385

6Chapter

Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

386

Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction“Awareness of thepotential benefits of

disaster reduction is stilllimited to specialized

circles and has not yetbeen successfully

communicated to allsectors of society, in

particular policy makersand the general

public…due to a lack ofattention for the issue,

insufficient commitmentand resources for

promotional activities atall levels.

A number of positiveresults have been

achieved during the firstfive years of the Decade,

although unevenly andnot in the concerted and

systematic way asenvisaged by the General

Assembly [at thecommencement of the

International Decade forNatural Disaster

Reduction].”

Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World, 1994

A number of conclusions can be drawn following ongoing consultation and research conductedfor this review since late 2001. This chapter provides a summary of the main arguments andrecommendations made that appear at the conclusion of each section that will be furthercomplemented by a review of the achievements and shortcomings since the adoption of theYokohama Strategy and Plan of Action in 1994. As a contribution to the emerginginternational agenda for disaster risk reduction, these recommendations will be presented at theWorld Conference on Disaster Reduction to be held at Kobe-Hyogo, Japan in January 2005.

Effective disaster risk management is akey element in good governance. A lack ofpolitical commitment is often cited as themain hindrance to the implementation ofdisaster risk reduction practices, inaddition to:

• competing priorities for funding andpolitical attention such as otherdevelopment needs and conflicts;

• limited visibility of disaster riskreduction compared to humanitarianassistance and basic developmentpractices;

• lack of coherence and coordination ofadvocacy activities due to the varyingpriorities and characteristics of membersof the disaster reduction communityacross multi-institutional and cross-disciplinary boundaries; and

• absence of accountability for systematicimplementation and monitoring ofprogress.

The ISDR Secretariat is committed tocontinually review past, present and futureinitiatives in cooperation with its keypartners. The aim of a regular review istwofold: to compile, synthesize anddisseminate information on activitiesrelated to disaster risk reduction; and toinitiate the development of a frameworkfor guiding implementation andmonitoring of progress to be used bygovernments, civil society and otherrelevant actors.

Providing evidence of the benefits ofreducing risk and vulnerability promotes

The International Decade for NaturalDisaster Reduction (IDNDR) proved tobe a valuable learning experience forgovernments, specialists, communitiesand individuals in global efforts to reducethe negative impacts of natural hazards.The view that disasters are temporarydisruptions to be managed only byhumanitarian response, or that theirimpacts will be reduced only by sometechnical interventions has been replacedby the recognition that they are intimatelylinked with sustainable developmentactivities in the social, economic andenvironmental fields. So-called “natural”disasters are increasingly regarded as oneof the many risks that people face rangingfrom epidemics to economic downturns,lack of food, clean water and safeenvironment to unemployment andinsecurity. Where many of these risks arecompounded, impacts of disasters areoften exacerbated. This explains theincreasing use of the expression “disasterrisk reduction” recognizing theimportance of risk issues, in contrast tothe previously employed “natural disasterreduction”.

Many national and local developmentplans have benefited from progress inusing new institutional and technical toolsfor improved disaster reduction practices.In particular, significant advances havebeen made in the increasing use of riskassessments, specific methodologies andresearch initiatives, early warning systems,information, training, education andpublic awareness activities.

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

387

sustained future investment and prioritiesin disaster risk reduction. Ongoingcommitment and collaboration amonglocal organizations, governments, thescientific and technical community, andinternational and regional organizations isessential to unite efforts towards theachievement of sustainable development.This is an area where the ISDR can makea difference.

Together with UNDP and with theinvolvement of other international andregional organizations, the ISDRSecretariat will prepare future globalreports on disaster risk reduction that willincorporate recent efforts to develop aDisaster Risk Index (DRI) as described inReducing disaster risk: A challenge fordevelopment (UNDP, 2004). The DRIproject measures and compares relativelevels of vulnerability to four naturalhazard types (earthquake, tropical cyclone,flood and drought). Joint UN/ISDR-UNDP reporting is expected to improveunderstanding of the relationship betweendevelopment and disaster risk, identifyglobal trends and initiatives as well asencourage further discussion on disasterrisk reduction based on hazard impact andvulnerability indicators and address othernatural hazards gradually.

Priorities for the future

Firstly, there is a need for ddiissaasstteerr aanndd rriisskkrreedduuccttiioonn ttoo bbee aann eesssseennttiiaall ppaarrtt ooff tthheebbrrooaaddeerr ccoonncceerrnnss ooff ssuussttaaiinnaabblleeddeevveellooppmmeenntt,, and hence the need to makesure that risk assessments and vulnerabilityreduction measures are taken into accountin different fields, such as environmentalmanagement, poverty reduction andfinancial management. These linkagesintroduce new challenges. Each sector,discipline or institution speaks a differentlanguage and brings new practices andexperiences to the subject which need to beharmonized. The MillenniumDevelopment Goals set for the year 2015cannot be achieved unless the heavy toll ofdisasters in human and economic terms is

reduced. The WSSD was a milestone eventin 2002 that marked unprecedented globalrecognition of the importance of disasterrisk reduction in the sustainabledevelopment agenda, substantiated in theJohannesburg Plan of Implementation (seeannex 6).

