Understanding disaster risk reduction and governance

2.1 Basic concepts

Before delving into the substance of the paper, it is important to establish a com-mon understanding of the concepts of disaster risk reduction and governance in relation to disaster risks. These concepts are not new and a wide range of definitions

13 ‘Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts’ UN-FCCC Dec. 2/CP.19 (2013).

14 Debbie Hillier and Katherine Nightingale, ‘How Disasters Disrupt Development: Recommendations for the post-2015 Development Framework’ (Oxfam GB for Oxfam International, 2013), available at

<https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/how-disasters-disrupt-development> (visited 1 October 2016).

15 See Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction available at <http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/pub-lications/43291> (visited 25 November 2016).

16 ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, UNGA Res. 70/1 of 25 Sep-tember 2015.

17 ‘United Nations Millennium Declaration’, UNGA Res.55/2 of 18 September 2000.

is provided by the existing literature. However, for the purposes of this paper, a brief overview of the general concept of disaster risk reduction and governance is provided below.

Disaster risk reduction, as defined by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR),¹⁹ is

the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced ex-posure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.²⁰ Disaster risk reduction also involves the development and implementation of poli-cies and strategies that are geared towards reducing vulnerabilities within a society to the adverse effects of disasters. It is commonly based on the premise that the integration of disaster risk reduction into development plans and the effective exe-cution of these plans will ultimately lead to the reduction of the negative impacts of disasters. In doing so, it will enhance the coping strategies and preparedness of the society regarding disasters.

Governance, as defined by the United Nations Development Programme (UN-DP),²¹ is

the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the manage-ment of a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Govern-ance encompasses, but also transcends, government. It encompasses all relevant groups, including the private sector and civil society organizations.²²

18 See UNISDR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015. Making Development Sustaina-ble: The Future of Disaster Risk Management (UN, 2015), available at <http://www.preventionweb.net/

english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/home/index.html>; Christopher B. Field et al, (eds), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012), 17; Riyanti Djalante, ‘Adaptive governance and resilience: the role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction’, 12 Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (2012) 2923–2942; Saburo Ike-da and Toshinari Nagasaka, ‘An Emergent Framework of Disaster Risk Governance towards Innovating Coping Capability for Reducing Disaster Risks in Local Communities’, 3 International Journal of Disaster Risk Science (2011) 1-9); Henry N. Bang, Governance of disaster risk reduction in Cameroon: The need to empower local government, 5(2) Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies (2013).

19 See <https://www.unisdr.org>.

20 UNISDR. ‘Terminology of Disaster Risk Reduction’, available at <https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/

terminologyz> (visited 30 October 2016).

21 See <http://www.undp.org>.

22 UNDP, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction, Governance and Mainstreaming’ (UNDP, 2013), available at <http://

www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/Strengthening%20Disas-ter%20Risk%20Governance-Full-Report.pdf> (visited 13 September 2016).

UNDP defines disaster risk governance as

the way in which public authorities, civil servants, media, private sector, and civil society at community, national and regional levels cooperate in order to manage and reduce disaster and climate related risks. This means ensuring that sufficient levels of capacity and resources are made available to prevent, prepare for, manage and recover from disasters. It also entails mechanisms, institutions and processes for citizens to articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights and obligations, and mediate their differences.²³

Governance is facilitated by well-organized and coordinated institutions at the na-tional and local levels that streamline the ways access to information, communica-tions themselves, and decisions are made. Good governance is essential in building resilient communities²⁴ against disasters. Good governance should translate to ef-fective and efficient policies and institutions, a favorable political environment that supports public participation and ownership as well as empowers the community to participate in decision making, and establishing systems of accountability.

2.2 The role of good governance in disaster risk reduction

Disasters, if not effectively managed, have the potential to undo decades of devel-opment investments and gains in a country. However, disasters can themselves be a result of poor decision-making and non-inclusive development planning.²⁵ For ex-ample, constructing a new road in order to improve local transportation could force new settlements to an area that is flood-prone, thus increasing exposure to flooding.

Good governance is a fundamental factor in disaster risk reduction. The existence of strong political will, coupled with public awareness and participation and sufficient resources and capacity, are key ingredients in supporting disaster risk reduction ef-forts and enhancing coping capacities in societies. Natural hazards on their own do not result in disasters.²⁶ Rather, disasters occur as a result of a society’s vulnerabilities to risks caused by poor actions and decisions.

23 UNDP, ‘Disaster Risk Governance: Issue Brief’ (UNDP, 2012), available at <http://www.undp.org/con-tent/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/20121112_Issue_brief_disasterriskgovernance.pdf> (visit-ed 1 October 2016).

24 According to the American Red Cross, a resilient community is ‘one that possesses the physical, psy-chological, social and economic capacity to withstand, quickly adapt to, and successfully recover from a disaster’. American Red Cross, ‘Disaster Preparedness’ (2013), available at <http://www.redcross.org/im-ages/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m16740811_Fact_Sheet_-_Disaster_preparedness_Feb_2013.

pdf> (visited 24 October 2016).

