8.3 Leverage existing development instruments and mechanisms
While DRM has conventionally been
delivered through stand-alone
projects and programmes, a number
of governments are now adapting
existing development mechanisms
and instruments to reduce risks and
strengthen resilience. These include
public investment planning, social
protection and ecosystem-based
approaches. Although many of these
innovations are incipient, they hold
the promise of addressing underlying
risk drivers, and simultaneously
generating co-benefits for multiple
stakeholders. These mechanisms
may build on existing institutional
capacities, which should offer
powerful incentives for governments.
8.3.1 Factor disaster risk into public investments and development plans
Factoring disaster risk considerations into
national planning and public investment
decisions can radically scale up risk reduction.
This is due to the large scale and targeted
focus of public investment in many low- and
middle-income countries and many low-income
communities of other countries, making them a
particularly strategic entry point for addressing
risk drivers.
Co-benefits include enhanced social and
economic development, such as fewer schools
or roads damaged in floods and earthquakes,
and improvements in the quality, coherence
and sustainability of public spending. Whereas
a number of countries have already factored
disaster risk into the evaluation of public
investment projects, far greater benefits could be
achieved if it is also included further upstream in
the national planning cycle, i.e., development,
sector and land use planning.
Above all, it is essential that drought risk be fully
factored into national development, requiring a
high-level policy and planning framework that
addresses the many competing uses of water
and the decline of available water resources.
Strengthened local governance, including
partnerships between governments, the water
sector and water users, is similarly vital to
address conflicting demands for water at the
sub-national level.
8.3.2 Employ social protection to reduce vulnerability and buffer losses
Many countries are already making huge
investments in social protection through
instruments such as structural conditional
cash transfers and temporary employment
programmes. They increase the disaster resilience
of risk-prone households, and the criteria for
receiving such cash transfers can be modified
when a disaster is forecast or in areas that are
exposed to recurring hazards. They could also
be given to non-poor households that are likely
to become poor if they were to suffer disaster losses. Temporary employment programmes provide additional household income and can be used after disasters or to offset predicted events such as seasonal droughts. Bundling micro-insurance with micro-finance and other loans is an additional complementary source of social protection, and they can be adapted to generate specific incentives for DRM in businesses and at the household level. These instruments can reach out to millions of risk-prone households using existing institutional structures and mechanisms, reducing poverty and vulnerability at the same time.
8.3.3 Recognize the value of healthy ecosystems
For reducing disaster risk, the protection, restoration and enhancement of ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and mangroves can be much more attractive in terms of cost–benefit ratios than ‘conventional’ hard engineering solutions. Also, ‘greening’ cities – by planting trees and roof gardens, and increasing the permeability of paved surfaces – may be a more cost-effective means of reducing urban flooding than expensive investments that increase storm drainage capacity. In addition, such ‘green’ solutions can also improve groundwater availability and reduce summer temperatures, generating important energy savings during peak consumption periods. Similarly, restoring wetlands can be a less expensive way to mitigate flood hazard than constructing additional river defence walls, while also increasing the supply of water, improving biodiversity and providing livelihood opportunities in fishing and tourism.
Instruments and methods for using ecosystem management for DRM include protected area legislation, integrated planning, ecosystem accounting and payment for ecosystem services. At present, the principal obstacles against more widespread adoption of such instruments remain the undervaluation of ecosystem services and associated co-benefits, partly due to data scarcity and a lack of understanding by planners and professionals in the construction and engineering sectors.
8.3.4 Adopt a participatory approach to planning and regulations
Most low- and middle-income countries have policies, legislation and capacities related to urban planning, management and building regulations. However, using such instruments for DRM has proved to be a challenge, particularly where a large proportion of urban development occurs in the informal sector. What is required is the adoption of a culture of planning and regulation based on partnerships and joint ownership, between local and central governments, risk-prone households and communities and organizations that represent them.
National laws should stipulate local government responsibility for planning and control while ensuring adequate resources to plan and regulate development. Laws can be strengthened by explicitly acknowledging and endorsing the responsibilities of civil society, community representatives, and mechanisms that can be used to promote partnership and dialogue. These mechanisms include participatory budgeting in which low-income households, their organizations and other stakeholders are involved. Processes include establishing investment priorities, negotiation of more flexible planning and building standards appropriate to the needs of low-income households, negotiated processes to identify land and secure tenure, and joint planning and implementation of settlement and infrastructure upgrading. Regulations that require less government oversight and which become engrained in local planning and building practices represent another opportunity. For example, simple building codes and processes coupled with education on safe building practices can go a long way to improve the safety of housing.
In many low- and middle-income countries, a participatory approach should be adopted by necessity and not just by conviction. It represents the most cost-effective and sustainable mechanism for reducing urban risks, while at the same time facilitating poverty reduction, and a more constructive relationship between civil society and government.
8.4 Strengthen risk governance
Using development mechanisms and
instruments for DRM requires a reform
of many existing risk governance
arrangements. This requires
increased political authority and policy
coherence in central government,
competent and accountable local
governments, and the willingness of
governments to work in partnership
with civil society, particularly with lowincome
households and communities.
