The State of Early Warning Systems - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 118

6.6 The Status of EWS Through HFA Country Reports

The “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations
and Communities to Disasters” (HFA) was endorsed in January 2005 by 168 mem-
ber states with the aim to substantially reduce disaster losses. Among the fi ve prior-
ity areas for action, the second area aims to “identify, assess and monitor disaster
risks and enhance early warning.” Reporting cycles include 2007-2009, 2009-2011,
and 2011-2013. As during the fi rst reporting cycle not all countries reported, and
the last reporting cycle is still ongoing, the second reporting cycle has been consid-
ered here. Out of the 133 countries that participated in the 2009-2011 HFA Progress
Review, 86 countries reported on the status of the implementation of the HFA prior-
ity for action 2 (Risk assessment and Early warning). In their progress report on
HFA's priority for action 2, countries had to rate the level of progress in EW from 1
to 5 (with 1 representing minor achievement and 5 representing comprehensive
achievement). Countries had also to reply to the following question: “Do risk prone
communities receive timely and understandable warnings of impending hazard
events?” Countries had to indicate the effectiveness of early warnings, the local
level preparedness, the type of communication systems and protocols adopted,
and the involvement of media in early warning dissemination. These reports were
analyzed by Zommers ( 2012 ) and are here used to additionally assess the status of
EWS worldwide and to extract additional information on EWS at national level
such as challenges and impediments in implementation/operations of these
systems.
Out of the 86 countries that reported progress in HFA's priority for action 2,
the majority of countries ranked their progress in this area with 3 or 4, neverthe-
less indicating that “achievements were neither comprehensive nor substantial”
and “recognized limitations in key aspects, such as fi nancial resources and/ or
operational capacities.” Two countries ranked themselves with 1 (Guinea-Bissau
and Lebanon) and several countries ranked themselves with 5 (Australia,
Botswana, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, and Poland). The
majority of the countries reported single hazard EWS. In particular, fl ood EWSs
were the most frequently reported, followed by cyclones/hurricanes. Only few
countries reported EWS for drought, fi re, famine (only in Africa), or heat waves
(see Table 6.2 ; see Fig. 6.7 ).

6.7 Conclusions

A review of the state of EWS shows the advances obtained in this fi eld but also
brings the attention on the many gaps that still exist - in technology, geographic
coverage, and capacity.