Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
HFA 2 Key Area 5 Input Paper
Reducing Exposure and Underlying Risk Factors
Authors: [all from Kyoto University, Japan]
Rajib Shaw, Akhilesh Surjan, Nitin Srivastava , Glenn Fernandez, Rajarshi Dasgupta, Shohei
Matsuura, Atta ur-Rahman, and Gulshan Parvin
Contributions from:
Governments of: [7] Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka
Partner organizations: [17] ADRC, CWS Asia Pacific [Thailand: 3], ICHARM [Japan], ISET [Vietnam: 2],
Japan CSO Coalition for 2015 WCDRR (JCC 2015), JICA, Kyoto University [Japan: 5], Municipality of Infanta
[Philippines], SAARC, SAVE THE CHILDREN, UNICEF, SEEDS Asia [Japan: 2], Sri Lanka Local Government
Network, University of Peshawar [Pakistan], University of Gadjah Mada [Indonesia], University of Madras
[India], UNDP [Bangaldesh]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. HFA reflections
2.1 Major Achievements under HFA-1 Priority for Action Area 4
2.1.1
Improvement in Environmental Legislation & availability of Environmental Impact
Assessment
2.1.2
Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)
2.1.3
Incorporation of DRR in Development and Infrastructure Projects
2.2 Major Gaps and Challenges under HFA-1 Priority for Action Area 4
2.2.1
Little or no consideration of DRR/DRM in national and sectoral public investment in
most development sectors and the non-recognition of DRR as a cross-cutting issue
within different sectoral investments
2.2.2
Enforcement of Land Use policies & Zoning System
2.2.3
Insufficient institutional capacities in economic and productive sector
2.2.4
Disregard for Community based Climate Change Adaptation & Disaster Risk Reduction
2.2.5
Absence of risk financing and risk transfer mechanisms
2.3 Steps to reduce exposure and underlying risk factors
3. Key-Messages and Recommendations for HFA 2
3.1 Reduce the underlying risk factors for poverty reduction and sustainable development
3.2 Enforce environmental plans & legislations for Disaster Risk Reduction
3.3 Enhance economic viability of risk-reduction measures (cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, tools,
etc.)
3.4 Ensure DRR for industrial production sector
3.5 Ensure appropriate roles of insurance and private sector
3.6 Enforce structural codes and land use regulations
3.7 Prepare, utilize and share data based on scientific evidences
3.8 Institutionalize community based DRR
3.9 Address risk reduction in recovery
3.10Enhance DRR education to help reduce underlying risk factors
References
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
Executive Summary
Disasters affect economic and human development gains, disrupt social fabric and pose
challenges at different scales. Occurrence of disasters, number of reported disasters events,
losses and damages due to disasters, population affected due to disasters - all are showing
increasing trend. In the last 25 years or so, the international community has garnered great
momentum to enhance disaster preparedness, response capacities, awareness and
management of disasters. In 2005, the HFA [Hyogo Framework for Action] was instigated.
Of the five priorities for action areas, priority area 4 [reducing underlying risk factors], has
shown the least progress, both globally and in the Asia Pacific region. Much of this is
attributed to a lack of incorporation of DRR [disaster risk reduction] into development
perspectives.
Asia is urbanizing rapidly, although the majority of the population still lives in rural areas
and heavily dependent of agriculture. Much of Asia still faces a myriad of challenges
including poverty, lack of basic services and health facilities, poor quality infrastructure,
weak governance not capable to deliver up to the last mile, and so on. Climate change is
further threatening development aspirations through series of extreme and slow onset
hydro-metrological events while geo-hazards are also frequenting the region regularly.
This paper reviews the progress and challenges of the HFA 1 Priority 4, and recommends
future perspectives to be incorporated to reduce underlying risks. The purpose of the
document is to feed into Asia-Pacific consultation process towards HFA2. Ten specific
recommendations are provided based on country and partner contributions and extensive
literature review and research, which are as follow:
1) Reduce the underlying risk factors for poverty reduction and sustainable
development
2) Enforce environmental plans & legislations for DRR,
3) Enhance economic viability of risk-reduction measures (cost-benefit, costeffectiveness, tools, etc.),
4) Ensure DRR for industrial production sector,
5) Ensure appropriate roles of Insurance and private sector,
6) Enforce structural codes and land use regulations,
7) Prepare, utilize and share data based on scientific evidences,
8) Institutionalize community based DRR,
9) Address risk reduction in recovery, and
10) Enhance DRR education to help reduce underlying risk factors.
1. Introduction
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) was first talked about among the international community
during International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). As a discipline, DRR
will be 25 years old when the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) will be held
in Sendai in the year 2015. While there is tremendous progress made across several fronts,
2
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
which has helped reducing disaster related mortality and losses; there remains a wide gap
in research and action towards reducing exposure and underlying risk factors. This study
was conducted by a team based in Kyoto University, Japan with inputs from 7 national
government and 17 organizations in the Asia-Pacific region [regional organizations,
Universities, UN bodies and INGOs, local governments, and civil society bodies]. The
purpose of the document is to feed into Asia-Pacific consultation process towards HFA2.
The study brings rich experiences of the authors and contributors, and extensive literature
reviews and research work in the related field. The study has three key objectives as
follows:
1. To provide reflections on HFA1 Priority Action 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors.
This priority action was aimed to address disaster risks related to changing social,
economic, environmental conditions and land use, and the impact of hazards associated
with geological events, weather, water, climate variability and climate change, in
sectoral development planning and programs as well as in post-disaster situations.