Secondly, it is essential to note that ccuurrrreennttddeevveellooppmmeenntt pprraaccttiicceess ddoo nnoott nneecceessssaarriillyyrreedduuccee ccoommmmuunniittiieess’’ vvuullnneerraabbiilliittyy ttooddiissaasstteerrss – indeed, ill-advised andmisdirected development practices mayactually increase disaster risks. Aconsiderable challenge remains in raisingawareness of this concern and to influenceand enhance existing developmentprojects, poverty reduction strategies andother programmes to systematically reducedisaster risk.

Thirdly, ppoolliittiiccaall ccoommmmiittmmeenntt bbyy ppuubblliiccaanndd pprriivvaattee ppoolliiccyy mmaakkeerrss aanndd llooccaallccoommmmuunniittyy lleeaaddeerrss,, bbaasseedd oonn aannuunnddeerrssttaannddiinngg ooff rriisskkss aanndd ddiissaasstteerrrreedduuccttiioonn ccoonncceeppttss,, iiss ffuunnddaammeennttaall ttooaacchhiieevviinngg cchhaannggee. Progress requireseffective administration and resourceallocation from higher levels of authoritywithin a society, together with the localunderstanding and active participation ofthose people most immediately affected bydisaster risks.

Fourthly, even though national and localauthorities bear the main responsibility forthe safety of their people, it is tthheeiinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall ccoommmmuunniittyy’’ss dduuttyy ttooaaddvvooccaattee ppoolliicciieess aanndd aaccttiioonnss iinn ddeevveellooppiinnggccoouunnttrriieess that pursue informed and well-designed disaster risk reduction strategies,and to ensure that their own programmesreduce and do not increase disaster risks.

In particular, the continuing emphasis onpost-disaster relief allows the costs andresponsibilities for poorly managed risksto be transferred to the internationalcommunity and provides little incentivefor disaster-prone and developingcountries to embrace significant andsustained disaster risk managementpractices. In some cases, communities rely

“Many of us in ourrhetoric talk about[disaster risk reduction],but in practice I thinkvery little is done in termsof integrating this intopractice”. “No one issaying ‘this is what Isuggest for this type ofsolutions’ that are not tooexpensive and appropriatefor communities”.

Bilateral donor agencyfrom Tearfund study,2003

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

388

on disasters to attract media attention andfinancial assistance, from both donors andthe international community. In this respect, there is a crucial role forthe UN system, international organizationsand bilateral donors to play in supportingnational initiatives and local efforts tobuild capacities for improved disaster riskreduction. LLoonngg-tteerrmm ccoommmmiittmmeenntt ttoossuuppppoorrtt llooccaall ddiissaasstteerr rreedduuccttiioonneennddeeaavvoouurrss iiss aass iimmppoorrttaanntt aass ffuunnddiinnggeemmeerrggeennccyy aassssiissttaannccee ffoolllloowwiinngg hhiigghh-pprrooffiillee ddiissaasstteerrss.

International and national policymakersneed to proceed beyond rhetoricalresolutions and invest in practical measuresthat address risk and vulnerability factors.These should be incorporated in thoseemergency assistance grants anddevelopment assistance programmesunderwritten by the internationalcommunity.

Such an approach needs to be coupledwith the task of accommodating the short-term needs of developing countries, whilesimultaneously maintaining a focus on thelong-term objectives of reudcing risk toensure sustainable development. Too oftenthe link between disaster reduction andsustainable development is overlooked orignored, especially in countries wheredevelopment is overshadowed byimmediate subsistence needs. Theinternational community and nationalpolicymakers need to recognize their moralobligation to direct resources towardsdisaster risk reduction as part ofsustainable development efforts. A moralobligation that in addition is cost-effectivein the longer run as less resources will beneeded to provide relief andreconstruction.

Areas of priority

This section outlines key disaster reductionpriorities that remain in need of attention.In addition to the five areas identified inthe framework for disaster risk reductiondiscussed later in this chapter, two

additional areas of priority are identified:international and regional support fordisaster reduction efforts, and themonitoring and assessment ofimplementation.

Some of the priorities describe action to betaken by international organizations andthe UN system, in concert with bilateraland multilateral development assistanceprogrammes. Others highlight the needfor the adoption of a regional approach todisaster risk reduction, bringing togetherthose actors sharing commoncharacteristics such as geography andlanguage. Many require that policymakersand stakeholders at the national level uniteacross a broad range of sectors,demonstrating their commitment andoffering concrete solutions. Most – if notall – are applicable at the local andindividual scales, whereby each individualcan play a part in contributing to buildingsustainable societies.

Political commitment andinstitutional development(governance)

“Each country bears the primary responsibilityfor protecting its own people, infrastructure,and other national assets from the impact ofnatural disasters.”

10th principle of the Yokohama Strategy andPlan of Action

• RReeccooggnniizzee ddiissaasstteerr rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonnpprriimmaarriillyy aass nnaattiioonnaall aanndd llooccaallrreessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess.. National and localauthorities need to recognize the value ofinvesting in disaster risk reduction,ensuring sufficient resource allocationand the implementation of realisticpolicies. Increased national and localcommitment is required, with moreinstitutional structures set in place forthe coordination of disaster reductionactivities.

