Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013
From Shared Risk to Shared Value: the Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction









background image
210 Part III - Chapter 14

Even in today’s globalised economy, national governments and local administrations remain one of the most important mediators and regulators of private investment and thus disaster risk management. Governments report significant progress in achieving effective disaster response and preparedness and are investing more in risk reduction. Yet, the required shift towards prospective risk management remains a challenge for most.

The future of disaster risk reduction xii  will depend on governments and political leaders becoming more successful at combining the promotion of local and national economic growth with effective disaster risk management on the ground. Thus, they will have to expand their approach to risk governance to include the creation of incentives for risk sensitive investment.

14.1
Evolving risk governance:
evidence from the 2011–
2013 HFA Monitor
Results from national self-assessments of progress against the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) confirm countries’ previously reported challenges, particularly in addressing the underlying drivers of risk.
Risk governance, understood as a systemic approach to decision-making related to physical and technological hazards, has become an important concept for businesses and governments to effectively manage disaster risks (Fra Paleo, 2009
x

Fra Paleo, U. (ed.). 2009.,Building Safer Communities. Risk Governance, Spatial Planning and Responses to Natural Hazards., Amsterdam,The Netherlands: IOS Press.. .
; Renn, 2008
x

Renn, O. 2008.,Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World., University of Stuttgart: Earthscan.. .
; IRGC, 2005
x

IRGC (Integrated Risk Governance Council). 2005.,Risk Governance. Towards an integrated approach., Risk Governance. Towards an integrated approach., Geneva,Switzerland: Integrated Risk Governance Council.. .
; IRGP-IHDP, 2010
x

IRGP-IHDP. 2010.,Integrated Risk Governance Project Science Plan., Integrated Risk Governance Project and International Human Dimension Program for Global Environmental Changes., Bonn,Germany.. .
). Since the previous Global Assessment Report (UNISDR, 2011
x

UNISDR. 2011.,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development., United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction., Geneva,Switzerland: UNISDR.. .
), which focused on public risk governance and associated government strategies, it has become apparent that risk governance structures and policies need to be expanded to include real consideration of the business sector, as well as civil society.
This is particularly pertinent, owing to evidence of rising economic loss risk from business investments in hazard-exposed regions. As highlighted in previous chapters, economic analyses and forecasts used by investors rarely mention disaster risk. Moreover, policy-makers in national government institutions and international organisations, although beginning to recognise changes in the nature of risks and risk management requirements, are still limited in their capacity to comprehensively assess and ad-
dress identified risks and future uncertainty (World Bank, 2012a
x

World Bank. 2012a.,World Development Report 2013: Jobs., Washington DC: World Bank,. .
; GAR 13 paperKent, 2013
x

GAR13 Reference Kent, R. 2013.,Making Futures Real: The policy-makers challenge., Background Paper prepared for the 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction., Geneva,Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.
).
In overall terms, HFA Progress Reports 2011–2013 (see Box 14.1) highlight broadly similar successes and challenges as reported in the 2007–2009 and 2009–2011 cycles.i 
Risk governance arrangements established by countries and cities to manage their disaster risks have evolved significantly since 2005v .
From the 1980s onward, a growing number of countries reformed their legislation, policy and institutional frameworks for disaster risk management. Civil defence and protection organisations, focused on response, gradually gave way to a second generation of national systems for disaster risk management with common characteristics (UNDP, 2012a
x

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2012a.,A Global Review: UNDP Support to Institutional and Legislative Systems for Disaster Risk Management., UNDP., New York,USA.. .
and 2012b; World Bank, 2012a
x

World Bank. 2012a.,World Development Report 2013: Jobs., Washington DC: World Bank,. .
; ADPC, 2003
x

ADPC (Asian Disaster Prepardness Center). 2003.,Disaster Management in South East Asia - an overview., Bangkok, Thailand,. .
). Multi-sector committees now provide coordination and articulation across different ministries and departments; responsibilities are decentralised to local governments and dedicated budget lines for risk reduction activities are established.
As of December 2012, 85 countries had established multi-sectoral national platforms for disaster risk management; 191 countries had a dedicated focal point for disaster risk reduction in a central government department; and 121 countries enacted legislation to establish policy and legal frameworks for disaster risk reductionvi . But with notable excep-










Contact us  |  Disclaimer  |  Our Partners  |  References  |  Acknowledgements  |  PreventionWeb |  The Global Platform  |  © United Nations 2011.