PreventionWeb.net
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011
Revealing Risk, Redefining Development
  Previous  pageNext page 
 

Chapter 7     Reforming risk governance

As highlighted by the HFA Progress Review (Chapter 4), the institutional arrangements, legislation and policy for disaster risk management (DRM) focus on disaster management, preparedness and response. Even where multi-sector institutional systems have been created for DRM, responsibility and policy are still usually anchored in disaster management organizations, which often lack the political authority or technical capacities to influence important decisions related to national and sector planning and investment. Responsibility for DRM may also be mandated to local governments that often lack the necessary resources and capacities. Such conditions create barriers to civil society participation and result in weak accountability.

As the previous chapter highlighted, there are major opportunities to reduce disaster risk by adapting development instruments, such as national public investment planning systems, social protection mechanisms, and national and local infrastructure investments. In most countries, however, existing risk governance arrangements are inappropriate, and reforming them is therefore fundamental to reducing disaster risk.

In central government, this means anchoring overall responsibility for DRM in a ministry or office with adequate political authority to ensure policy coherence across development sectors. Incremental decentralization accompanied by clear mandates, budgets and systems of subsidiarity, promotes ownership and improved risk governance capacities at all levels. Scaling up community initiatives can be enabled by local planning, financing and investment that build on civil society partnerships. Improved accountability mechanisms enshrined in legislation and work processes, social audit processes, and a free press and active media, all contribute to improving the awareness of rights and obligations on all sides.



7.1 Problems with risk governance

The development instruments and mechanisms for successful DRM need to be facilitated by appropriate risk governance arrangements. This requires political commitment and policy coherence in central government, competent and accountable local governments, and an openness to work in partnership with civil society, in particular with lowincome households and communities. As highlighted by the HFA Progress Review, existing arrangements are generally not appropriate.

Over the past two decades, many countries have invested in developing national policy, and strengthening and reforming institutional and legislative systems for DRM. Civil protection and civil defence agencies, often in the defence sector, have progressively been replaced by a new generation of multi-sector and multilayered DRM systems, where responsibility is placed in each sector and decentralized to local governments. However, it has been repeatedly highlighted (Hewitt, 1983

x

Hewitt, K. 1983. Interpretations of calamity: From the view point of human ecology. Boston, USA: Allen.
.
; Stallings, 1995

x

Stallings, R.A. 1995. Promoting risk. Constructing the earthquake threat. New York, USA: Aldine de Gruyter.
.
; Lavell and Franco, 1996

x

Lavell, A. and Franco, E., eds. 1996. Estado, sociedad y géstion de los desastres en América Latina. En busca del paradigma perdido. Panama, Panama: La Red.
.
; Wisner et al., 2004

x

Wisner, B., Kent, G., Carmalt, J., Cook, B., Gaillard, J.C., Lavell, A., Oxley, M., Gibson. T., Kelman, I., van Niekerk, D., Lassa, J., Delica Willison, Z., Bhatt, M., Cardona, O.-D., Benouar, D. and Narvaez, L. 2011. Political will for disaster reduction: What incentives build it, and why is it so hard to achieve? Background paper prepared for the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.
.
) that both national policy and the institutional and supporting legislative systems remain fundamentally skewed to supporting disaster management, in particular preparedness and response, rather than risk reduction. At the national level, responsibility is still usually anchored in disaster management organizations, which often lack the political authority or technical capacities to influence important decisions related to national and local sector planning and investment. Whereas such systems often mandate responsibility for DRM to local governments, they may lack the necessary resources and capacities. Such conditions create major barriers to civil society participation and result in weak accountability.

In some countries, developments outside the realm of DRM have also influenced these arrangements. In the United States of America, for example, the events of 11 September 2001 shifted attention away from a broader focus on DRM, which had evolved through the 1990s, to an emphasis on crisis management and emergency preparedness and response under a newly created Department of Homeland Security (Gerber, 2007

x

Gerber, B. 2007. Disaster management in the United States: Examining key political and policy challenges. Policy Studies Journal 35 (2): 227–238.
.
).