• CCoonnttiinnuuee eeffffoorrttss ttoo ddeecceennttrraalliizzee ddiissaasstteerrrriisskk mmaannaaggeemmeenntt pprraaccttiicceess.. Community

“There are threeimportant pillars for

disaster reductionactivities: Jijyo

(self-help), Gojyo(mutual-help), and

Koujyo (publicassistance).”

Kiichi InoueMinister of State for

Disaster Management,Japan

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

389

participation and local decision-making isessential to advocate increased publiccommitment and participation. Efforts need tobe decentralized wherever possible.

• EEnnhhaannccee ppoolliiccyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd iinntteeggrraattiioonn toensure that all relevant sectors include disasterrisk management as a basic tool of sustainabledevelopment. Cross-sectoral policy cooperationis necessary to ensure a coherent and consistentapproach across environmental and socio-economic policy areas.

• IInnccrreeaassee eeffffeeccttiivvee iinnttrraa-rreeggiioonnaall ccooooppeerraattiioonn aannddiinntteerraaccttiioonn.. Policy interests and material resourcesneed to transcend strictly national outlooks, withregional efforts strengthening national and localcapacities. Information exchange and sharing ofexperiences at the regional level are vital tomaintain a healthy dialogue for disaster riskreduction.

Risk identification and assessment

“Risk assessment is a required step for the adoption ofadequate and successful disaster reduction policies andmeasures.”

1st principle of the Yokohama Strategy and Plan ofAction

• IInnccrreeaassee tthhee wwiiddeesspprreeaadd uunnddeerrssttaannddiinngg ooff hhaazzaarrddssaanndd vvuullnneerraabbiilliittyy aass tthhee ttwwoo ccoommppoonneennttss ooffddiissaasstteerr rriisskk.. Disaster reduction measures shouldbe based on continuous assessment of vulnerabilityand hazards, ensuring a comprehensiveunderstanding of disaster risks. Environmentalimpact assessments need to routinely consider risk.Early warning systems need to be betterunderstood and recognized for their value ininforming authorities and the public on impendingrisks, allowing for timely action to be taken.

• IInnccrreeaassee aaccccuurraaccyy ooff rriisskk aasssseessssmmeenntt.. Riskassessments need to reflect the dynamic natureof the environment, taking into considerationnew and complex forms of danger. Emergingtrends in hazards and vulnerability such asprovoke changes in risk perception as well asrisk assessment procedures, such as climatechange, urban growth, disease andenvironmental degradation.

• IImmpprroovvee qquuaalliittyy ooff iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn aanndd ddaattaa.. Reliabledata is crucial for the identification of trends inhazards and vulnerability and for forecasting andearly warning. Decision-makers need access torelevant and accurate data in order to make sounddecisions and adopt appropriate strategies,including factoring disaster risk reduction intonational planning and budgets.

• IImmpprroovvee ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn cchhaannnneellss aammoonngg eeaarrllyywwaarrnniinngg ssttaakkeehhoollddeerrss.. There is a need to capitalizeon existing early warning technologies bystrengthening the link between forecasts and theintended recipients. Better coordination is neededamong actors in the early warning chain to provideoptimum conditions for informed decision-makingand response actions.

"An integrated, multi-hazard, inclusive approach toaddress vulnerability, risk assessment and disastermanagement, including prevention, mitigation,preparedness, response and recovery, is an essentialelement of a safer world in the 21st century. Actions arerequired at all levels to…develop and strengthen earlywarning systems and information networks in disastermanagement…[actions are required to] promote theaccess and transfer of technology related to early warningsystems and to mitigation programmes to developingcountries affected by natural disasters.”

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, World Summit onSustainable Development, 2002

Knowledge management

“The development and strengthening of capacities toprevent, reduce and mitigate disasters is a top priority area.

Vulnerability can be reduced by the application of properdesign and patterns of development focused on targetgroups, by appropriate education and training of the wholecommunity.”

4th and 7th principles of the Yokohama Strategy andPlan of Action

• IInnccrreeaassee eedduuccaattiioonn aanndd ppuubblliicc aawwaarreenneessss oonn rriisskkaanndd ddiissaasstteerr rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonn ooppttiioonnss adaptedaccording to geographical and cultural contexts.Inclusion of disaster reduction in educationalprogrammes at all levels, effective publicawareness and information campaigns, media

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

390

involvement in advocacy and informationdissemination, community training programmesand access to technical specialists are keyingredients to support the knowledge base foreffective disaster risk reduction.

• DDeevveelloopp eedduuccaattiioonnaall pprrooggrraammmmeess aabboouutt tthhee ssoocciiaallddiimmeennssiioonnss ooff rriisskk wwiitthh aa ssttrroonngg ggeennddeerr bbaallaanncceeddaapppprrooaacchh.. Further support should be provided toacademic studies and formal educationalprogrammes that address socio-economic andenvironmental conditions of vulnerability, mattersof social equality related to risk and localcommunity participation with a gender balancedapproach, in particular those courses targeted atpublic administrators.

• IInntteeggrraattee ddiissaasstteerr rriisskk iissssuueess iinnttoo pprrooffeessssiioonnaallttrraaiinniinngg.. Educational institutions need to includedisaster risk issues in the training of professionalssuch as engineers, meteorologists, social scientists,teachers, social communicators and journalists,urban planners, environmental managers andphysical scientists.

