GAR 2013 Main Report

Notes

i Unless cited otherwise, all data referring to national progress or challenges presented in this chapter are based on national self-assessment reports of progress against the HFA as submitted through the HFA Monitor.

ii https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring/national/?pid:73&pih:2.

iii As of 22 March 2013.

iv Geographical regions are defined according to the ‘Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions’ of the United Nations Statistics Division, Standard Country and Area Codes Classification.

v Forthcoming UNISDR summary report of national progress in implementing the HFA 2005-2013 (for publication in 2013).

vi Forthcoming UNISDR summary report of national progress in implementing the HFA 2005-2013 (for publication in 2013).

vii Government of Thailand, Board of Investment: http://thailandboi.com/investment-zones.html (accessed 30-10-2012).

viii Data from Emerald Insight in: Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management Journal, Vol. 8): http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=2040-7262&volume=8&chapterid=1700 0011&show=html.

ix The disaster risk reduction allocations were calculated using embedded investment criteria developed by Dhar Chakrabarti, 2012

Dhar Chakrabarti, P.G. 2012.,Understanding existing methodologies for allocating and tracking DRR resources in India., Study commissioned by UNISDR., Bangkok,Thailand. .

; they are not to be considered official statistics of the Government of India.

x In Mexico, DRR is defined as prevention (to avoid new risks) and risk reduction (reduce existing risks).

xi Information directly contributed to UNISDR in support of the 2013 Global Assessment Report.

xii Chief of the National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) regulation No. 17/2011 on rehabilitation and reconstruction; the Disaster Management Plan 2010-2014 and National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2010–2012.

222 Part III - Chapter 14

Indonesia, for example, after the experiences of the Yogyakarta and Central Java Earthquake of 2006, the West Sumatra Earthquake of 2009 and post Merapi Eruption of 2010, estimates that 5 percent of recovery and reconstruction funds are assigned to disaster risk reduction. ^xii Estimates in other countries vary considerably: Senegal estimates this at 2 percent; Bahrain, 5 percent; Anguilla, between 20 percent and 40 percent; and Colombia, 60 percent. How these funds are used is currently not well documented. But as Box 14.7 shows, investments in corrective risk management in recovery and reconstruction programmes may contribute to reductions in disaster risks.

These investments in corrective risk management are essential. Without appropriate maintenance and potentially required retrofitting, aging infrastructure becomes a risk in both high-income and low-income countries. The bridge collapse in Minnesota, United States of America, in 2007, is a well-known example that aging infrastructure causes deaths and injuries (National Transportation Safety Board, 2007

National Transportation Safety Board. 2007.,Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge Minneapolis, Minnesota., August 1, 2007. Accident Report. NTSB/HAR-08/03 PB2008-916203., United States of America.,. .

). In Africa, on average, about 30 percent of countries’ infrastructure assets need rehabilitation (Briceno-Garmendia et al., 2009).

However, risks to the stock of existing infrastructure puts to the test even the most risk sensitive investment planning systems. For example, though Peru is at the forefront of building disaster risk considerations into public investment planning, it reports major challenges with assessing and addressing disaster-related risks to major development projects and its stock of infrastructure. It rates itself as having made some progress, but without systematic policy and institutional commitment (progress level 2 in the HFA Monitor). Similarly, Switzerland, a country with sophisticated disaster risk management policy, legislation and practices in place, reports that a major challenge will be the retrofitting of a large stock of existing buildings that are vulnerable to earthquakes, including a number of historical buildings.

Poor coordination between capital and maintenance expenditures often occurs in countries that operate dual budgeting systems, which separate capital from current expenditure ( GAR 13 paper

Orihuela, 2012

Orihuela, J.C. 2012.,Understanding Existing Methodologies for Allocating and Tracking DRR Resources in 6 Countries in the Americas: Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Peru., Study commissioned by UNISDR., Geneva,Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

). Though this practice might be useful to make investment priorities clearer, investment in infrastructure needs to be appraised in terms of both capital and operating (including maintenance) costs.