Reflections include specific mention of challenges, which can be addressed through
interventions to be offered by HFA2.
2. To consolidate good practices identified during HFA1 implementation phase. These
specific good practices are linked to recommendations for HFA2 so that a direct link can
be established with real-life example.
3. To recommend pragmatic insights into risk-sensitive decision-making, which is
expected to serve as guiding document for Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster
Risk Reduction (AMCDRR-2014) and HFA2 declaration.
This document is divided into two main parts:
- HFA-1 reflections, which shows major achievements, gaps and challenges
- Recommendations for HFA 2.
2. HFA 1 Reflections
The purpose of this section is to provide a synoptic overview of the progress and obstacles
observed in implementing the Priority for Action 4 ‘Reducing the Underlying Risk Factors’
in the existing Hyogo Framework for Action (herein after HFA) and further to discuss the
major achievements, gaps and challenges in addressing targets. The conclusions drawn in
this section is based on the review of official reports published by The United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), country specific self-assessment reports and other
associated literature including HFA Monitor System.
Summary of the 2011-13 HFA Monitor self-assessment reports received from countries by
UNISDR demonstrates that most progress was achieved in HFA Priority Area 1. Here the
average score was 3.11 out of 4. Priority 4 received the lowest average score (2.92). This
trend is consistent with the 2009-11 reporting cycle and shows that Priority Area 4 is the
most challenging priority under the HFA (UNISDR AP 2013).
3
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
Since 2007, the average score for Priority Area 4 has increased only marginally (UNISDR
2013a). It is further observed, that no country has essentially made ‘comprehensive
achievement’ across all the core indicators under Priority Area-4 and only 13% of countries
undertaking the review in 2013 reported either comprehensive or substantial achievement
across all indicators (UNISDR 2013a). Moreover, Priority for Action 4 has been recognized
as the most challenging to address (UNISDR AP 2013).
Although Priority Area 4 has progressed the least of the 5 Priority Areas of the HFA, there
has been some progress. Following are some of the major trends as well as gaps and
challenges.
2.1 Major achievements under HFA-1 Priority for Action Area 4
2.1.1 Improvement in Environmental Legislation & Availability of Environmental
Impact Assessment
Environmental safeguards are a prerequisite for DRR. Since 2005, much has been done by
the countries of the Asia Pacific to improve environmental safeguards.
HFA Monitor reports from countries show this improvement through increases in:
a) The development and adoption of protected areas legislation (stated by 83% of Asia
Pacific reporting countries),
b) Addressing DRR in climate change adaptation programs and projects (97%)
c) Incorporating DRR into national and sectoral public investment systems (50%)
d) Making procedures for DRR available for major development and infrastructural
projects
e) Making available and using Environmental Impact Assessment’s (94%) (UNISDR AP
2013)
For example, Bangladesh introduced the Wildlife Conservation and Preservation Act and
Forest Transit Root 2011, developed Ecologically Critical Areas (ECA) Management
Guidelines, and introduced EIA Guidelines for 5 Sectors (DDM 2013). In India, a system of
Disaster Resilient Audit on self-certification basis to be applied to all centrally sponsored
initiatives from the project’s planning stage (UNISDR AP 2013). In Sri Lanka, the
government developed Special Area Management Plans (SAMP) incorporating DRR
concerns for six specific coastal locations. In Pakistan, a National Working Group on DRR
Mainstreaming has been established to conduct impact assessments on mega-projects, such
as the construction of dams, highways and irrigation facilities at an early stage of project
development. (UNISDR AP 2013).
2.1.2 Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Climate Change Adaptation
(CCA)
Efforts are underway by countries to improve the integration of DRR and climate change
adaptation efforts (CCA). This is demonstrated by an increase in the number of:
4
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
a)
DRR/CCA bodies/ institutions
A UNISDR AP (2013) review of National HFA Progress Reports shows that among the 36
Asia Pacific reporting countries, 32 countries (89%) have established new DRR/DRM/CCA
bodies specifically to deal with climate and disaster risks. Furthermore, different
Governments have undertaken measures to mainstream DRR and CCA into economic and
social sectors through policy, legislation and funding mechanisms.
b)
Capacity building programs
Capacity building in DRR/CCA has occurred in countries including Japan, Republic of Korea,
China, Iran and Australia. Bangladesh and India have also made substantial improvements
in capacity building to deal with DRR along with CCA. Progress to incorporate DRR in CCA
has been also reported by the Maldives, Bhutan, Pakistan, and the Philippines (UNISDR AP
2013).
c)
Mainstreaming programs
Most of the progress achieved in integrating DRR and CCA has been achieved through
programs and projects. It shows that 97% of the countries are following integrated
approach to achieve HFA goal (UNISDR, 2013).
d)
National and regional plans that integrate DRR/CCA and/or sustainable
development
In the Pacific, the region is currently developing an integrated Pacific regional strategy for
disaster risk management and climate change by 2015 to succeed the Pacific DRR and
Disaster Management Framework for Action 2005 – 2015 and the Pacific Islands
Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006 – 2015. Many counties in the Pacific have
already developed Joint National Action Plans for DRR and CCA and are in the middle of
establishing multi-sectoral platforms for DRR, with a special attention to CCA issues
(UNISDR AP 2013).