• EExxppaanndd ppaarrttnneerrsshhiippss aanndd nneettwwoorrkkiinngg aatt aallll lleevveellss,including among the private sector, academicinstitutions, NGOs, local communities andgovernment. This should be a primary focus fornational platforms for disaster risk reduction,bringing together a range of actors and valuableresources, harmonizing efforts and leading togreater overall impact.

• IImmpprroovvee iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn aavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy aanndd aacccceessss ttoossuuppppoorrtt rreesseeaarrcchh.. There is a growing need forresearch centres dedicated to the compilation anddissemination of the wide range of research andexperience available to support policy developmentand decision-making. Documenting risk factoranalysis and disaster statistics can represent avaluable investment for disaster risk reduction.

Risk management applications andinstruments

“Environmental protection as a component of sustainabledevelopment consistent with poverty alleviation is imperativein the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters.”

9th principle of the Yokohama Strategy and Plan ofAction

Instruments for risk management have proliferatedespecially with the recognition of environmental andnatural resources management, poverty reduction andfinancial management tools as complementarysolutions.

• BBrriinngg tthhee eeccoollooggiiccaall sspphheerree iinnttoo ddiissaasstteerr rriisskkrreedduuccttiioonn aanndd vviiccee vveerrssaa.. Disaster reduction hasprimarily focused on physical protection tohazards and the economic and social spheres ofsustainable development. Disaster risk reductionneeds to be integrated into environmental andnatural resource management. Wetland andwatershed management to reduce flood risks,deforestation to control landslides, ecosystemconservation to control droughts are among thebest-known applications.

• UUssee ssoocciiaall aanndd eeccoonnoommiicc ddeevveellooppmmeennttpprraaccttiicceess aanndd ppoolliicciieess ffoorr ppoovveerrttyy aalllleevviiaattiioonn ttoorreedduuccee vvuullnneerraabbiilliittyy ttoo hhaazzaarrddss.. Socialprotection and safety nets are increasinglyrecognized as useful tools for reducing risksand self-reliance in recovery. Financialinstruments in the form of insurance, calamityfunds, catastrophe bonds as means to spreadrisks still prove difficult to establish in low-income countries. However, micro-finance andpublic-private partnerships in insurance couldbe easily developed in the poorest countriesand communities.

• IImmpprroovvee aanndd uussee pphhyyssiiccaall aanndd tteecchhnniiccaallmmeeaassuurreess such as flood control techniques, soilconservation practices, retrofitting of buildingsand land use planning. Existing tools andtechnologies need to be utilized and enhanced,using lessons learned to further enhance theireffectiveness. Consistent emphasis on theprotection of critical facilities is vital, focusingin particular on schools and health facilitiesand lifeline infrastructure such as water, energyand communications.

• AAcckknnoowwlleeddggee aanndd aaddoopptt llooccaall aanndd ttrraaddiittiioonnaallkknnoowwlleeddggee aanndd pprraaccttiicceess.. Examples of peoplesand communities of the past successfullyprotecting themselves and their resources bytraditional methods should be recognized,documented and applied wherever appropriate.Local experience should be promoted, as itoften proves superior to foreign “quick-fix”remedies imposed on the community.

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

391

Disaster preparedness, emergencymanagement and contingency planning

“Disaster prevention and preparedness are of primaryimportance in reducing the need for disaster relief.”

2nd Principle of the Yokohama Strategy and Plan ofAction

Disaster risk reduction requires better synergy betweendisaster risk management practices and sustainabledevelopment, and greater recognition of the role of earlywarning.

Effective contingency planning and responsecapacities are important tools for humanitarianassistance. This is a significant area in its ownright, which has not been elaborated on in thisreview.

• IInnccrreeaassee ssyynneerrggiieess aanndd ccoooorrddiinnaattiioonn bbeettwweeeennddiissaasstteerr mmaannaaggeerrss aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt sseeccttoorrss..Disaster risk reduction includes investing inpreparedness and emergency management, botheffective instruments in reducing fatalities fromdirect and indirect effects of disasters. A well-organized disaster management system - oftenrepresented by civil protection or defenceorganizations - comprises effective early warningsystems, contingency plans, well-rehearsednational and local preparedness plans, a well-organized network of volunteers and closecoordination with local Red Cross/Red Crescentsocieties, seamless communication andcoordination as well as the logistics infrastructureand emergency funds to respond in anappropriate manner. Preparedness at the locallevel requires careful attention as individuals andcommunities are often the greatest contributorsto the reduction of life and livelihood losses.

• SSttrreennggtthheenn ppeeooppllee-cceennttrreedd eeaarrllyy wwaarrnniinngg ssyysstteemmssEarly warning systems need to blend technicaland social capacities, to ensure usefulinformation is available and can be acted upon byauthorities and individuals. This requires a moreintegrated approach than is often the case,combining skills in risk monitoring andprediction, communication of timely and clearwarnings, and effective responses, which requireseducation, training and community involvement.Early warning can be a powerful vehicle forachieving many of the other priorities.

Sustained international andregional support and cooperationfor disaster reduction efforts atnational and local levels

“The international community accepts the need to sharethe necessary technology to prevent, reduce and mitigatedisaster; this should be made freely available and in atimely manner as an integral part of technicalcooperation.

