GAR 2013 Main Report

228 Part III - Chapter 15

(Source:

Kent, 2013

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.

; Ipsos MORI, 2012)

Box 15.1 Making futures real – the importance of risk perceptions at senior policy levels

15.3

Expanded risk governance:

integrating public and

private approaches

Governance structures, particularly at the local level, can build on the experience and vested interest of businesses with large fixed assets, such as real estate companies, developers, investment banks, large stores and property management firms to more effectively manage disaster risk. The successful partnering of such large companies, as well as small and medium suppliers, with public planning bodies should play an important role in reducing vulnerability and exposure to physical hazards.

Progress in truly prospective disaster risk management may be incipient at best. However, disaster risk management and reduction is starting to gain some space on the competitiveness agendas of governments. Policy-makers responding to a recent survey on perceptions of disaster risk and future uncertainty noted the increasing interconnectedness of economies and resulting vulnerability to synchronous and cascading failures and shocks ( GAR 13 paper

Kent, 2013

; Ipsos MORI, 2013

Ipsos MORI. 2013.,Making Futures Real. Exploring how policy-makers perceive and deal with long-term risk., Unpublished research report prepared for UNISDR and HFP, Kings College.. .

). It is also increasingly recognised that the more long term the perspective is on risk and uncertainty, the more it becomes an international and trans-boundary concern and less a national capacity issue (Ipsos MORI, 2013

Ipsos MORI. 2013.,Making Futures Real. Exploring how policy-makers perceive and deal with long-term risk., Unpublished research report prepared for UNISDR and HFP, Kings College.. .

The focus on longer-term risks in governments and many international organisations is still relatively

new (

Kent, 2013

). Countries are just beginning to develop a more strategic approach to planning for risks, and some are indicating that a cultural change is taking place in which awareness, supported by greater media coverage and open debate of disaster risk, is increasing (Box 15.1).

The impact of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 highlighted how risk governance frameworks need to consider these new dimensions of risk.

New York dealt comparatively well with the severe impacts of Hurricane Sandy, but the sheer scale of losses, such as the estimated US$10 billion to the New York subway system alone—the worst damage in its history, confirm that new dimensions of risk and resilience may need to be considered, particularly in large urban areas with interconnected and interdependent infrastructure systems.ⁱⁱ

Both Super-storm Sandy in 2012 and the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 were characterised by the breakdown of electricity generation and supply systems. In today’s global economy, almost all critical infrastructures, including ICT and transportation, depend on electricity (OECD, 2011

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011.,Future Global Shocks. Improving Risk Governance., OECD Review of Risk Management, OECD Territorial Reviews., Paris,France: OECD.. .

). This corresponds with the survey conducted in six cities of the Americas, described in Chapter 10, where more than half of the 1,332 businesses identified business disruptions owing to power outages as a main concern when disasters hit (Sarmiento and Hoberman, 2012). Therefore, local and national governments need to identify key risk amplifiers

An innovative initiative looking at perceptions of current and long-term risks, conducted in partnership with two leading research institutes—Kings College and Ipsos MORI—and UNISDR, reached out to 30 senior policymakers in planning and finance ministries of national governments and in relevant multilateral organisations. The initiative completed in-depth qualitative interviews that form the basis for a more systematic and regular assessment of changing risk perceptions among senior policy-makers.

Results from initial interviews mirror the findings of the HFA Monitor, and highlight the importance of continuing promotion of risk identification, data collection and risk assessment at the country level. Few country representatives reported engaging in a full risk identification process, meaning that their assessments and consequent decision-making are based mainly on known risks and uncertainty and future risks are not considered.