8.4.1 Place responsibility for DRM within strong central institutions
In central government, overall responsibility for
DRM and also climate change adaptation should
be placed in a ministry or office with the political
authority to ensure policy coherence across
development sectors. The full integration of
DRM into all sectors and local public investment
must be ensured through assessments, planning
and budgeting. Such arrangements would mean
that the responsible body, such as a central
planning or finance ministry, for example, is
not also tasked with delivery. Practical disaster
management may remain a responsibility of a
civil protection or emergency management office,
social protection would remain anchored in a
social ministry, and so on.
National disaster risk reduction policy
frameworks are rarely based on comprehensive
national risk assessments, and thus do not provide
the kind of focused goals, targets and benchmarks
that assist in implementation, monitoring and
enforcement. A national policy, if based on a
stratification of DRM, can provide a broader
framework for development planning and public
investment decisions, including risk financing,
social protection strategies, and sector policies,
plans and programmes. If the policy framework
is owned by an office or ministry with strong
political and economic leverage, it will have a
better chance of delivery.
8.4.2 Decentralize responsibility, capacities and resources in tandem
Competent and accountable local government is
a precondition for effective DRM. Unless local
governments have the capacities and resources
to fulfil their functions, decentralization of
responsibilities may be counter-productive. In
decentralization processes, more attention needs
to be paid to the appropriate layering of functions,
where higher administrative levels financially
and technically support local implementation.
If the decentralization of relevant functions and
resources cannot be fully realized due to extremely
weak local capacities, an incremental approach
may be the most effective way forward.
The deconcentration of functions without wholly
devolving authorities and budgets can be a
pragmatic first step towards full decentralization.
Twinning of capacity-rich municipalities and
regions with poorer or more risk-prone ones,
and strategic partnerships between technical
centres and civil society organizations, further
complement incremental devolution.
8.4.3 Hold decision-makers and institutions accountable
Social demand for improved accountability
mechanisms can galvanize political will to
invest in DRM or reform risk-governance
arrangements. For national policy and local
delivery to function effectively, there needs to
be an awareness of rights and obligations by
all sides, supported by strong and transparent
accountability mechanisms. Provisions in
legislation and specific regulations of public
office can clearly demarcate the liabilities
of leaders and government officials. Where
transparent contractual arrangements both for
civil servants and private service providers are
agreed upon, such liabilities can be linked to
expenditure and budgets. This can be done
through performance reviews within and across
government departments or through social
audits at a local or sector level.
The media and civil society play an important
role in creating the social demand for
strengthened accountability mechanisms, not just for effective DRM but for public investments overall. This report presents evidence that such social accountability brings marginalized groups into the public arena, and significantly increases development effectiveness by improving service delivery at the local level.
Citizens must be aware of disaster risks if they are to hold governments to account, but the lack of public information and education was highlighted as a significant gap in the HFA Progress Review. The limited public awareness activities that do occur focus primarily on physical hazards or on the preparedness and response aspects of disaster management. Far more resources need to be devoted to increasing public awareness of risks and risk drivers at all levels and scales, and the need for a comprehensive approach that goes beyond disaster management. An important first step would be to ensure that citizens have access to national disaster loss inventories and comprehensive risk assessments. In a number of countries public access to disaster loss and risk information is not encouraged, which undermines accountability.
8.4.4 Partner with civil society
Effective local governance relies on adopting approaches to local planning, financing and investment that build on partnerships with civil society, particularly with risk-prone households and their representative organizations. This allows for the scaling up of community initiatives. Where community organizations have only limited capacity to reduce disaster risk and to hold governments to account, meso-level partnerships with other organizations, expert institutions and government bodies can improve the success of local and community-driven disaster risk reduction.
The enabling of such partnerships is an imperative, yet it must be done in a transparent manner based on clear terms of reference for each partner, and supported by an adequate legal framework. Where the roles and responsibilities of all partners are defined and well aligned, their joint action will provide the most effective means of addressing DRM challenges across scales. However, this may require a change in the culture of public administration and the adoption of new ways of working.
8.5 Build momentum for disaster risk reduction and management
Acknowledging and understanding the existence and importance of the stock of risk is the responsibility of every government. The HFA provides a general roadmap for achieving substantial reductions in disaster losses, but countries now need to set their own specific goals and targets. To do this, a number of tools are available to facilitate a process that is inclusive and transparent, and accountable to those most affected by disasters. These include the HFA Progress Review, national disaster loss monitoring systems, probabilistic risk assessments, and cost–benefit analyses.
This report has shown that there are many reasons why countries do not invest enough in disaster risk reduction, but there are no excuses for continuing to do so. The time for taking serious action is now. Fortunately, many of the policies discussed in this report will generate net savings for governments if adapted and adopted, by producing parallel development benefits. The evidence strongly suggests that cost-effective measures, if transparently developed, will also increase political as well as economic capital.
The process of compiling this report benefitted from the participation of more governments, technical experts, international organizations and civil society groups than were able to contribute to the 2009 report, indicating a growing momentum for disaster risk reduction. This needs to be harnessed and directed toward gaps in research and current knowledge. Known gaps include seismic risk, which was omitted from this report pending the finalization of new earthquake models, and an analysis of global drought risks just initiated. Disaggregated disaster impacts by gender and age need to be better understood, and the role of the private sector requires closer examination. Feedback loops between risk drivers must be examined as well as the cost-effectiveness of additional DRM measures. Closing such gaps will help in identifying the more cost-effective means of reducing disaster risks, and further build the case for more investment in DRM.