2.1.3 Incorporation of DRR in Development and Infrastructure Projects
Since 2005, federal governments have successfully initiated various strategies to
strengthen risk sensitive infrastructure and land use planning. This has included the
development of new and more robust building standards and the integration of DRR
considerations in land use planning legislation and policies.
For example, in India, DRR has become an integral part of all new development projects
under the close monitoring of finance ministry. This has been made possible due to the
commitment of the federal government in incorporating DRR into policy and planning
standards/legislation. In Bangladesh, DRR is being mainstreamed into sectors through risk
sensitive development planning protocols. This is being supported by the development of
DRR plans and capacity building in related sectors. In Pakistan, a national working group
has been established to mainstream DRR in mega-projects at the early stages of project
planning and development. The federal government is also working with regional and local
planning authorities to mainstream DRR in infrastructure development planning.
5
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
2.2 Major Gaps and Challenges under HFA Priority for Action Area 4
UNISDR’s (2013) synthesis of HFA Monitor Reports from the Asia Pacific region has found
that often, the barriers to achieving HFA priority for Action Area 4 that include:
(1) Little or no consideration of DRR/DRM in national and sectoral public investment in
most development sectors and the non-recognition of DRR as a cross-cutting issue
within different sectoral investments.
(2) Absence of land-use policies and zoning systems, resulting in inappropriate and unsafe
developments;
(3) Insufficient institutional capacity in economic and productive sectors;
(4) Absence of risk financing and risk transfer mechanisms &
(5) Disregard for Community based Adaptation & Disaster Risk Reduction.
The following section deals with the detailed description of the gaps & challenges.
2.2.1 Little or no consideration of DRR/DRM in national and sectoral public
investment in most development sectors and the non-recognition of DRR as a crosscutting issue within different sectoral investments
There is a strong interconnection between DRR and sectors such as infrastructure,
construction, irrigation, agriculture, education and health. However, how much investment
is actually being made in DRR in each of these sectors is generally difficult to determine.
Stronger coordination and integration are necessary to achieve the desired DRR outcomes
as expressed in HFA. Concerted efforts in integrated planning and implementation,
supported with specific by-laws and concrete enforcement mechanisms, are required to
translate sectoral public investment in DRR into action and intended impacts. Credible
evidence gathered through quality research should be utilized to make the business case of
sectoral DRR investments in local communities. Demonstrating the positive return on
investment for actions taken to reduce underlying risk factors may improve public
commitment to such initiatives (UNISDR 2013). Reducing vulnerability and exposure as
significant drivers of risk is a challenging task for national and local governments. However,
with the sectoral approach, the actions to be taken are hoped to be more focused and direct,
and therefore, more effective (UNISDR AP 2013).
2.2.2 Enforcement of Land Use policies and Zoning System
Land use policy and zoning is one of the key strategies in reducing exposure and underlying
risk factors. 5th AMCDRR called on DRR stakeholders to build and sustain capacities and
legal mandates of national, local governments and the private sector to integrate DRR in
land use policies and planning. Several countries have devised and adopted legislation
mechanisms to regulate building codes, land use zoning and urban development but
generally they have significantly poor capacity to operationalize and enforce these codes.
For example, in Indonesia, as with many other countries in the Asia Pacific, key challenges
to land use planning include overlapping regulations and poor enforcement. In recent
6
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
years, more effort has been made to address these challenges, but so far, progress has been
limited.
In their respective country reports, the Government of Bangladesh and Pakistan are
accepting that they do not have regulations for risk sensitive land use zoning and to
regulate private development in the floodplain, coastal zone and hilly areas. In Afghanistan,
lack of financial resources is the major barrier in implementing building codes and
guidelines for earthquake resistant designs (ANDMA 2013). Countries suggest a need for
concerted efforts in integrated planning and implementation, supported with specific byelaws and mechanisms for enforcement. However, promotion of hazard risk information in
the vulnerable areas would help in further strengthening the enforcement procedure.
2.2.3 Insufficient institutional capacities in economic and productive sector
Many countries still lack the institutional capacities in the economic and productive sectors.
For example, a report conducted by South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) in the year 2013 found that there is a low level of DRR knowledge and
understanding at the institutional levels. This was mainly attributed to financial constraints
and budget allocations. This gap can be addressed by involving line ministries at every
stage from the process of formulating policy to its execution.
Therefore it is pertinent that Governments pay special attention on enhancing institutional
capacities in the economic and productive sectors. Although countries have already
prepared national, state and district level disaster management plans but it has not been
effectively implemented primarily due to weak institutional capabilities and lack of
financial resources.
2.2.4 Disregard for Community based Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk
Reduction
Since the beginning of HFA, there has been significant growth in the prominence of climate
change adaptation and DRR at the national level. However, much of this work has been
through a ‘top down’ hierarchical approach, which has had limited infiltration at the local
level. In HFA2, it is extremely important that communities are involved in a more proactive
manner. For example, Bangladesh has recently started a pilot project with respect to
Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change (CBACC) through coastal afforestation in
the vulnerable areas of four coastal districts. Importantly, the community based disaster
risk management (CBDRM) approach requires institutionalization and legal sanctity for it
to become more widely implemented.
