GAR 2015 Main Report

120

Part II - Chapter 6

for disaster risk reduction and 85 had created national multi-stakeholder platforms since 2007 ( GAR 13 paper

UNDP, 2014a

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

Over the last two years, at least eight countries have established new legal frameworks for disaster risk management. For example, Bhutan (Government of Bhutan, 2013

Government of Bhutan. 2013,Disaster Management Act of Bhutan 2013. .

) and Burkina Faso (Government of Burkina Faso, 2014

Government of Burkina Faso. 2014,Loi No, 012/2014, Portant Loi d’Orientation relative à la prévention et à la gestion des risques, des crises humanitaires et des catastrophes. Assemblée Nationale.. .

) have applied a number of legal principles to reform their institutional arrangements, including a reform of the division of powers between all stakeholders and strengthened national mechanisms. Paraguay decided in December 2013 to reform its national policy on disaster risk reduction based on four pillars: to strengthen institutional capacities, to increase funding, to improve education, communication and citizen participation in disaster risk reduction, and to improve the acquisition and management of knowledge and technology (Government of Paraguay, 2013

Government of Paraguay. 2013,Política Nacional de Gestión y Reducción de Riesgos, Secretaría de Emergencia Nacional y Gobierno Nacional.. .

). This evidence is testimony to an extraordinary burst of progress in only a short period of time, and the efforts have involved not just a minority but a large majority of countries. It reflects how countries have been able to use the HFA to catalyse a range of activities and an increasing concern with and

commitment to disaster risk reduction. Although it is still incomplete, the transition from emergency management to disaster risk management which began under the IDNDR has picked up speed and momentum under the HFA (Gall et al., 2014a

Gall, Melanie, Susan Cutter and Khai Nguyen. 2014a,Governance in Disaster Risk Management, 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Section on the Future of Disaster Risk Management. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, July 2014.. .

At the same time, and as highlighted in Chapter 1, the syncretic evolution of the sector from emergency management organizations means that disaster risk management has been principally understood and practised as disaster management. For a number of reasons, this approach has not been effective in achieving the policy goal of disaster risk reduction.

6.2 Prospective disaster risk

management: the divorce between discourse and practice

While a number of new policies, legislation and organizations have been developed and set up, there remains a disconnect between theory, formal arrangements and disaster risk management practice.

In the 1990s, the work of disaster research networks such as LA RED in Latin America, PeriPeri U in sub-Saharan Africa, Duryog Nivaran in South Asia3 (Lavell, 2004

Lavell, Allan. 2004,La red de estudios sociales en prevención de desastres en América Latina, La Red: Antecedentes, formación y contribución al desarrollo de los conceptos, estudios y la práctica en el tema de los riesgos y desastres en América Latina: 1980-2004. .

; Gellert-de Pinto, 2012

Gellert-de Pinto, Gisela-Irene. 2012,El cambio de paradigma: de la atención de desastres a la gestión del riesgo, Boletín Científico Sapiens Research, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012): 13-17. ISSN-e: 2215-9312.. .

; PeriPeri U, no date) and others influenced both the Yokohama Strategy and the HFA, highlighting how disasters are indicators of unresolved social and development problems and making the case that disaster risk reduction could not be achieved unless the underlying drivers of risk were addressed (Gall et al., 2014a

Priority for Action 1 of the HFA called for the integration of disaster risk reduction into poverty reduction and other development strategies on the basis of strong political determination by governments. Reflecting these key activities under the HFA, the governance arrangements adopted

(Source: UNISDR with data from the HFA Monitor.)

Figure 6.1 Progress against Priority for Action 1 of the HFA

	120 Part II - Chapter 6 for disaster risk reduction and 85 had created national multi-stakeholder platforms since 2007 (UNDP, 2014a x UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ). Over the last two years, at least eight countries have established new legal frameworks for disaster risk management. For example, Bhutan (Government of Bhutan, 2013 x Government of Bhutan. 2013,Disaster Management Act of Bhutan 2013. . ) and Burkina Faso (Government of Burkina Faso, 2014 x Government of Burkina Faso. 2014,Loi No, 012/2014, Portant Loi d’Orientation relative à la prévention et à la gestion des risques, des crises humanitaires et des catastrophes. Assemblée Nationale.. . ) have applied a number of legal principles to reform their institutional arrangements, including a reform of the division of powers between all stakeholders and strengthened national mechanisms. Paraguay decided in December 2013 to reform its national policy on disaster risk reduction based on four pillars: to strengthen institutional capacities, to increase funding, to improve education, communication and citizen participation in disaster risk reduction, and to improve the acquisition and management of knowledge and technology (Government of Paraguay, 2013 x Government of Paraguay. 2013,Política Nacional de Gestión y Reducción de Riesgos, Secretaría de Emergencia Nacional y Gobierno Nacional.. . ). This evidence is testimony to an extraordinary burst of progress in only a short period of time, and the efforts have involved not just a minority but a large majority of countries. It reflects how countries have been able to use the HFA to catalyse a range of activities and an increasing concern with and commitment to disaster risk reduction. Although it is still incomplete, the transition from emergency management to disaster risk management which began under the IDNDR has picked up speed and momentum under the HFA (Gall et al., 2014a x Gall, Melanie, Susan Cutter and Khai Nguyen. 2014a,Governance in Disaster Risk Management, 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Section on the Future of Disaster Risk Management. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, July 2014.. . ). At the same time, and as highlighted in Chapter 1, the syncretic evolution of the sector from emergency management organizations means that disaster risk management has been principally understood and practised as disaster management. For a number of reasons, this approach has not been effective in achieving the policy goal of disaster risk reduction. 6.2 Prospective disaster risk management: the divorce between discourse and practice While a number of new policies, legislation and organizations have been developed and set up, there remains a disconnect between theory, formal arrangements and disaster risk management practice. In the 1990s, the work of disaster research networks such as LA RED in Latin America, PeriPeri U in sub-Saharan Africa, Duryog Nivaran in South Asia3 (Lavell, 2004 x Lavell, Allan. 2004,La red de estudios sociales en prevención de desastres en América Latina, La Red: Antecedentes, formación y contribución al desarrollo de los conceptos, estudios y la práctica en el tema de los riesgos y desastres en América Latina: 1980-2004. . ; Gellert-de Pinto, 2012 x Gellert-de Pinto, Gisela-Irene. 2012,El cambio de paradigma: de la atención de desastres a la gestión del riesgo, Boletín Científico Sapiens Research, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012): 13-17. ISSN-e: 2215-9312.. . ; PeriPeri U, no date) and others influenced both the Yokohama Strategy and the HFA, highlighting how disasters are indicators of unresolved social and development problems and making the case that disaster risk reduction could not be achieved unless the underlying drivers of risk were addressed (Gall et al., 2014a x Gall, Melanie, Susan Cutter and Khai Nguyen. 2014a,Governance in Disaster Risk Management, 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Section on the Future of Disaster Risk Management. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, July 2014.. . ). Priority for Action 1 of the HFA called for the integration of disaster risk reduction into poverty reduction and other development strategies on the basis of strong political determination by governments. Reflecting these key activities under the HFA, the governance arrangements adopted (Source: UNISDR with data from the HFA Monitor.) Figure 6.1 Progress against Priority for Action 1 of the HFA	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 30 Page 40 Page 50 Page 60 Page 70 Page 80 Page 90 Page 100 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 ->Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 140 Page 150 Page 160 Page 170 Page 180 Page 190 Page 200 Page 210 Page 220 Page 230 Page 240 Page 250 Page 260 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310