GAR 2015 Main Report

128

Part II - Chapter 6

However, Haiti and Eritrea have far higher levels of corruption than Japan and Grenada, and the former are likely to be more challenged to manage their risks effectively.

6.7 The times they are a-changing

The governance arrangements adopted by many countries, relying heavily on specialized emergency management organizations, are not always appropriate to address disaster risk. The governance approach based on the disaster management cycle and represented by a specialized disaster risk management sector may have reached its limit, while at the same time a new governance paradigm has yet to emerge.

Emergency management is a specialized technical domain that is relevant not only to disasters but also to technological, marine and aeronautical accidents, civil disturbances and other events. However, the governance arrangements required to manage emergencies effectively are not necessarily appropriate to address development challenges related to urban development and environmental management. Put simply, while the fire services at the local level may be completely capable of rescuing flood victims from their roofs or earthquake victims from collapsed structures, these capabilities and the underlying institutional and legislative arrangements have little connection with those required to address issues of land use or water management.

While emergency management was able to evolve as a stand-alone sector addressing the challenges of responding to accidents, technological disasters and the impacts of conflict, the governance arrangements required to manage disaster risks need—by definition—to interweave with and flow through the broader governance arrangements used by countries to manage economic and social development ( 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.

). As

additional responsibilities have been assigned to specialized emergency management organizations in their syncretic evolution into disaster risk management systems, the governance arrangements adopted by many countries have become unfit for purpose. In other words, while specialized and self-contained arrangements for disaster risk governance may be appropriate for emergency and disaster management, other aspects of disaster risk management are heavily dependent on the overall quality of governance to achieve its objectives ( GAR 13 paper

UNDP, 2014a

; Lavell and Maskrey, 2014

Lavell, Allan and Andrew Maskrey. 2014,The future of disaster risk management, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 13, Issue 4, 2014.. .

As such, while strengthening disaster risk governance may have catalysed progress in disaster management and contributed to a significant reduction in mortality in some countries, it has not guaranteed effectiveness and success in those areas of the HFA related to prospective risk management. Today’s governance failures may ripple through time and affect future generations; this is the case with the 2008 financial crisis, which resulted from decades of failure to effectively govern increasingly interdependent financial markets and mechanisms (Turnbull and Pirson, 2011

Turnbull, Shann and Michael Pirson. 2011,Corporate Governance, Risk Management, and the Financial Crisis: An Information Processing View, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 19, Issue 5 (September): 459-470.. .

When the multiple mirrors that make up the hyper-reality of the disaster risk management sector begin to shatter in real disasters, it becomes clear that—in the same way that disaster risk is endogenous to the social and economic processes that configure it over time—managing risks cannot be separated from the broader governance of social and economic development. Capacities for disaster risk management cannot be strengthened autonomously without reference to broader governance constraints such as low levels of voice and accountability, underresourced local governments, dysfunctional judicial systems, social conflict and economic crisis.

As this hyper-reality is revealed through the experience of risk and disaster, new forms of

	128 Part II - Chapter 6 However, Haiti and Eritrea have far higher levels of corruption than Japan and Grenada, and the former are likely to be more challenged to manage their risks effectively. 6.7 The times they are a-changing The governance arrangements adopted by many countries, relying heavily on specialized emergency management organizations, are not always appropriate to address disaster risk. The governance approach based on the disaster management cycle and represented by a specialized disaster risk management sector may have reached its limit, while at the same time a new governance paradigm has yet to emerge. Emergency management is a specialized technical domain that is relevant not only to disasters but also to technological, marine and aeronautical accidents, civil disturbances and other events. However, the governance arrangements required to manage emergencies effectively are not necessarily appropriate to address development challenges related to urban development and environmental management. Put simply, while the fire services at the local level may be completely capable of rescuing flood victims from their roofs or earthquake victims from collapsed structures, these capabilities and the underlying institutional and legislative arrangements have little connection with those required to address issues of land use or water management. While emergency management was able to evolve as a stand-alone sector addressing the challenges of responding to accidents, technological disasters and the impacts of conflict, the governance arrangements required to manage disaster risks need—by definition—to interweave with and flow through the broader governance arrangements used by countries to manage economic and social development (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. ). As additional responsibilities have been assigned to specialized emergency management organizations in their syncretic evolution into disaster risk management systems, the governance arrangements adopted by many countries have become unfit for purpose. In other words, while specialized and self-contained arrangements for disaster risk governance may be appropriate for emergency and disaster management, other aspects of disaster risk management are heavily dependent on the overall quality of governance to achieve its objectives (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. ; Lavell and Maskrey, 2014 x Lavell, Allan and Andrew Maskrey. 2014,The future of disaster risk management, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 13, Issue 4, 2014.. . ). As such, while strengthening disaster risk governance may have catalysed progress in disaster management and contributed to a significant reduction in mortality in some countries, it has not guaranteed effectiveness and success in those areas of the HFA related to prospective risk management. Today’s governance failures may ripple through time and affect future generations; this is the case with the 2008 financial crisis, which resulted from decades of failure to effectively govern increasingly interdependent financial markets and mechanisms (Turnbull and Pirson, 2011 x Turnbull, Shann and Michael Pirson. 2011,Corporate Governance, Risk Management, and the Financial Crisis: An Information Processing View, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 19, Issue 5 (September): 459-470.. . ). When the multiple mirrors that make up the hyper-reality of the disaster risk management sector begin to shatter in real disasters, it becomes clear that—in the same way that disaster risk is endogenous to the social and economic processes that configure it over time—managing risks cannot be separated from the broader governance of social and economic development. Capacities for disaster risk management cannot be strengthened autonomously without reference to broader governance constraints such as low levels of voice and accountability, underresourced local governments, dysfunctional judicial systems, social conflict and economic crisis. As this hyper-reality is revealed through the experience of risk and disaster, new forms of	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 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 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 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