2.2.5 Absence of risk financing and risk transfer mechanisms
Many governments report the lack of capacity of the domestic insurance sector as a
significant barrier to progress in risk financing and risk transfer (UNISDR 2013). Insurance
pricing usually does not reflect risk levels or provide an adequate incentive for risksensitive business investment, particularly in countries with low insurance penetration
rates but rapidly growing markets (UNISDR 2013b). In China, for example, only 3 per cent
of properties are insured against earthquake and 5 per cent against typhoons and floods
7
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
(UNISDR 2013b). Some countries, such as Vietnam report a general lack of an insurance
culture. Crop insurance, for example, is available for farmers but is rarely availed of
(UNISDR 2013a). It has been shown that businesses that have invested in risk management
may economically outperform their competitors (UNISDR 2013a). Although governments
report significant progress in investing more to address risks, the required shift to
anticipate risks in non-government public and private investments remains a challenge
(UNISDR 2013b).
3 Steps to reduce exposure and underlying risk factors
This section provides 10 recommendations to address underlying risk factors. These 10
recommendations are drawn from the literature review, country contributions, partner
contributions and insetive series of discussions among the team members. In addition to
these recommendations, two key messages are also given in the beginning of this section.
Key Message-1: Reducing the risk of human settlements, in particular of urban areas, by
risk sensitive management, is key to reduce exposure and underlying risk factors and
achieving community resilience in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Context: Due to rapid urbanization in Asia, population concentration is not only limited to
large cities but medium and small cities are also registering unprecedented growth. The
scale and volume of development in these cities are challenging the entire urban growth
paradigm including urban systems, urban governance and urban planning. Economic
growth is also observed in most countries of Asia; however, this also resulted in widening
gap among different income groups and hence has given rise to inequality. If not dealt
urgently, this trend may also negatively impact the fragile fabric of community cohesion
and thus hindering community resilience.
Key Message-2: Enhance government-technical organizations collaboration to enhance
evidence-based informed decision making to address underlying risk factors.
Higher education in disaster risk reduction should facilitate this process by promoting
collaborative research and generating young professionals in the related subjects to help
transforming the decisions into actions.
Context: In AP region, both technical and professional capacities, especially at local level, do
not match increasing demand for risk reduction professionals. Academic and technical
organizations including universities, national and regional research organizations, expert
NGOs, etc. will be helpful in bridging the gap. Initially this collaboration should be
strengthened at the national level but should gradually percolate down to local government
level as well.
3.1 Reduce the underlying risk factors for poverty reduction and
sustainable development
8
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
Though sustainable development, poverty reduction and disaster risk reduction are
considered as mutually supportive objectives, since after two decades of Yokohama
Strategy, systematic and long term integration of sustainable development and poverty
reduction program with disaster management is rare (Yodmani 2001; UNISDR AP 2013).
Disasters have disproportionate impact on the poor (UNISDR 2009; UNISDR 2007; UNISDR
AP 2013; Parvin and Shaw 2013; Johnson 2006; Yodmani 2001). In the last two decades
both poverty reduction and disaster management approaches have witnessed paradigm
shift. Poverty reduction approach has shifted focus from income poverty to human poverty
and disaster management approaches has graduated from top-down relief and response to
intersectoral risk management. Interestingly, international donors are keen to incorporate
sustainability issues and environmental consideration into poverty reduction strategies
(Strange and Bayley 2008). It takes long to transform Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) to
Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS). Country reports under HFA reflects that
awareness and efforts for the resilience and disaster risk reduction of the poor and
vulnerable communities in on rise. However, most of these efforts are disjointed,
inadequate and unable to fully capture all underlying risk factors associated with poverty
and sustainable development (UNISDR AP 2013).
Holistic and comprehensive approaches addressing disaster risk reduction, poverty
reduction and sustainable development are needed. Developing mutually supportive,
innovative, multidimensional and inter-sectoral policies, plans and programs for risk
reduction, poverty alleviation and sustainable development are urgently required.
Government, NGOs, civil societies, private sectors and local community will have to work
together to bring disaster risk reduction-poverty alleviation and sustainable development
on a single platform.
3.2 Enforce environmental plans & other legislation that contributed to
reducing disaster risk
Ecosystem services support human life and provide the basic necessities, such as food, fuel
and clean water. Demand for ecosystem services especially from rapidly growing
economies and populations and the perceived low economic value attributed to these
services have led to the increased use of natural resources and the creation of new hazards.
For example, construction of roads through forested mountain slopes has increased the
incidence of landslides in many parts of the Himalaya and other mountains. Ecosystem
approaches such as green infrastructure can reduce the recurrence of such events.
Protecting and restoring ecosystems can often be a cost effective risk management strategy
compared to conventional engineering approaches. For example, instead of spending USD
6.8 billion in drainage improvements, New York invested USD 5.3 billion in green
infrastructure – permeable pavements, more green areas, and other measures - which
acted like sponge in absorbing and regulating peak water flows. These and similar
measures have many other co‐benefits, including recharging aquifer, improving water
quality, reducing urban heat islands and making cities more liveable. HFA2 should
9
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
recognise ecosystem management as a means of reducing disaster risks and recommend
appropriate incentives, including market incentives, to encourage promotion of this
approach for sustainable development.