...The international community should demonstratestrong political determination required to mobilizeadequate and make efficient use of existing resources,including financial, scientific and technological means,in the field of natural disaster reduction, bearing inmind the needs of the developing countries, particularlythe least developed countries.”

8th and 10th principles of the Yokohama Strategy andPlan of Action

Disaster risk reduction needs to become a higherpriority within bilateral and multilateral donor policyand international financial institutions, in relation toboth relief and development planning andprogramming.

• IInnccrreeaassee rreessoouurrcceess ffoorr ddiissaasstteerr rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonn,, aannddaallllooccaattiinngg tthheemm wwhheerree nneeeeddss aarree tthhee mmoosstt uurrggeenntt..Reporting on the “success” of disaster reductionactivities is extremely complex, wherebyorganizations and practitioners are often expectedto speculate on the number of lives and lossesthat were avoided due to donor investment. Bothdonors and recipients of funds need to overcomethis obstacle, by the former having a betterunderstanding of the subject and the latter anappreciation of accountability to donors.

• DDiissaasstteerr rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonn iiss bbootthh aa hhuummaanniittaarriiaannaanndd aa ddeevveellooppmmeenntt iissssuuee,, wwhhiicchh rreeqquuiirreess tthheeiinntteeggrraattiioonn ooff tthhee ssuubbjjeecctt iinn bbootthh sseeccttoorrss..Neither relief nor development sectors “own”disaster reduction outright. Rather, they bothneed to invest in reducing risk and vulnerabilityto natural and technological hazards within theirspecialist domains. Their respective investmentssimultaneously complement one another, inaddition to those of other sectors such aseducation, health, agriculture, urbanmanagement, employment, transport,infrastructure, among others.

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

392

Monitoring and assessment ofimplementation

“You do not see results in 3 years, you do not achievepolitical commitment without persistence and time (anda couple of major disasters unfortunately). Benchmarkshave to reflect this long-term dimension.”

Claude de Ville de GoyetOn-line conference on the framework to guide andmonitor disaster risk reduction, 2003

• MMeeaassuurree pprrooggrreessss.. The overarching challengein disaster risk reduction is to achieve areduction in fatalities and property loss acrossan increasing number of countries andcommunities. In order to do this, it is essentialto document increased understanding of theconcept and its implications, developbenchmarks and indicators and put disasterreduction measures into practice. Self-assessment is a first step, which should beguided by a commonly agreed framework fordisaster risk reduction.

• DDeevveelloopp iinnddiiccaattoorrss ffoorr ddiissaasstteerr rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonnmmeeaassuurreess.. Monitoring and evaluation of theimpact of disaster reduction initiatives increasesappreciation of and promotes investment toachieve its long-term benefits. Developingindicators is a multifaceted process that requiresthe adoption of a qualitative approach to assessprogress.

The basis for a common framework for disaster risk reduction

At the outset of the task to conduct this globalreview of disaster reduction initiatives in 2001, theadvisory panel recommended that a set of criteriabe developed to measure the effectiveness ofdisaster risk reduction. These should ultimatelyreflect how lives and assets have been saved, aswell as where countries stand in accomplishing theobjectives of the ISDR.

As the conclusions indicate, throughout the reviewit became evident that a globally agreedframework for disaster risk reduction would helpto harmonize and systematize the various elementsand achievements in the field of comprehensivedisaster risk management. In collaboration withUNDP, the ISDR Secretariat developed a modelfor this framework, with the aim of both guidingaction as well as monitoring progress. This was

done in conjunction with a growing number ofstakeholders in UN, international, national and localorganizations, through the Inter-Agency Task Forceon Disaster Reduction as well as by means of an on-line consultation in August 2003, attracting over 300participants from around the world.<http://www.unisdr.org/dialogue>

Such a framework could constitute the necessarybackbone to collect information and data as well ascapture and disseminate good practices. It couldhelp to analyze trends in disaster reduction practices,identify gaps and constraints for informed decisions.The framework is expected to:

• provide a basis for political advocacy as well aspractical action and implementation;

• reflect the multi-dimensional, inter-disciplinaryand multi-hazard nature of disaster risk reduction;

• assist a wide range of users in determining roles,responsibilities and accountabilities for their owncircumstances;

• assist users to highlight areas where capacities areto be developed; and

• provide the basis for setting goals and targets,adapted to different contexts, against whichprogress can be measured and gaps identified.

The framework can also provide a strong impetusfor the promotion of disaster risk reduction in acoherent and thus effective manner. This role isessential in the lead up to the second WorldConference on Disaster Reduction in early 2005. Asdescribed earlier, the review of progress since theYokohama Strategy and Plan of Action is based onthe thematic areas of the framework and the findingswill feed into the outcomes of the Conference.

These outcomes will complement and enhance theInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction andfacilitate the attainment of the objectives of theJohannesburg Plan of Implementation and theMillennium Development Goals forming a strongerbasis to reduce risk and vulnerability to naturalhazards and ensure sustainable development.