7.2 Locating responsibility for DRM at the centre of power

Coherent national policy for disaster risk reduction and DRM needs to be driven from the centre. This means that responsibility for national oversight and coordination needs to be located in a central ministry, and that financial planning for DRM is included in the national accounting system.

The role of a national disaster risk reduction policy cannot be overestimated. It must be clear and comprehensive, yet detailed enough to define the roles and responsibilities of different actors in development sectors as well as local governments. The HFA Progress Review highlights that about one third of the 82 countries and territories who reported have a national disaster risk reduction policy in place, and another third are currently developing one or are in the process of having it reviewed.

Where responsibility for DRM is located within central government has an enormous positive influence on the effectiveness of policy and accompanying legislation and investment. In principal, ultimate responsibility should be vested at the highest possible political level (UNISDR, 2009

x

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2009. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: Risk and poverty in a changing climate. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Click here to go to GAR09 page.
). However, where DRM has been located in the Office of the President or Prime Minister, it has often been rendered politically weak, poorly resourced and, moreover, far removed from central development and planning processes (UNESCAP and UNISDR, 2010

x

UNESCAP/UNISDR. 2010. Protecting development gains: Reducing disaster vulnerability and building resilience in Asia and the Pacific. The Asia Pacific Disaster Report 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCAP and UNISDR,
.
). Also, when responsibility lies within an environment ministry or an emergency management organization, as is more common, impact and influence on national or local sector development planning and investment decisions may be minimal (Box 7.1). In South Africa, the National Disaster Management Center (NDMC) is part of the Department for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs which is perceived as having a low profile (GAR 11 paperWilliams, 2011

x

GAR11 Williams, G. 2011. The political economy of disaster risk reduction. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDP contribution to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.

Click here to view this GAR paper.
), and limited links between the NDMC and local governments mean that this positioning has not been very successful. Where responsibilities have been vested in interior or defence ministries, the predominance of disaster management functions, such as preparedness and response, has generally been reinforced.

Where multi-sector, decentralized systems have been created, often with names that allude to risk reduction and management, this has tended to introduce disaster management into sectors and local governments, rather than focusing attention on using development planning and investment as opportunities for DRM (UNISDR, 2007

x

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2007. Building disaster resilient communities: Good practices and lessons learned.Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
.
). ‘DRM focal points’ within ministries and technical agencies can increase awareness of such issues within sectors but, unless they have the resources and the authority to call the sector to account for risk reduction, their impact is limited and depends on individual performance and relationships (GAR 11 paperWilliams, 2011

x

GAR11 Williams, G. 2011. The political economy of disaster risk reduction. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDP contribution to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.

Click here to view this GAR paper.
). A good example of successful leadership and mainstreaming is in Mozambique, where the Coordinating Council of Disaster Management is chaired by the Prime Minister and attended at the ministerial level (GAR 11 paperWilliams, 2011

x

GAR11 Williams, G. 2011. The political economy of disaster risk reduction. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDP contribution to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.

Click here to view this GAR paper.
).

Box 7.1 National responsibility for DRM in Bangladesh


In Bangladesh, the Ministries of Food and of Disaster Management and Relief were merged in 2003 to create a new Ministry of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM). This has significantly improved coordination of effective disaster management, but still with a focus on disaster relief, as the MoFDM is not represented on key central government planning boards, such as the National Economic Council and the Economic Affairs Committee. It therefore does not have the necessary political influence required to drive disaster risk reduction across government departments.

(Source: GAR 11 paperWilliams, 2011

x

GAR11 Williams, G. 2011. The political economy of disaster risk reduction. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDP contribution to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.

