. European Commission/ FPI (Service for Foreign Policy Instruments). Belgrade 2014. Link. World Bank. 2019. RAS on Consolidation of the Strategic Planning Capacity of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration for Renovation of the National Building Stock for Energy Efficiency and Seismic Risk in Romania (P169420). January 2019. World Bank. 2021. “From COVID-19 Crisis Response to Resilient Recovery - Saving Lives and Livelihoods while Supporting Green, Resilient and Inclusive Development (GRID)”. Development Committee (Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries). 69 Competence makes a difference! Project co-financed from the European Social Fund through the Administrative Capacity Operational Programme!