GAR 2015 Main Report

255

Thirdly, if disaster risk is driven into previously unknown orders of magnitude and into new domains, the ability to manage known risks will be only one pillar of effective risk management. Instead, the general agility required to manage risks as they emerge by anticipating, adapting and continuously transforming may be more important—particularly where it builds general as opposed to specific resilience ( GAR 13 paper

Pelling, 2014

Pelling, Mark (ed.). 2014,Pathways for Transformation: Disaster risk management to enhance development goals, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

;

Cavallo and Ireland, 2014

Cavallo, Antonella and Vernon Ireland. 2014,Preparing for Complex Independent Risks: A System of Systems Approach to Building Disaster Resilience, Input Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

; Ray-Bennet et al., 2014). This implies that managing disaster risks should be seen as part of a broader approach to managing risks of all kinds.

The concept of social progress is useful as it incorporates many of the characteristics that

will be required to manage risks effectively: basic human needs, foundations of well-being, and opportunity.5

As such, countries that score highly on the Social Progress Index are likely to have greater capacity to manage and reduce their disaster risks. This is important because it implies that sound disaster risk management is not only a prerogative of high-income countries, but rather of all countries that have achieved a certain level of social progress. For example, while Mauritius and Iraq exhibit very similar levels of disaster risk, Mauritius has attained a far higher level of social progress and is therefore better positioned to manage its risks (Figure 13.4).

Figure 13.4 Social progress and average annual loss

(Source: UNISDR with data from Global Risk Assessment and the Social Progress Index.)

	255 Thirdly, if disaster risk is driven into previously unknown orders of magnitude and into new domains, the ability to manage known risks will be only one pillar of effective risk management. Instead, the general agility required to manage risks as they emerge by anticipating, adapting and continuously transforming may be more important—particularly where it builds general as opposed to specific resilience (Pelling, 2014 x Pelling, Mark (ed.). 2014,Pathways for Transformation: Disaster risk management to enhance development goals, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ; Cavallo and Ireland, 2014 x Cavallo, Antonella and Vernon Ireland. 2014,Preparing for Complex Independent Risks: A System of Systems Approach to Building Disaster Resilience, Input Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ; Ray-Bennet et al., 2014). This implies that managing disaster risks should be seen as part of a broader approach to managing risks of all kinds. The concept of social progress is useful as it incorporates many of the characteristics that will be required to manage risks effectively: basic human needs, foundations of well-being, and opportunity.5 As such, countries that score highly on the Social Progress Index are likely to have greater capacity to manage and reduce their disaster risks. This is important because it implies that sound disaster risk management is not only a prerogative of high-income countries, but rather of all countries that have achieved a certain level of social progress. For example, while Mauritius and Iraq exhibit very similar levels of disaster risk, Mauritius has attained a far higher level of social progress and is therefore better positioned to manage its risks (Figure 13.4). Figure 13.4 Social progress and average annual loss (Source: UNISDR with data from Global Risk Assessment and the Social Progress Index.)	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 170 Page 180 Page 190 Page 200 Page 210 Page 220 Page 230 Page 240 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 ->Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310