GAR 2015 Main Report

Chapter 1

While responsibilities had been decentralized, local governments often lacked commitment as well as financial and technical capacities. Adoption and implementation of local disaster risk management plans was limited to larger urban centres, creating dependency on the national level. Risk transfer mechanisms were not in place, nor were clear risk financing strategies. This meant that specialized agencies like the Fund for the Reconstruction and Social Development of the Coffee-Growing Region (FOREC) had to be created after major disasters such as those associated with the 1999 earthquake, which weakened the national disaster risk management agency. At the same time, that agency had been moved from the President’s office to the Ministry of the Interior, reducing its political leverage and influence.

Disaster risk management was interpreted primarily in terms of disaster preparedness and recovery rather than risk prevention and reduction. The mainstreaming of disaster risk considerations into land-use planning, environmental management, and economic and social development planning was more symbolic than real. Involvement of the private sector was limited, and there was an overall lack of accountability.

In 2012, those deficiencies were addressed in a new law (INGENIAR, 2010

INGENIAR. 2010,Programa de Reducción de la Vulnerabilidad Fiscal del Estado ante Desastres Naturales, Apoyo al Fortalecimiento de las Políticas e Instrumentos Financieros del Sistema Nacional para la Prevención y Atención de Desastres (SNPAD) de Colombia -DGR-. Documento con bases de formulación de la política (Documento técnico síntesis de soporte para. .

) which makes disaster risk management a responsibility of the state and the population as a whole. This new piece of legislation is based on three key processes: risk knowledge, risk management and disaster management, with particular emphasis on prospective risk management. The ultimate responsibility for disaster risk management has returned to the President of the Republic (Government of Colombia, 2012

Government of Colombia. 2012,Ley No, 1523 del 24 de Abril de 2012. Por el cual se adopta la política nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres y se establece el sistema nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres y se dictan otras disposiciones.. .

). With the 2012 law, Colombia has taken a second step in pioneering governance arrangements for disaster risk management. The coming years will show whether these arrangements are effective or not.10

Figure 1.7 Disaster risk reduction and loss trends in Colombia (in constant 2012 US$)9

(Source: UNISDR with data from national loss databases; World Bank, 2012

World Bank. 2012,Analysis of Disaster Risk Management in Colombia: A Contribution to the Creation of Public Policies, Coordinators and Editors: Ana Campos G., Niels Holm-Nielsen, Carolina Díaz G., Diana M. Rubiano V., Carlos R. Costa P., Fernando Ramírez C. and Eric Dickson. The World Bank and GFDRR, Washington, D.C.. .

; Government

of Colombia, 2010; Colombia HFA Report 2011-2013; López, 2009

López, Juanita. 2009,La construction sociale du risque à Medellin (Colombie): Gouvernance locale et représentations, Thèse pour l’obtention du grade Docteur en EHESS. Paris.. .

; AIS, 2014

AIS (Asociación Colombiana de Ingeniería Sísmica). 2014,Historia, Available from http:// www. asosismica.org.co/?idcategoria=1052. Accessed 30 September 2014.. .

	34 Chapter 1 While responsibilities had been decentralized, local governments often lacked commitment as well as financial and technical capacities. Adoption and implementation of local disaster risk management plans was limited to larger urban centres, creating dependency on the national level. Risk transfer mechanisms were not in place, nor were clear risk financing strategies. This meant that specialized agencies like the Fund for the Reconstruction and Social Development of the Coffee-Growing Region (FOREC) had to be created after major disasters such as those associated with the 1999 earthquake, which weakened the national disaster risk management agency. At the same time, that agency had been moved from the President’s office to the Ministry of the Interior, reducing its political leverage and influence. Disaster risk management was interpreted primarily in terms of disaster preparedness and recovery rather than risk prevention and reduction. The mainstreaming of disaster risk considerations into land-use planning, environmental management, and economic and social development planning was more symbolic than real. Involvement of the private sector was limited, and there was an overall lack of accountability. In 2012, those deficiencies were addressed in a new law (INGENIAR, 2010 x INGENIAR. 2010,Programa de Reducción de la Vulnerabilidad Fiscal del Estado ante Desastres Naturales, Apoyo al Fortalecimiento de las Políticas e Instrumentos Financieros del Sistema Nacional para la Prevención y Atención de Desastres (SNPAD) de Colombia -DGR-. Documento con bases de formulación de la política (Documento técnico síntesis de soporte para. . ) which makes disaster risk management a responsibility of the state and the population as a whole. This new piece of legislation is based on three key processes: risk knowledge, risk management and disaster management, with particular emphasis on prospective risk management. The ultimate responsibility for disaster risk management has returned to the President of the Republic (Government of Colombia, 2012 x Government of Colombia. 2012,Ley No, 1523 del 24 de Abril de 2012. Por el cual se adopta la política nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres y se establece el sistema nacional de gestión del riesgo de desastres y se dictan otras disposiciones.. . ). With the 2012 law, Colombia has taken a second step in pioneering governance arrangements for disaster risk management. The coming years will show whether these arrangements are effective or not.10 Figure 1.7 Disaster risk reduction and loss trends in Colombia (in constant 2012 US$)9 (Source: UNISDR with data from national loss databases; World Bank, 2012 x World Bank. 2012,Analysis of Disaster Risk Management in Colombia: A Contribution to the Creation of Public Policies, Coordinators and Editors: Ana Campos G., Niels Holm-Nielsen, Carolina Díaz G., Diana M. Rubiano V., Carlos R. Costa P., Fernando Ramírez C. and Eric Dickson. The World Bank and GFDRR, Washington, D.C.. . ; Government of Colombia, 2010; Colombia HFA Report 2011-2013; López, 2009 x López, Juanita. 2009,La construction sociale du risque à Medellin (Colombie): Gouvernance locale et représentations, Thèse pour l’obtention du grade Docteur en EHESS. Paris.. . ; AIS, 2014 x AIS (Asociación Colombiana de Ingeniería Sísmica). 2014,Historia, Available from http:// www. asosismica.org.co/?idcategoria=1052. Accessed 30 September 2014.. . .)	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 ->Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 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 250 Page 260 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310