GAR 2015 Main Report

121

by many countries have increasingly incorporated language that stresses the importance of addressing the underlying risk drivers. In recent years, many national disaster management organizations have been relabelled as disaster risk management systems. Regional and national plans, strategies and policies have given increasing prominence to reducing risk rather than managing disaster, to prospective rather than merely corrective disaster risk management, and to protecting vulnerable households and communities instead of strategic economic assets and infrastructure alone ( GAR 13 paper

UNDP, 2014a

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

Unfortunately, many of these commitments in law and policy have not been translated into real priorities and investments. A review of the qualitative information in HFA progress reports (UNISDR, 2014a

UNISDR. 2014a,Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction: A contribution towards the development of policy indicators for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. .

) highlights a divorce between discourse and practice and a continued focus on disaster management and corrective risk management rather than on addressing the underlying drivers. Although they include language consistent with prospective risk management, most new laws continue to focus largely on disaster management. The priority assigned to prospective risk management is usually weak, as highlighted by the consistently low level of achievement of HFA Priority for Action 4 in HFA progress reports (UNISDR, 2009a

UNISDR. 2009a,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. .

, 2011a, 2013a).

In other words, disaster risk management has become synonymous with interventions to address specific and existing risks, for example by constructing flood defences, reinforcing or upgrading infrastructure, and retrofitting schools and hospitals, to name but a few examples (Lavell and Maskrey, 2014

Lavell, Allan and Andrew Maskrey. 2014,The future of disaster risk management, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 13, Issue 4, 2014.. .

). In practice, however, most resources and efforts continue to be invested in strengthening capacities for disaster management (Gall et al., 2014a

Gall, Melanie, Susan Cutter and Khai Nguyen. 2014a,Governance in Disaster Risk Management, 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Section on the Future of Disaster Risk Management. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, July 2014.. .

At the same time, the sector in general has developed only weak connections with and influence on development sectors, and it has often lacked

the political authority, governance arrangements and technical competencies to do so. Development policies, plans and investments that generate and accumulate risks continue to enjoy political support in many countries, for example if they are seen to boost economic growth ( GAR 13 paper

UNDP, 2014a

). Prospective disaster risk management generally requires lower levels of financial investment but higher levels of political capital and support than corrective disaster risk management. Given that disaster risk management has been understood and put into practice as a set of instrumental and administrative mechanisms to protect development against exogenous threats, this political support has rarely been forthcoming. At the same time, development sectors also tend to understand disaster risk management as disaster management, again weakening the imperative for prospective risk management.

As a result, the disaster risk management sector has had little success in mainstreaming its priorities and ensuring that other ministries or departments adopt policies, norms, standards and regulations to manage and reduce risk. Similarly, there has been little systematic engagement with the private sector in most countries, except through the lens of corporate social responsibility.

In effect, the strong political determination required by the HFA to promote and integrate disaster risk reduction into development programming has rarely materialized. The practice of prospective disaster risk management continues to be more symbolic than real. As the HFA comes to a close, it is difficult to identify countries where the strengthening of disaster risk governance has seriously influenced the direction of development.

	121 by many countries have increasingly incorporated language that stresses the importance of addressing the underlying risk drivers. In recent years, many national disaster management organizations have been relabelled as disaster risk management systems. Regional and national plans, strategies and policies have given increasing prominence to reducing risk rather than managing disaster, to prospective rather than merely corrective disaster risk management, and to protecting vulnerable households and communities instead of strategic economic assets and infrastructure alone (UNDP, 2014a x UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ). Unfortunately, many of these commitments in law and policy have not been translated into real priorities and investments. A review of the qualitative information in HFA progress reports (UNISDR, 2014a x UNISDR. 2014a,Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction: A contribution towards the development of policy indicators for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. . ) highlights a divorce between discourse and practice and a continued focus on disaster management and corrective risk management rather than on addressing the underlying drivers. Although they include language consistent with prospective risk management, most new laws continue to focus largely on disaster management. The priority assigned to prospective risk management is usually weak, as highlighted by the consistently low level of achievement of HFA Priority for Action 4 in HFA progress reports (UNISDR, 2009a x UNISDR. 2009a,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. . , 2011a, 2013a). In other words, disaster risk management has become synonymous with interventions to address specific and existing risks, for example by constructing flood defences, reinforcing or upgrading infrastructure, and retrofitting schools and hospitals, to name but a few examples (Lavell and Maskrey, 2014 x Lavell, Allan and Andrew Maskrey. 2014,The future of disaster risk management, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 13, Issue 4, 2014.. . ). In practice, however, most resources and efforts continue to be invested in strengthening capacities for disaster management (Gall et al., 2014a x Gall, Melanie, Susan Cutter and Khai Nguyen. 2014a,Governance in Disaster Risk Management, 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Section on the Future of Disaster Risk Management. Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, July 2014.. . ). At the same time, the sector in general has developed only weak connections with and influence on development sectors, and it has often lacked the political authority, governance arrangements and technical competencies to do so. Development policies, plans and investments that generate and accumulate risks continue to enjoy political support in many countries, for example if they are seen to boost economic growth (UNDP, 2014a x UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ). Prospective disaster risk management generally requires lower levels of financial investment but higher levels of political capital and support than corrective disaster risk management. Given that disaster risk management has been understood and put into practice as a set of instrumental and administrative mechanisms to protect development against exogenous threats, this political support has rarely been forthcoming. At the same time, development sectors also tend to understand disaster risk management as disaster management, again weakening the imperative for prospective risk management. As a result, the disaster risk management sector has had little success in mainstreaming its priorities and ensuring that other ministries or departments adopt policies, norms, standards and regulations to manage and reduce risk. Similarly, there has been little systematic engagement with the private sector in most countries, except through the lens of corporate social responsibility. In effect, the strong political determination required by the HFA to promote and integrate disaster risk reduction into development programming has rarely materialized. The practice of prospective disaster risk management continues to be more symbolic than real. As the HFA comes to a close, it is difficult to identify countries where the strengthening of disaster risk governance has seriously influenced the direction of development.	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 30 Page 40 Page 50 Page 60 Page 70 Page 80 Page 90 Page 100 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 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 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