GAR 2015 Main Report

170

Part II - Chapter 8

low-income households and small businesses continue to absorb the persistent losses from extensive risk. Similarly, international assistance is only forthcoming for recovery from larger disasters.

In general, countries that already have effective policy and regulatory frameworks as well as strategies and financial mechanisms in place to prevent new disaster risks can take full advantage of the gap to transform development, whereas the window of opportunity opens and closes rapidly for those which have made little progress in putting disaster risk management measures in place before disaster happens.

For example, in 2007 the principle of ensuring that risk-reducing measures are included in the recovery and reconstruction of essential public assets was introduced into Australia’s Natural Disaster

Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) with the goal of reducing future disaster losses and reconstruction costs (Government of Australia, no date

Government of Australia. no date,Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, Emergency Management Australia.. .

). Following Cyclone Oswald in 2013, the Queensland and Australian Governments launched the Queensland Betterment Fund, a joint, targeted fund of AU$80 million to finance upgraded standards in the reconstruction of assets (Box 8.10).

Data for assessment and recovery planning

It is clear that post-disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks are key instruments to reach consensus on how to kick-start recovery in the shortest possible time frame as well as how to incorporate risk-reducing measures. While good assessments do not guarantee successful recovery, weak or wrong assessments will almost surely result in badly conceived response and recovery ( GAR 13 paper

GFDRR, 2014a

GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2014a,Understanding Risk: The Evolution of Disaster Risk Assessment since 2005, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

Understandably, the reliability, relevance and timeliness of data is crucial, as is effective

(Source:

Williges et al., 2014

Williges, Keith, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler, Junko Mochizuki and Reinhard Mechler. 2014,Modeling the indirect and fiscal risks from natural disasters: Emphasizing resilience and “building back better”, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

Figure 8.5 Difference in financing gap with respect to return period from a “business as usual” (BAU) to a “building back better” (BBB) scenario

	170 Part II - Chapter 8 low-income households and small businesses continue to absorb the persistent losses from extensive risk. Similarly, international assistance is only forthcoming for recovery from larger disasters. In general, countries that already have effective policy and regulatory frameworks as well as strategies and financial mechanisms in place to prevent new disaster risks can take full advantage of the gap to transform development, whereas the window of opportunity opens and closes rapidly for those which have made little progress in putting disaster risk management measures in place before disaster happens. For example, in 2007 the principle of ensuring that risk-reducing measures are included in the recovery and reconstruction of essential public assets was introduced into Australia’s Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) with the goal of reducing future disaster losses and reconstruction costs (Government of Australia, no date x Government of Australia. no date,Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, Emergency Management Australia.. . ). Following Cyclone Oswald in 2013, the Queensland and Australian Governments launched the Queensland Betterment Fund, a joint, targeted fund of AU$80 million to finance upgraded standards in the reconstruction of assets (Box 8.10). Data for assessment and recovery planning It is clear that post-disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks are key instruments to reach consensus on how to kick-start recovery in the shortest possible time frame as well as how to incorporate risk-reducing measures. While good assessments do not guarantee successful recovery, weak or wrong assessments will almost surely result in badly conceived response and recovery (GFDRR, 2014a x GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2014a,Understanding Risk: The Evolution of Disaster Risk Assessment since 2005, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ). Understandably, the reliability, relevance and timeliness of data is crucial, as is effective (Source: Williges et al., 2014 x Williges, Keith, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler, Junko Mochizuki and Reinhard Mechler. 2014,Modeling the indirect and fiscal risks from natural disasters: Emphasizing resilience and “building back better”, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. .) Figure 8.5 Difference in financing gap with respect to return period from a “business as usual” (BAU) to a “building back better” (BBB) scenario	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 120 Page 130 Page 140 Page 150 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 ->Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 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