Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015
Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management

background image
(Source: UNISDR with data from the HFA Monitor.)
Figure 8.4 Progress in integration of DRR in recovery and rehabilitation
For example, the International Recovery Platform (IRP) was announced at the Second World Conference for Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan as a mechanism to identify gaps and constraints experienced in post disaster recovery and to serve as a catalyst for the development of tools, resources, and capacity for resilient recovery. IRP aims to be an international source of knowledge on good recovery practice.12
Soon afterwards, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) created a Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) as part of a new approach to improve coordination within the UN system and between the UN and other stakeholders after major disasters. At the same time, support for national recovery planning and programming was an important component of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), of the former UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) as well as similar units in other regional and international organizations. At the same time, UNDP, the World Bank and the European Union joined forces to develop a common approach to assessing
recovery needs: the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment and Recovery Framework (PDNA/RF).
In search of space
When disaster occurs, an enormous quantity of accumulated risk is liberated. On the one hand, this vast energy is destructive. But on the other hand, it creates a space where new possibilities can emerge. How this space can be used is the fundamental challenge facing post-disaster recovery. The experience of recovery and reconstruction highlights just how difficult it is to take advantage of the window of opportunity that opens in the space or gap after a disaster and to ensure that new development prevents and avoids risks rather than reconstructing them.
A first set of problems refers precisely to the length of the gap or space between the destruction of the disaster and new development. This has variously been described as the gap between relief and recovery or the relief to development continuum (Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell, 1994

Buchanan-Smith, Margaret and Simon Maxwell. 1994,Linking Relief and Development: An introduction and overview. .
; Longhurst, 1994

Longhurst, Richard. 1994,Conceptual Frameworks for Linking Relief and Development, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 4: 17-23.. .
). Fundamentally, the longer the gap, the greater the probability that losses to assets in disasters, including homes, possessions and livestock, as well as death or injury in the case of households; equipment, stocks and premises in the case of businesses; or infrastructure and facilities in the case of local governments will translate into longer-term impacts. GAR09 presented evidence indicating that unless losses are buffered by prompt recovery actions, the depth and breadth of poverty increase, education, health and nutrition suffer, and social indicators deteriorate. GAR11 highlighted the financing gap that can arise for governments if they are unable to buffer disaster losses, while GAR13 showed how many small businesses never recover from those losses (UNISDR, 2009a

UNISDR. 2009a,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. .
, 2011a, 2013a).
Recovery, therefore, raises key issues in compensatory risk management, in particular whether mechanisms are in place which can allow households, businesses and governments to
HFA Core Indicator 4.5: DRR measures integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation.
Previous page Previous Section  
Contact us  |  Disclaimer  |  Our Partners  |  References  |  Acknowledgements  |  PreventionWeb |  WCDRR  |  © United Nations 2015.