Setting goals and targets offers a means to buildmomentum and accelerate the pace of progress indisaster reduction and measuring its results. It wouldalso facilitate implementation by governments andorganizations. While such goals and targets would beset at the global level, they need to be carefullydesigned to be easily adapted for implementation atnational, local or organizational levels. Theframework is intended to guide the setting of thesegoals and targets, in addition to identifying gaps,defining national priorities and action plans to meetthem.

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

393

Table 6.1A framework to guide and monitor disaster risk reduction (see graphic representation in figure 1.3)

Thematic area 1: POLITICAL COMMITMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (GOVERNANCE)Governance is increasingly becoming a key area for the success of sustained reduction of risks. Defined in terms ofpolitical commitment and strong institutions, good governance is expected to elevate disaster risk reduction as a policypriority, allocate the necessary resources for it, enforce its implementation and assign accountability for failures, as wellas facilitate participation from civil society private sector.

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Policy and planning • Risk reduction as a policy priority• Risk reduction incorporated into post-

disaster reconstruction • Integration of risk reduction in development

planning and sectoral policies (povertyeradication, social protection, sustainabledevelopment, climate change adaptation,desertification, natural resourcemanagement, health, education, etc)

• National risk reduction strategy and plan• Disaster reduction in poverty reduction

strategy papers, in national MillenniumDevelopment Goals reports

• Disaster reduction in National AdaptationPlan of Action (for LDCs) on climate change

• National follow up on WSSD Plan ofImplementation

Legal and regulatoryframework

• Laws, acts and regulations• Codes, standards• Compliance and enforcement• Responsibility and accountability

• Requirement of compliance by law·• Existence and update of codes and standards• Existence of systems to ensure compliance

and enforcement

Resources • Resource mobilization and allocation:financial (innovative and alternative funding,taxes, incentives), human, technical,material, sectoral

• Evidence of budgetary allocation • Staffing allocation• Public-private partnerships

Organizationalstructures

• Implementing and coordinating bodies • Intra and inter-ministerial, multidisciplinary

and multisectoral mechanisms• Local institutions for decentralized

implementation• Civil society, NGOs, private sector and

community participation

• Existence of an administrative structureresponsible for disaster reduction

• Sectoral programmes in line ministries• Consultation with and role for civil society,

NGOs, private sector and the communities.• Existence of "watchdog" groups

Thematic area 2: RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENTIdentification of risks is a relatively well-defined area with a significant knowledge base on methods for disaster impactand risk assessment. Systematic assessment of losses, particularly the social and economic impact of disasters, andmapping of risks are fundamental to understand where to take action. Pre-investment appraisals of disaster risk todevelopment and vice versa, consideration of disaster risks in environmental impact assessments is still to becomeroutine practice. Early warning is increasingly defined as a means to inform public and authorities on impending risks,hence essential for timely inputs to reduce their impact.

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Risk assessmentand data quality

• Hazard analysis: characteristics, impacts,historical and spatial distribution, multi-hazard assessments, hazard monitoringincluding of emerging hazards

• Vulnerability and capacity assessment:social, economic, physical andenvironmental, political, cultural factors

• Risk monitoring capabilities, risk maps, riskscenarios

• Hazards recorded and mapped·Vulnerability and capacity indicators developedand systematically mapped and recorded

• Risk scenarios developed and used• Systematic assessment of disaster risks in

development programming

Early warningsystems

• Monitoring and forecasting• Risk scenarios• Warning and dissemination• Response to warning

Effective early warning systems that include:• Quality of forecasts• Dissemination channels and participation at

local level• Effectiveness of response to warnings

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

394

Table 6.1 (Continued)

A framework to guide and monitor disaster risk reduction (see graphic representation in figure 1.3)

Thematic area 3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTInformation management and communication, education and training, public awareness and research are all parts ofimproving and managing knowledge on disaster risks and their reduction. Inclusion of disaster reduction with a stronggender balanced approach at all level of education, effective public awareness and information campaigns, mediainvolvement in advocacy and dissemination, availability of training for the communities at risk and professional staff,targeted research are the ingredients to support the knowledge base for effective disaster reduction.

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Informationmanagement andcommunication

• Information and dissemination programmesand channels

• Public and private information systems(including disaster, hazard and riskdatabases & websites)

• Networks for disaster risk management(scientific, technical and applied information,traditional/local knowledge)

• Documentation and databases on disasters·• Professionals and public networks• Dissemination and use of traditional/local

knowledge and practice• Resource centres and networks, in particular

educational facilities

Education andtraining

• Inclusion of disaster reduction at all levels ofeducation (curricula, educational material),training of trainers programmes

• Vocational training • Dissemination and use of traditional/local

knowledge·• Community training programmes

• Educational material and references ondisasters and disaster reduction

• Specialised courses and institutions • Trained staff• Evidence of systematic capacity

development programmes

Public awareness • Public awareness policy, programmes andmaterials

• Media involvement in communicating riskand awareness raising

• Coverage of disaster reduction relatedactivities by media

• Public aware and informed• Visibility of disaster reduction day

Research • Research programmes and institutions forrisk reduction

• Evaluations and feedback • National, regional and international

cooperation in research, science andtechnology development

• Existence of a link between science andpolicy (evidence-based policy and policy-oriented research)

