GAR 2015 Main Report

251

that matter, mainstreaming poverty reduction, ecosystem protection or good governance are by definition still derived from the conception that disasters and climate change are externalities to be reduced rather than endogenous or internal characteristics of development.

Managing these internalities inside development is thus a very different approach to mainstreaming disaster risk reduction to protect against externalities. It implies that managing risks should be a defining characteristic of sustainable development. Managing risks—rather than disasters as indicators of unmanaged risk—now has to become endogenous to the DNA of development instead of an exotic add-on that needs to be mainstreamed.

Managing disaster risks requires three mutually supportive approaches or practices:

prospective risk management: preventing or avoiding the accumulation of new and future risks by making risk-sensitive development choices, including in disaster recovery and reconstruction;
corrective risk management: mitigating or reducing existing risks by investing in corrective measures, including early warning and preparedness; and
compensatory risk management: taking measures to support the resilience of individuals and societies in the face of residual risk that cannot be effectively reduced.

These three approaches support all three international agendas under negotiation in 2015: disaster risk reduction, climate change and sustainable development (Table 13.1). Furthermore, they can facilitate the integration of these agendas through the understanding that both disaster risk and climate change are ultimately manifestations of unsustainable development.

Prospective disaster risk management is probably most closely aligned to the notion of sustainability. However, as stressed above, this is not just another way of saying mainstreaming. Instead, it points to the need to develop new parameters, principles and tools that transform existing thought and practice from within.

Maybe most importantly, while corrective and compensatory risk management can be interpreted within the current understanding and practice of disaster risk management, prospective risk management is far more disruptive of this paradigm, given that its effectiveness depends more on political than on financial capital.

The numbers add up

Managing the different layers of disaster risk through appropriate combinations of prospective, corrective and compensatory strategies is essential if the global AAL of US$314 billion, associated with earthquakes, tsunamis, tropical cyclones and floods in the built environment, is to be reduced and if sustainable development is to

Table 13.1 Managing disaster risks to support disaster risk reduction, address climate change and promote sustainable development

(Source: UNISDR.)

	251 that matter, mainstreaming poverty reduction, ecosystem protection or good governance are by definition still derived from the conception that disasters and climate change are externalities to be reduced rather than endogenous or internal characteristics of development. Managing these internalities inside development is thus a very different approach to mainstreaming disaster risk reduction to protect against externalities. It implies that managing risks should be a defining characteristic of sustainable development. Managing risks—rather than disasters as indicators of unmanaged risk—now has to become endogenous to the DNA of development instead of an exotic add-on that needs to be mainstreamed. Managing disaster risks requires three mutually supportive approaches or practices: prospective risk management: preventing or avoiding the accumulation of new and future risks by making risk-sensitive development choices, including in disaster recovery and reconstruction; corrective risk management: mitigating or reducing existing risks by investing in corrective measures, including early warning and preparedness; and compensatory risk management: taking measures to support the resilience of individuals and societies in the face of residual risk that cannot be effectively reduced. These three approaches support all three international agendas under negotiation in 2015: disaster risk reduction, climate change and sustainable development (Table 13.1). Furthermore, they can facilitate the integration of these agendas through the understanding that both disaster risk and climate change are ultimately manifestations of unsustainable development. Prospective disaster risk management is probably most closely aligned to the notion of sustainability. However, as stressed above, this is not just another way of saying mainstreaming. Instead, it points to the need to develop new parameters, principles and tools that transform existing thought and practice from within. Maybe most importantly, while corrective and compensatory risk management can be interpreted within the current understanding and practice of disaster risk management, prospective risk management is far more disruptive of this paradigm, given that its effectiveness depends more on political than on financial capital. The numbers add up Managing the different layers of disaster risk through appropriate combinations of prospective, corrective and compensatory strategies is essential if the global AAL of US$314 billion, associated with earthquakes, tsunamis, tropical cyclones and floods in the built environment, is to be reduced and if sustainable development is to Table 13.1 Managing disaster risks to support disaster risk reduction, address climate change and promote sustainable development (Source: UNISDR.)	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 120 Page 130 Page 140 Page 150 Page 160 Page 170 Page 180 Page 190 Page 200 Page 210 Page 220 Page 230 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 ->Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310