GAR 2015 Main Report

Chapter 1

(Source: Baird et al., 1975

Baird, A., P. O’Keefe, K. Westgate and B. Wisner. 1975,Towards an Explanation and Reduction of Disaster Proneness, University of Bradford Disaster Research Unit. Occasional papers: Number 11, August 1975. Bradford.. .

and Khan et al., 2008

Khan, Himayatullah, Laura Giurca Vasilescu and Asmatullah Khan. 2008,Disaster Management Cycle: A Theoretical Approach, Available from http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2008/20 08-6.pdf (last accessed 11 December 2014).. .

Figure 1.6 The original disaster management cycle and a current interpretation

other countries began to approach disaster risk management, at first in Latin America (Lavell and Franco, 1996) and later in other regions.

Many countries reformed their governance arrangements after major disasters (Wilkinson et al., 2014

Wilkinson, E., E. Comba and K. Peters. 2014,Disaster Risk Governance: Unlocking Progress and Reducing Risk, UNDP, BCPR and ODI.. .

), often adopting the principles pioneered in the Colombian system, and with crucial support from national or regional champions. For example, Nicaragua adopted new arrangements in 2000 following the 1998 disasters associated with Hurricane Mitch (Government of Nicaragua, 2005

Government of Nicaragua. 2005,Informe Nicaragua - CMRD-Japón 2005, Secretaría Ejecutiva del Sistema Nacional para la Prevención, Mitigación y Atención de Desastres (SE-SINAPRED).. .

), India followed suit after the 1999 Orissa super-cyclone and the 2001 Gujarat earthquake (Government of India, 2004

Government of India. 2004,Disaster Management in India, Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs.. .

), and Sri Lanka and Indonesia introduced reforms after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

At the same time, regional organizations such as CEPREDENAC, CDERA, SOPAC and the SAARC Disaster Management Centre, technical centres such as ADPC and time-bound regional programmes such as PREDECAN were created.8

Multilateral organizations, including the European Commission (ECHO), UNDP (BCPR) and the World Bank (GFDRR), likewise began to create specialized units which combined emergency management functions, post-disaster recovery as well as activities designed to reduce disaster risks.

The IDNDR, the Yokohama Plan of Action and the HFA served to consolidate, legitimize and empower this emerging disaster risk management sector globally, regionally and nationally. The three strategic goals of the HFA implicitly reflect the logic of the disaster management cycle. The central goal of strengthening institutions and governance arrangements supports the other two goals, which are designed to integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development and into effective emergency preparedness, response and recovery.

	32 Chapter 1 (Source: Baird et al., 1975 x Baird, A., P. O’Keefe, K. Westgate and B. Wisner. 1975,Towards an Explanation and Reduction of Disaster Proneness, University of Bradford Disaster Research Unit. Occasional papers: Number 11, August 1975. Bradford.. . and Khan et al., 2008 x Khan, Himayatullah, Laura Giurca Vasilescu and Asmatullah Khan. 2008,Disaster Management Cycle: A Theoretical Approach, Available from http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2008/20 08-6.pdf (last accessed 11 December 2014).. . .) Figure 1.6 The original disaster management cycle and a current interpretation other countries began to approach disaster risk management, at first in Latin America (Lavell and Franco, 1996) and later in other regions. Many countries reformed their governance arrangements after major disasters (Wilkinson et al., 2014 x Wilkinson, E., E. Comba and K. Peters. 2014,Disaster Risk Governance: Unlocking Progress and Reducing Risk, UNDP, BCPR and ODI.. . ), often adopting the principles pioneered in the Colombian system, and with crucial support from national or regional champions. For example, Nicaragua adopted new arrangements in 2000 following the 1998 disasters associated with Hurricane Mitch (Government of Nicaragua, 2005 x Government of Nicaragua. 2005,Informe Nicaragua - CMRD-Japón 2005, Secretaría Ejecutiva del Sistema Nacional para la Prevención, Mitigación y Atención de Desastres (SE-SINAPRED).. . ), India followed suit after the 1999 Orissa super-cyclone and the 2001 Gujarat earthquake (Government of India, 2004 x Government of India. 2004,Disaster Management in India, Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs.. . ), and Sri Lanka and Indonesia introduced reforms after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. At the same time, regional organizations such as CEPREDENAC, CDERA, SOPAC and the SAARC Disaster Management Centre, technical centres such as ADPC and time-bound regional programmes such as PREDECAN were created.8 Multilateral organizations, including the European Commission (ECHO), UNDP (BCPR) and the World Bank (GFDRR), likewise began to create specialized units which combined emergency management functions, post-disaster recovery as well as activities designed to reduce disaster risks. The IDNDR, the Yokohama Plan of Action and the HFA served to consolidate, legitimize and empower this emerging disaster risk management sector globally, regionally and nationally. The three strategic goals of the HFA implicitly reflect the logic of the disaster management cycle. The central goal of strengthening institutions and governance arrangements supports the other two goals, which are designed to integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development and into effective emergency preparedness, response and recovery.	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 ->Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 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 250 Page 260 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310