• Indicators, standards and methodologiesestablished for risk identification

• Regional and international exchange andnetworking

Thematic area 4: RISK MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS & INSTRUMENTSInstruments for risk management have proliferated especially with the recognition of environmental management, povertyreduction and financial management tools as complementary solutions. The role of environmental and natural resourcemanagement in reducing climatic disaster risks is acknowledged. Wetland and watershed management to reduce floodrisks, deforestation to control landslides, ecosystem conservation to control droughts are among the best knownapplications. For effective results, synergies need to be built between sustainable development and disaster riskmanagement practices. Social and economic development practices with proven results in poverty alleviation such associal protection and safety nets are increasingly regarded as ways of reducing risks and instruments for self-reliance inrecovery. Financial instruments in the form of micro-financing and public-private partnerships can be of great help. Otherssuch as insurance, calamity funds, catastrophe bonds are useful in spreading risks though still difficult to establish in low-income countries. Physical and technical measures such as flood control techniques, soil conservation practices,retrofitting of buildings or land use planning are well known practices and have been implemented with mixed results. Theirfailure is often due to poor governance rather than knowledge of what to do. Moreover, such measures, while effective inhazard control, can often be inadequate for social protection and economic recovery.

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Environmental andnatural resourcemanagement

• Interface between environmentalmanagement and risk reduction practices, inparticular in coastal zone, wetland andwatershed management, integrated waterresource management; reforestation,agricultural practices, ecosystemconservation

• Use of wetland and forestry management toreduce flood and landslide risk

• Trends in deforestation and desertificationrate

• Use of environmental impact assessments indisaster reduction planning

Building disaster risk reduction targets

The objectives and targets for disaster risk reductionshould be “SMART”, in order to develop and assesseffective disaster risk reduction strategies:

• SSustainable over time.• MMeasurable, with defined criteria for success and

specific benchmarks.• AAchievable within the timeframes that

governments set. This may extend over monthsor years depending on available resources andnational priorities.

• RRelevant, to satisfy varied national situations relatedto national hazards, vulnerabilities and capacitiesand set within national governmental structures.

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

395

Table 6.1 (Continued)

A framework to guide and monitor disaster risk reduction (see graphic representation in figure 1.3)

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Social and economicdevelopmentpractices

• Social protection and safety nets • Financial instruments (involvement of

financial sector in disaster reduction:insurance/reinsurance, risk spreadinginstruments for public infrastructure andprivate assets such as calamity funds andcatastrophe bonds, micro-credit and finance,revolving community funds, social funds)

• Sustainable livelihood strategies

• Access to social protection and safety netsas well as micro-finance services for disasterrisk reduction

• Use of safety nets and social protectionprogrammes in recovery process·Insurance take up

• Public-private partnerships for micro-financing and insurance at community level

Physical andtechnical measures

• Land use applications, urban and regionaldevelopment schemes

• Structural interventions (hazard resistantconstruction and infrastructure, retrofitting ofexisting structures, drought, flood andlandslide control techniques)

• Soil conservation and hazard resistantagricultural practices

• Construction reduced/zoning plans enforcedin floodplains and other mapped hazard-prone areas

• Compliance of public and private buildingswith codes and standards.

• Public buildings (health facilities, schools,lifelines, etc) at high risk retrofitted

• Regular maintenance of hazard controlstructures

Thematic area 5: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTPreparedness and emergency management have been effective instruments in reducing life losses from direct andindirect effect of disasters. A well-prepared system is expected to be effectively informed by early warning, have in placenational and local preparedness plans regularly rehearsed establish communication and coordination systems, as wellas adequate logistics infrastructure and emergency fund to respond from. Local level preparedness, particularly of thecommunities, including their training deserves special attention as the most effective way of reducing life and livelihoodlosses.

Thematic areas/Components

Characteristics Criteria for benchmarks(very tentative)

Preparedness andcontingency planning

• Contingency plans (logistics, infrastructure)·National and local preparedness plans

• Effective communication and coordinationsystem

• Rehearsal and practice of plans

• Testing and updating of emergency responsenetworks and plans (national/local,private/public)

• Coverage of community training andcommunity based preparedness

• Emergency funds and stocks

Emergencymanagement

• Civil protection and defence organizationsand volunteer networks

• Effective response to disasters andmobilization of volunteers, including NGOs, inparticular Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies

Source: UN/ISDR, October 2003

Box 6.1Example of a disaster reduction objective and target

ObjectiveMake disaster risk reduction a national policy.

Targets• A national disaster risk reduction policy adopted by [year].• Supporting legislation for disaster reduction adopted by

[year], including regulations and mechanisms todetermine non-compliance and its treatment.

• A special budget line allocated for disaster riskreduction in the national budget [by year] and localadministrative budgets by [year] [%].

• Disaster risk reduction integrated into sectoral policiesand programmes [health, agriculture, infrastructure,environment, education] by [year].

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

396

• TTimely, related to carefully framed tasks, withclear short and long-term goals.

Targets need to be adapted to each specificgeographical and cultural context and testedaccordingly and should build on goals to bedefined following each thematic area of theframework for disaster risk reduction.