Underlying risk factors are increasing as people continue to live in vulnerable areas, such as
low lying coastal areas, steep hillsides, flood plains, highly agglomerated urban areas,
besides the hazardous industrial establishments. The risk is further aggravated with the
disappearance of coastal forests, massive deforestation, wetland reclamation and
desertification. On one hand, environmental degradation contributes in reducing the
capacity of ecosystems to meet the needs of people, while on the other; it massively erodes
the inherent resilience of the nature and increases the impact of natural disasters. Healthy
ecosystems often provide natural resistance to the disasters while degraded ecosystems
reduce community resilience in both pre-disaster and in the disaster recovery period.
Environmental degradation multiplies the actual impacts of hazards on social, economic
and ecological front. Environmental degradation is a hazard in itself. Therefore, sustainable
ecosystem management and environmentally sensitive developmental plans can greatly
offer cost-effective solutions to reduce the underlying risks of disasters.
Owning to increased awareness regarding the environmental degradation, many countries
enacted legislations. Now, environmental impact assessment is a prerequisite to
developmental projects. Legislations related to exclusive coastal zone management or
protection & conservation of sensitive areas/ecosystems has also emerged recently.
Implementation of such environmental plans, guidelines and legislations is still a major
challenge and it does not essentially ensure any improvement in the vulnerable locations.
Environmental management for disaster risk reduction needs to emerge as a separate
stream of practice, apart from its regular goal of conservation. For example, barrier
plantation across the coastal areas should be encouraged with a disaster risk reduction
perspective. Therefore, environmental regulations needs to be further strengthened &
effectively implemented at all the level of governments in which accountability of
stakeholders needs to be enhanced. Environmental benefits for DRR also should include
awareness raising & meaningful participation of the local communities who live in
vulnerable regions. Sharing information related to environmental guidelines & best
practices would certainly encourage more community participation. Precisely, the local
level government and the communities at risk should be involved in ecological restoration
and monitoring of environmental performances of developmental projects.
3.3 Enhance economic viability of risk-reduction measures (cost-benefit,
cost-effectiveness, tools, etc.)
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2013) highlights that “Over the
coming years, trillions of dollars of new business investment are set to pour into hazardexposed regions. How the private sector – accounting for 70–85 percent of total investment
– decides to place its funds will largely determine how much disaster risk is accumulated
and how underlying risk drivers are addressed”. The report also estimates average
10
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
potential losses from future earthquakes and cyclonic winds alone at USD189 billion per
year.
Despite of alarming estimates of loss and damage, economic viability of risk reduction
measures remained an underrated issue. Risk reduction approaches are still far from
reaching out to private sector, especially Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Large
corporations, especially those who experienced major catastrophes in developed countries
such as Kobe earthquake and hurricane Katrina, have been working on business continuity
planning to ensure their businesses have least disruption in case of a disaster. However,
due to resource and capacity constraints, SMEs are unable to realize the benefit of investing
in risk reduction measures.
Private sector can participate in DRR not only by integrating disaster risk management in
business continuity plans and protecting their business through risk transfers and
insurance but also collaborating with the public sector in various risk reduction initiatives.
Traditionally business houses or their federations have been supplementing the efforts of
the government for disaster management by discharging their corporate social
responsibilities, but typically such initiatives are limited mostly to disaster relief and
rehabilitation. There is growing realization that public-private participation not only makes
a good business sense but there is scope for large business in risk reduction. Private sector
is investing sizeable resources on agro-business, horticulture, poultry, fisheries and other
sectors by introducing modern technologies of irrigation, plantation, hatcheries, breeding,
processing, packaging, storage and supply chains which are adding substantial value to the
products and contributing significantly to enhance the income of poor people in various
disaster prone areas. There are empirical evidences that many such investments in
different parts of the Asia and the Pacific have enhanced the capacity of the farmers,
fishermen and other communities to cope with the risks from drought, flood, sea storms
etc. New hybrid organizations involving government, corporate sector, civil society and
NGOs are coming up through innovative PPP models of ‘Pro-Poor Public-Private
Partnerships’ in various sectors which are contributing directly or indirectly to disaster
risk reduction by reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing capacities of many downtrodden
communities. There are enormous scopes for replicating such models in various other
sectors such as water and sanitation, rural and urban development, renewable energy etc.
for further risk reduction. Thus higher education institutions, local business groups, NGOs
need to work together on several fronts, such as:
 Carry out a number of localized loss and damage studies in specific sectors of economy.
These studies should be able to spell out cost-benefit advantage in investing in DRR
measures.
 To investigate innovative, practical, implementable tools to reduce losses and damages,
especially for SMEs. Collaborative and cooperative risk-sharing and risk-transfer
mechanisms may supplement new innovative tools of effectively distributing the
disaster related losses.
 Raise awareness through targeted training programs, focused group discussions,
engaging local media and schools for effectively conveying benefits of investing in DRR
measures.
11
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors


Organizing need-based capacity development programs for local businesses, financial
institutions, and informal sectors of economy to inform and engage in finding optimum
solutions to reduce risk via available tools.
Simple risk reduction measures requiring minimal investment such as: acting on early
warning, raising plinth of house and shops in flood prone areas, building seismic
resistant tenements for livelihoods and residence, etc. are some of the low-hanging
fruits offering no-regret solutions to sensitively invest in DRR.
3.4 Ensure Disaster Risk Reduction for industrial production sector
It is estimated that 70% to 80% of investments in economic sector plans and projects are
taking place in private sector, which include investments in small and medium industries,
agri-business, tourism etc. Many of these investments are located in areas that are prone to
natural hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, flood, drought, cyclones etc. Many
industrial and business investments in such areas have suffered damages during disasters.
