GAR 2015 Main Report

The 22 core indicators of the HFA were divided into thirteen research areas, with four additional areas covering subjects that were not explicitly addressed in the core indicators, namely interconnected and interdependent risk, private investment in disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and standards and normative mechanisms for disaster risk management.

Assessments were coordinated by organizations of the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other institutions according to sector-specific expertise. Following an open call for papers, more than 200 input papers were received, and a peer-reviewed background paper was prepared for each research area.3

116

Part II

Notes

1 www.preventionweb.net.
2 Baudrillard (1994) defined hyper-reality as “the generation by models of a real without origin or reality”. Eco (1986) likewise suggests that the action of hyper-reality is to desire reality and, in the attempt to achieve that desire, to fabricate a false reality that is to be consumed as real.
3 For full list of research areas and related concept notes, see https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/networks/ private/hfa-thematic-review.

1986).2 In this hyper-reality, perceptions of progress and achievement in disaster management contrast with the lack of progress in addressing the underlying risk drivers.

To provide a more complete picture of whether the inputs described by the HFA Monitor have led to outputs that contribute to the expected outcome, and to identify common success factors and challenges, peer-reviewed research was commissioned for GAR15 to complement the findings from the HFA Monitor (Box II.1).

The peer-reviewed assessment has filled many gaps in knowledge. However, there is still a general absence of systematic and comparable output indicators that could allow a more rigorous assessment of what has actually been achieved under each priority for action, such as the number of buildings built to disaster-resistant codes, the proportion of watersheds protected, the coverage of early warning systems, or the proportion of risk-sensitive public or private investment. As such, the assessment still relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, from which broader tendencies have to be induced.

This part of the report uses the evidence from the peer-reviewed assessment together with findings from the HFA Monitor to look inside the disaster risk management sector. Chapter 6 examines how and why the understanding and

practice of disaster risk management as disaster management has not been effective in preventing and avoiding risk generation and accumulation. Chapter 7 analyses the social production of risk information and questions the effectiveness of public awareness and information in generating a culture of prevention. Chapter 8 reviews the strengthening of disaster management, at the same time highlighting unmet challenges in postdisaster recovery.

Box II.1 Peer-reviewed assessment of progress towards the expected outcome of the HFA

	The 22 core indicators of the HFA were divided into thirteen research areas, with four additional areas covering subjects that were not explicitly addressed in the core indicators, namely interconnected and interdependent risk, private investment in disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and standards and normative mechanisms for disaster risk management. Assessments were coordinated by organizations of the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other institutions according to sector-specific expertise. Following an open call for papers, more than 200 input papers were received, and a peer-reviewed background paper was prepared for each research area.3 116 Part II Notes 1 www.preventionweb.net. 2 Baudrillard (1994) defined hyper-reality as “the generation by models of a real without origin or reality”. Eco (1986) likewise suggests that the action of hyper-reality is to desire reality and, in the attempt to achieve that desire, to fabricate a false reality that is to be consumed as real. 3 For full list of research areas and related concept notes, see https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/networks/ private/hfa-thematic-review. 1986).2 In this hyper-reality, perceptions of progress and achievement in disaster management contrast with the lack of progress in addressing the underlying risk drivers. To provide a more complete picture of whether the inputs described by the HFA Monitor have led to outputs that contribute to the expected outcome, and to identify common success factors and challenges, peer-reviewed research was commissioned for GAR15 to complement the findings from the HFA Monitor (Box II.1). The peer-reviewed assessment has filled many gaps in knowledge. However, there is still a general absence of systematic and comparable output indicators that could allow a more rigorous assessment of what has actually been achieved under each priority for action, such as the number of buildings built to disaster-resistant codes, the proportion of watersheds protected, the coverage of early warning systems, or the proportion of risk-sensitive public or private investment. As such, the assessment still relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, from which broader tendencies have to be induced. This part of the report uses the evidence from the peer-reviewed assessment together with findings from the HFA Monitor to look inside the disaster risk management sector. Chapter 6 examines how and why the understanding and practice of disaster risk management as disaster management has not been effective in preventing and avoiding risk generation and accumulation. Chapter 7 analyses the social production of risk information and questions the effectiveness of public awareness and information in generating a culture of prevention. Chapter 8 reviews the strengthening of disaster management, at the same time highlighting unmet challenges in postdisaster recovery. Box II.1 Peer-reviewed assessment of progress towards the expected outcome of the HFA	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 30 Page 40 Page 50 Page 60 Page 70 Page 80 Page 90 Page 100 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 ->Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 140 Page 150 Page 160 Page 170 Page 180 Page 190 Page 200 Page 210 Page 220 Page 230 Page 240 Page 250 Page 260 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310