Click here to view this GAR paper.
)
In some countries, a national disaster risk reduction policy framework has been developed that defines an overall strategic vision for disaster risk reduction that allows for specific policies to be developed in each sector. The HFA Progress Review, however, shows that without political authority it is difficult to ensure coherence between national and sector policies, or to influence sector priorities. For example, Algeria’s disaster management law of 2004 requires coordination of all relevant sectors, but it has been implemented with limited success. In contrast, in the Gambia, the National Disaster Management Council is chaired by the Vice President with several cabinet ministers as regular members, resulting in strong leadership and commitment to DRM and its successful integration into the country’s national development policy, the National Vision 2020 (Lisk, 2010

x

Lisk, F. 2010. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the Gambia. Case study prepared for the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.
.
).


Mauritius, the Republic of Moldova, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam all reported on the challenge of implementing well-developed national policy due to the lack of corresponding legislation to enable adequate enforcement and coordination. However, specific DRM legislation is rarely the only legislation related to reducing risks. Even countries that have adopted comprehensive legislation regulate risks through myriad sector laws and orders with respect to land use, building and water management. This may lead to multiple and competing institutional responsibilities to address underlying risk drivers and contradictory policy objectives.

The incipient incorporation of DRM into national planning and public investment systems highlights an opportunity to explicitly locate political authority and policy responsibility for DRM, and for climate change adaptation, in a central planning body such as national planning departments or ministries for economy and finance. Given their role in deciding the allocation of the national budget, these ministries could have greater political leverage over planning and investment in each sector if they had policy responsibility for DRM.

There may be political resistance to moving such responsibility to a central planning or finance ministry, particularly where the existing structure is in the defence sector. However, as the focus of DRM shifts from managing disasters to reducing risks, the political incentives for strengthening the role of finance and planning ministries are likely to become more explicit.


GAR 11 Background documents
  x 
Close!

GAR11GAR 2011 Contributing Papers

Acharya, B. 2010. Social accountability in DRM – drawing lessons from social audit of MGNREGS. Case study prepared for Gupta, 2011, the Asian Disaster Reduction and Response (ADRRN)–SEEDS. [View]

Archer, D. and Boonyabancha, S. 2010. Seeing a disaster as an opportunity, harnessing the energy of disaster survivors for change. Case study prepared for the IIED Background Paper and GAR11. [View]

Daikoku, L. 2010. Citizens for clean air, New York. Case study prepared for the ADRRN. [View]

Gupta, M. 2011. Filling the governance ‘gap’ in disaster risk reduction. Paper prepared by the Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network (ADRRN). [View]

Herranz, P. Human rights and accountability. Case study prepared for the ADRRN. [View]

Ievers, J. and Bhatia, S. 2011. Recovery as a catalyst for reducing risk. IRP. [View]

IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). 2011. Desk review on trends in the promotion of community-based disaster risk reduction through legislation. [View]

Karayalcin, C. and Thompson, P. 2010. Decision-making constraints on the implementation of viable disaster risk reduction projects. Some perspectives from economics. [View]

Llosa, S. and Zodrow, I. 2011. Disaster risk reduction legislation as a basis for effective adaptation. [View]

Olson, R. Sarmiento Prieto and J. Hoberman, G. 2011. Disaster risk reduction, public accountability, and the role of the media: Concepts, cases and conclusions. . [View]

Satterthwaite, D. 2011. What role for low-income communities in urban areas in disaster risk reduction? . [View]

Scott, Z. and Tarazona, M. 2011. Decentralization and disaster risk reduction. Study on disaster risk reduction, decentralization and political economy analysis for UNDP contribution to the GAR11. [View]

Williams, G. 2011. The political economy of disaster risk reduction. Study on Disaster Risk Reduction, Decentralization and Political Economy Analysis for UNDP contribution to the GAR11. [View]
  Previous  pageNext page 
Contact us  |  Disclaimer  |  Our Sponsors  |  References  |  Acknowledgements  |  PreventionWeb |  The Global Platform  |  © United Nations 2011.