While large industries and multi-national corporations have the wherewithal to withstand
such losses, small and medium enterprises have suffered crippling losses from which they
could not recover. It is estimated more than fifty percent of the SMEs affected by disasters
had to be closed down. Very few countries have plans, guidelines, incentives or insurance
for retrofitting investments in risk sensitive locations. The Business Continuity Plans (BCP)
hardly covers the risks of disasters.
In a globalized economy most productive investments, even in most isolated areas, are
integrated with supply chains across regions. These include not only supply of inputs like
raw materials, machineries, ancillaries, credit, labor etc but also markets for the finished
products and services. Any disaster or disruption in source, destination or even transit
locations have cascading effects on such investments, which may impact on the production
process and affect the livelihood and economic well being of wide range of communities in
different locations. This was well demonstrated during the devastating floods in Bangkok
and the surrounding regions during 2011. Making private and public investments sensitive
to the risks of disasters continue to remain a challenge in the Asia-Pacific, which remain
largely unaddressed.
As observed in the 2011 Thailand floods, inundation of industrial estates along the Chao
Phraya River Basin caused estimated damages of about USD 7 billion and losses up to about
USD 10 billion due to damages to production lines and business interruptions. Considering
the industrial sector contributing to 38.6% of Thailand’s GDP, the impact on the national
economy has been immense. Furthermore, with the advanced and complex supply chain
system of today’s production sector, disaster effects have become more extensive, reaching
global consumer markets. Global corporations like Honda Motors experienced significant
decrease in production due to shortage of auto parts in its production lines in Japan, UK,
India, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan.
From these experiences, the importance of Business Continuity Plans (BCP) and disaster
management of manufacturing companies has been revisited in many instances. For
example, the introduction of ISO22301 in 2012 provided new standards for business
12
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
continuity management by integrating corporate DRR planning for disaster response,
recovery and preparedness stages. Specific measures for building disaster resilience for
the sector may include infrastructural measures, such as construction of levees and
drainage system for flood control and earthquake proofing of production facilities in
earthquake-prone areas. Enhanced multi-hazard maps and early warning system
combined with effective communication plans are also essential in enabling companies to
take effective response actions during disasters.
Establishing disaster risk
financing/insurance system can also be vital to reduce future disaster risks and for
strengthening BCP. Community based DRR approaches in ensuring safety of employees
and residents in the vicinity of industrial estates should also not be forgotten. Building
public-private partnerships, collaboration with specialized technical agencies and local
communities will also be essential for taking a comprehensive approach in DRR for the
corporate sector.
The primary actors in DRR for the industrial production sector may include central line
agencies for industry, economy and environment for taking institutional measures, local
governments for enforcing and monitoring DRR activities of locally based companies,
research institutions and universities to provide technical backstopping and Chamber of
Commerce/Business Associations as a platform to coordinate the industry sector.
3.5 Ensure appropriate roles of Insurance and private sectors
HFA had prescribed that development of financial risk-sharing mechanisms, particularly
insurance and reinsurance against disaster should be promoted, but barring a few
developed countries like Japan and Korea there have not been much progress in this regard.
Post-disaster risk financing continues to remain the contingent liability of the sovereign
governments taking drain of resources of the national and local governments. Very few
governments of the Asia-Pacific have sound risk financing mechanisms that can take care of
catastrophic risk financing liabilities, leading to serious financial strains and diversion of
funds earmarked for socio-economic development. Further sovereign risk financing
mechanisms do not cover large segments of economy and population, leaving them
unprotected from the risks of disasters. In Thailand, for example, the 2011 floods resulted
in approximately USD 46.5 billion of damage and losses, requiring government spending
amounting to 5 percent of its annual revenues for recovery and reconstruction, but bulk of
the losses still remained uncovered. The tsunami that hit Samoa in September 2009 caused
losses estimated at 22 percent of national GDP crippling the capacity of the economy to
rebound without external assistance.
Risk insurance markets in the Asia-Pacific are still far too inadequate to cover the residual
risks of disasters and share the increasing burdens of sovereign liability. Most of the
governments have reported lack of capacity of the domestic insurance markets as
significant barrier to progress in risk financing and risk transfer. Legal and institutional
mechanisms for disaster risk insurance are not well developed in many countries.
Insurance products are generally not customised to meet the requirements of various
13
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
segments of economy and population. Agricultural insurance is not backed by sound
meteorological data regarding climate and rainfall. Insurance pricing usually does not
reflect risk levels or provide an adequate incentive for risk-sensitive business investment,
particularly in countries with low insurance penetration rates but rapidly growing markets.
Overall insurance penetration in the Asia-Pacific is much lower than the advanced
countries of the west, even though there may be good prospects for insurance markets in
the emerging economies.
A solution in the HFA2 framework would be to encourage private sector to integrate
disaster resilience into their profit making strategies. For example it would be useful to
adapt some of the widely used supply chain management strategies that could reduce the
risks of disasters such as ‘just‐in‐time’ practice and ‘lean supply’ chain management.
Further, business continuity and resiliency planning can be adopted or further improved
for both large multinational companies and small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).