Measurement of progress – the benefits of reporting

A number of experts, scholars and agencies havecalled for the determination and application ofspecific disaster risk reduction baselines, targetsand indicators during the last decade. To dateseveral valuable global or regional initiatives havebeen developed to accomplish this, among thembeing UNDP and UNEP/GRID’s Disaster RiskIndex as part of its report Reducing Disaster Risk: Achallenge for development; the development ofindicators for disaster risk management in theAmericas carried out by the Instituto de EstudiosAmbientales, Universidad Nacional de Colombiaand the Inter-American Development Bank; theGlobal Disaster Risk Hotspots project developedat Columbia University supported by theProVention Consortium, the World Bank and theISDR Secretariat; as well as the development ofrisk indicators for water management, coordinatedby the inter-agency World Water AssessmentProgramme coordinated UNESCO (see chapter4). All aim at supporting international andnational policy development through thedetermination of baseline data on risk andvulnerability.

In the past, scientific and technical approacheshave focused on indicators to suggest a hierarchyof accomplishment (for example, number of riskassessments carried out, existence of databases,number of decrees or legal acts, researchprogrammes, educational reforms). Thequantitative measurement of the impact ofindividual disaster reduction initiatives oftenspanning a relatively short period of time isparticularly challenging. If no disaster were tooccur after measures had been put in place itwould be difficult to test the relative effectivenessof these measures. One approach to deal withthis dilemma would be an attempt to identify

situations where a before-and-after scenariocould apply.

Measuring qualitative accomplishments is evenmore demanding as changes in perceptions,values, attitudes and behaviour through educationand public awareness activities are difficult toassess. Nevertheless, these are the essential factorsneeded to make progress in the pursuit ofsustainable development. Benchmarks andindicators for reducing disaster risk can alsobecome valuable instruments to monitor othersustainable development requirements in fieldssuch as education, gender balance, communityparticipation, local management and self-reliance,sustainable livelihoods, environmentalmanagement and land-use planning.

Measuring progress of disaster risk reduction in acountry or region requires different frameworks atdifferent timescales. In the long-term, disaster-induced changes in indicators of sustainabledevelopment such as the human developmentindex, gross domestic product, poverty reductionand improved environmental management practicesshould reflect, to a degree, the extent to which acommunity has become more resilient to disastersas in the case of developed countries as well as somein the developing world.

Box 6.2Benefits of reporting

Benefits of systematically compiling information aboutdisaster reduction initiatives include:

• identification of existing problems, increasing theiraccepted importance on the political agenda, andpromoting solutions through new or improved policies,programmes, plans, institutional relationships andresource allocation;

• relationship and the integration of disaster riskmanagement issues into broader developmentagendas;

• establish generic standards and guidelines fordisaster reduction;

• determine priorities within the domain of disasterreduction;

• develop systematic, comprehensive data andinformation management systems about disasterreduction;

• guide research and advancement in disasterreduction; and

• compare approaches and analyze trends.

6Future challenges: A common vision for disaster risk reduction

397

A collective effort to implement disaster risk reduction

While the motivation and the responsibility toevaluate progress towards more effective riskreduction rest within individual countries and localcommunities, there is a collective requirement thatextends throughout the international community toincrease knowledge about available methodologiesand resources.

Disaster risk reduction benchmarks requirefocussed and practical action to ensure progresstowards reducing risk and vulnerability to naturalhazards. It is important that the process adoptedbe regularly reviewed and adjusted to reflectprogress as well as changing circumstances andcapacities.

AAtt tthhee nnaattiioonnaall aanndd llooccaall lleevveell, each countrywould adapt goals and targets to their ownpriorities and timetables, developingimplementation plans as appropriate. The processcould be supported by national, regional andinternational partnerships, with many activitiestaking place at the community level. Work inlarger urban areas will be of particular relevancegiven the rapid urban and vulnerability growthexpected in the coming years.

AAtt tthhee rreeggiioonnaall lleevveell,, countries would cooperate insharing information and resources, exchangingexperiences and seeking solutions to commonproblems in similar contexts. Regionalorganizations and regional development banks incooperation with NGOs and the private sector

could provide guidance as well as technicalsupport and assistance for nationalimplementation, monitoring and reporting ofprogress. Regional “centres of excellence” in areasrelated to disaster risk reduction can supportnational efforts, facilitate knowledge andinformation transfer, technical cooperation,capacity-building and assistance policies.

AAtt tthhee iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall lleevveell,, donors, internationalfinancing institutions, the UN system and otherinternational organisations as well as NGOs andthe private sector should provide incentives andguidance, as well as technical and financial supportfor national and local implementation. These canaddress sectoral needs and requirements formonitoring and reporting progress, and canintegrate goals and targets for disaster riskreduction as part of their priorities, workprogrammes, investment and technical cooperation,capacity-building and assistance policies.

For coordination purposes at the global level andin line with the recommendations of theJohannesburg Plan of Implementation, the ISDRSecretariat stands ready to facilitate monitoringand reporting of progress on implementation withsupport from relevant partners, in particular withUNDP and other UN agencies, technical,regional and international organizations workingin the Inter-Agency Task Force on DisasterReduction. The ISDR Secretariat is graduallystrengthening its capacity as an informationclearinghouse to follow ongoing and emergingglobal initiatives and develop partnerships tosupport disaster risk reduction.

1Living with risk - focus on disaster risk reduction1.1 Setting the scene - understanding disaster risk reduction

15

Figure 1.3 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

For more information see table 6.1, page 393