25 Alexandra Galperin and Emily Wilkinson, Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance: UNDP Support dur-ing the HFA Implementation Period 2005-2015 (UNDP, 2015), available at <http://www.undp.org/con- tent/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/Strengthening%20Disaster%20Risk%20Govern-ance-Full-Report.pdf> (visited 13 September 2016).

26 UNDP, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction’, supra note 22.

Good governance plays a key role in influencing different stakeholders − govern-ments, public sector, private sector, civil society, media, etc. − to prioritize and co-ordinate their actions to manage and reduce disaster-related risks. Countries with strong governance systems are better able to prepare for and mitigate the negative impacts of disasters. Although most types of major disasters (for instance, earth-quakes or floods) may cause unavoidable casualties, especially if the disaster occurred in a populated area, the number of deaths can be decreased if a country is well-gov-erned. For example, a 2010 Chilean earthquake which was reported as being one of the strongest quakes in decades, measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale, saw about 300 casualties reported. Also in 2010, a Haitian earthquake, on the other hand, meas-ured 7.0 on the Richter scale and had a death toll of over 220,000 people. Likewise, the 7.9 magnitude earthquake which occurred in China in 2008 resulted in a death toll of about 90,000 people.²⁷

The obvious question to be asked here is why such a mega-earthquake as that which occurred in Chile had a death toll so significantly lower than that in the other coun-tries. Kaufmann and Tessada note that Chile’s good governance – for instance, the government’s effective development and implementation of building codes and its investment and innovation in modern technologies – provides a prominent expla-nation for such a discrepancy.²⁸ Another example is the category four cyclone that hit Bangladesh in 1991, which killed more than 135,000 people²⁹ and had serious impacts on all important sectors of the economy, including but not limited to, health, agriculture, education.³⁰ Up until this point, Bangladesh’s approach to disasters has been reactive – focused on recovery and relief, however, following the 1991 disaster, it was clear that a more proactive approach focusing on preparedness and reduction was necessary. As a result, the government developed a Comprehensive Disaster Manage-ment Programme that aims to support this shift in approach.³¹ The government has also invested significantly in embankments, early warning systems, and construction of cyclone shelters.³² In 2008, a category 5 cyclone hit Bangladesh, and as a result of their good governance, the death toll was comparatively light at 10,000 people.³³

27 Daniel Kaufmann and José Tessada, ‘Natural Disasters, National Diligence: The Chilean Earthquake in Perspective’, Brookings 5 March 2010, available at <https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/natural-disas-ters-national-diligence-the-chilean-earthquake-in-perspective/> (visited 27 September 2016).

28 Ibid.

29 History.com, ‘Bangladesh Cyclone of 1991’ (2009), available at <http://www.history.com/topics/bangla-desh-cyclone-of-1991> (visited 22 October, 2016).

30 Katie Hapeman, ‘The effects of politics on natural disasters: Lessons from Bangladesh’, (University of Denver, 2012), available at <http://www.du.edu/korbel/crric/media/documents/katie_hapeman1.pdf>

(visited 22 October, 2016).

31 Kirsten Luxbacher and Abu Mostafa Kamal Uddin, ‘World Resources Report Case Study. Bangladesh’s Comprehensive Approach to Disaster Management’ World Resources Report (n.d.), available at <http://

www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/bangladeshs-comprehensive-approach-disas-ter-management> (visited 22 October, 2016).

32 UNDP, ‘Disaster risk reduction makes development sustainable’ (2014) available at <http://www.undp.

org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/UNDP_CPR_CTA_20140901.pdf> (visited 13 October, 2016).

33 Ibid.

At the heart of good governance is prioritizing disaster risk reduction in relevant policies, laws and regulations and ensuring adequate allocation of resources for re-ducing disaster risks and their management. Furthermore, public awareness and participation and ensuring that civil society are part and parcel of the decision-mak-ing, planndecision-mak-ing, programming and implementation processes in regards to disaster risk reduction is crucial.³⁴ Given that communities are usually the first responders in times of disasters, their participation is of utmost importance, and a favorable environment needs to be created to facilitate and promote their participation. This in itself can be a challenge, especially in terms of getting the community to shift their mindset from a culture of recovery towards a culture of prevention. The Sen-dai Framework stresses the importance of engaging communities in strengthening disaster governance by ‘assigning, as appropriate, clear roles and tasks to commu-nity representatives within disaster risk management institutions and processes and decision-making through relevant legal frameworks, and undertake comprehensive public and community consultations during the development of such laws and reg-ulations to support their implementation’.³⁵

This formal support for DRR at the community level has not always translated into concrete actions on the ground. Many countries have Acts and other laws in place which recognize and promote community participation, but these are often more symbolic than effective. Reasons vary depending on economic/social standing of the country and political will, but it is largely due to a lack of resources, both financial and human capacity, to establish structures necessary to implement community-lev-el DRR.³⁶