Necessary guidelines and incentives can be developed to encourage widespread adoption
of business continuity planning by the private sector, as has been done recently in Japan
following the Great East Japan Earthquake. International standards for business continuity
have been laid down in ISO 22301 which was issued in 2012 prescribing series of measures
that can be adopted to make the business resilient to various risks including risks of
disasters. Disaster risk management can be factored into overall corporate planning and
investment, business analysis and forecasts. Necessary tools and methodologies for such
analysis can be developed and included into the curriculum of business schools.
Some of the recommendations to be considered in this regard are:
 National governments should make it mandatory for local governments to do
comprehensive risk assessment every five years and communicate effectively to local
populace and businesses.
 Banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions should be given
comprehensive information of risk assessment and shall be encouraged to design
insurance tools to address most vulnerable first.
 Local and regional business associations/federations should be engaged in every stage
of DRR planning and management.
 Governments, NGOs and academic sector should work hand in hand to find root causes
of lower insurance coverage and pilot ways in improving the situation.
 Pacific Catastrophe Risk Insurance Pilot, ASEAN Roadmap for Disaster Risk Financing
and Insurance, agricultural insurance programs in India - are some of the examples
which needs further research to scale up to a wider AP region.
3.6 Enforce structural codes and land use regulations
Rapid economic development across the Asia and the Pacific has exposed many critical
infrastructures like roads and bridges, railways and metros, seaports and airports, power
plants and transmission lines, gas and oil storage depots, water supply systems and
telecommunication networks, schools and hospitals, administrative headquarters and
emergency operation centres to the risks of disasters. Many of these facilities constructed
14
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
years back are not upgraded or retrofitted according to the revised standards or changing
risk profile of the area. Many complex disasters may unleash forces of unforeseen nature
that could never be anticipated. Disasters of even non-catastrophic nature have taken
heavy toll of such critical infrastructures in many developing countries of the Asia-Pacific.
Often break down of one critical infrastructure had cascading effect on other
infrastructures. Even developed countries with high coping capacities have suffered
colossal losses due to breakdown of critical infrastructure as demonstrated during the
Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
Therefore it is extremely important that all new critical infrastructures are constructed
with higher than usual margin of safety and that safety of all existing critical infrastructure,
both in public and private sectors, are regularly audited on the basis of worst-case scenario
to bring them at par with the prescribed international standards. A comprehensive strategy
for building resilience in critical infrastructure may be adopted, which may include
mapping of all critical infrastructures, reviewing standards and codes, reducing exposures
and strengthening resilience of such infrastructure.
The purpose of land regulation in DRR is to obtain the beneficial use of hazard-prone areas
with a minimum damages and little expenditure on hazards protection (Rahman and Khan
2013). Land use management is a latest trend to limit and control the occupancy in the
hazard prone areas. In case of floods, land use regulations is of key concern to mitigate
flood hazard by reducing densities, prohibiting specific functions, regulations for building
material, provision of escape routes and relocation of developments that block the
floodway. The countries should carryout hydrological modelling for floodplain mapping
and zoning against the changing climate scenarios as a preparedness strategy.
The enforcement of structural regulations is an effective long-term instrument for reducing
the adverse effects of hazards. While mainstreaming DRR, building codes need to be made
obligatory in risk sensitive development planning and this would reinforce the existing
structures or replace the vulnerable ones gradually by more resilient structures. The line
agencies should strictly enforce structural regulations in case of new developments or
expanding built-up environment. This should however be fruitful to reduce the disaster risk
when applied in combination with protective measures and land use zoning.
Risk assessment mapping and zoning is a graphical representation of exposed elements and
associated potential damages. Vulnerability and risk need to be well assessed while
devising, delineating probability and implementing zoning regulations. In practice, zoning
either recommend land use replacement, improvement, or complete abandonment. The
probability-based delineation of zones with associated regulations has been practiced in
very few countries (Carter 2005; Kron 2007). In case of flood, the prime objective of zoning
regulations should be maximizing the net-benefits from the floodplains, rather than aiming
solely at reducing flood damages and ignoring the economic considerations is rather
disadvantageous (APFM 2007). The risk can also be reduced by changing or modifying land
utilization that in turn reduce the exposure to hazard. There is an immediate need to
rationalize organizational roles and institutional reform to formulate and enforce a land
15
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
use policy through setting short, medium and long-term plans and involve all the key
stakeholders in the decision and implementation process.
The enforcement of structural codes and land regulations can be achieved in the following
manner:
 Apply modelling for risk mapping and zoning against the changing climate scenarios
 Develop and enforce land use policy and zoning
 Enforce mapping and zoning for modifying land utilization, removal of encroachment
and prohibiting incompatible uses
 Develop building codes for safer construction in hazard prone areas
 Promote resilient designs through media for increasing mass awareness
 Ensure enforcement of building bye-laws.
 Organize training courses for builders, contractors and masons for hazard proof
structure
 Ministry of industries should develop safety codes for all industries to reduce industrial
risks
The following stakeholders should be involved for the implementation:
 National disaster management authorities should formulate land use regulations and
enforce through local Government.
 The urban development authorities should strictly enforce building codes and land use
regulations as they have full-fledged institutional and organization set-up than the rural
system
 Housing development agencies should take concrete step for mainstreaming DRR in
housing policy and strict compliance of risk sensitive building codes
 Ministry of industries should develop safety codes for all industries to reduce industrial
risks and periodically monitor its implementation
3.7 Prepare, utilize and share data based on scientific evidence
Integrated data base of hazard prone areas and its vulnerable populations should be
developed and proper mechanism should be formulated for effective sharing with all the
stakeholders, including the involved communities. This will also help in better utilization
and management of resources in humanitarian action. The vulnerability of an area has to be
calculated in terms of both the physical and social functions and the information on the
micro level spatial distribution of population needs to be accumulated. The scientific based
data should cover the available resources, required resources, and required disaster
response operations that should be available and accessible.
However, presently there are many challenges associated with data which needs to be
overcome. The foremost being that there should be an access to reliable, accurate and upto-date spatial data. Since most of this data is dynamic and time-sensitive in nature, it
requires timely and rapid data collection in order to update decision-makers about the
status of emergency situations. The data layers should be collected and maintained before
and after the occurrence of disasters. This would facilitate multi-hazard mapping at
16
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
national and local level, as proposed by several countries and organizations. Some of the
technical organizations like International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management
(ICHARM) in Japan have developed the methodological framework for disaster risk
information in order to overcome the challenge in global data and to justify the need for
preventative investment in DRR, which can be used properly to serve the communities.
The other example of sharing data is through satellite images like Sentinal Asia, conducted
by ADRC in Japan in cooperation with JAXA and other partner agencies in the Asia-Pacific
region. Apart from data sharing, it is also important to develop technology sharing with
proper capacity building initiatives.
Without spatial data, one cannot expect effective and efficient disaster management (Cutter
et al. 2003; Amdahl 2002). With the rapid development of technology, the sharing and
maintenance of disaster data has become easy, as well as accurate. Geographical
Information System (GIS) is widely used in mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery efforts all around the world. It can be integrated with different spatial datasets
and other Information and Communication Technology (ICT), such as Decision Support
Systems (DSS), expert systems, internet, wireless applications, Global Positioning System
(GPS), Remote Sensing, and simulators. Due to increasing hydrological disasters in the
Asian region, special emphasis needs to be given on water related risk information and data
base management.
Effective utilization and development of data can be accomplished with improved
academia-government partnerships. The complex nature of the disasters, together with the
variety of required data layers for disaster response, an individual organization alone
cannot collect and maintain up-to-date data. Here, the technical knowledge provided by the
academia along with their partnership with the local community can be an asset, which can
be tapped upon. The multidisciplinary environment for the research requires different
technical, socio-technical, financial, institutional, and political factors to be met
(Mansourian et al. 2004). Additionally, the process should include efforts of all involved
stakeholders, taking into account the perception and opinion of affected communities. It
would also encourage coordinated response activities too.
Sharing data and creating open systems promotes transparency, accountability and ensures
a wide range of actors are able to participate in the challenge of building resilience. Sentinel
Asia, an international cooperation project, began to operate a system in 2007 to provide
satellite image data in the event of a disaster in the Asia-Pacific region. It creates a
volunteer network that provides sophisticated use of space/satellite technology, helps is
Asia/Pacific construction of local partnership by disaster management agencies and
space/satellite agencies, and provides a platform to smoothly perform these activities.
Open Cities Initiative, InaSAFE in Indonesia and PCRAFI offers successful examples of data
sharing mechanism. Sharing of data and information is also important for the complex
disaster, as evidenced from the nuclear meltdown in the East Japan Earthquake and
Tsunami. Safety regulations, and monitoring of crucial infrastructures including nuclear
power plants [through appropriate independent and technical monitoring mechanism] is
required in future which will reduce underlying risk factors, and will also enhance the trust
17
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
level of information sharing process. Minimum accountability principles need to be
followed. In any public consultations for establishment of new critical facilities,
requirement for clear risk communication towards community members and groups that
may be affected, needs to be indicated by the legal framework. Governments should invest
in innovation to improve the development and sharing of disaster risk information. Some of
the key principles and activities suggested are:









Development of risk information should be tailored to a wide range of disaster risk
management applications at different scales and involving different stakeholders.
Developers of risk information need to understand the needs of different users, whether
they be individuals, communities, local and national governments or the private and
not-for-profit sectors.
There should be greater investment in low-cost, innovative approaches to collecting and
sharing exposure and vulnerability data. This will improve the availability of detailed
exposure and vulnerability data, which currently can be difficult and expensive to
collect.
Approaches for capturing, sharing and using risk data and information should be open
and transparent. In practice, risk information produced using open source platforms
can underpin dialogues between business, governments and communities which can, in
turn, lead to the development of effective disaster risk management strategies.
Collaboration between the public and private sectors, including the insurance industry,
should be strengthened to improve the generation and application of risk information.
Guidelines and standards for risk data and information should be designed with
flexibility to meet the needs of diverse risk information users. However, flexibility
needs to be balanced against the need to have comparable and credible risk
information.
Advances in science and technology will progressively facilitate the development of
more accurate risk information. However, risk assessments should be done with the
best available information, and not be delayed waiting for better data. Rather,
limitations in accuracy (uncertainty) should be taken into account in the decision
making process.
Risk management is more effective when stakeholders are able to integrate different
strands of risk information to build holistic disaster risk knowledge. Stakeholders that
have a more comprehensive understanding of the risks they face can make more
informed decisions between different risk management strategies and options.
Risk information should make explicit the trade-offs between the economic,
environmental, political and social value of locations and the risk that may exist when
occupying or using such locations. This helps stakeholders to better determine risk and
take ownership of decisions.
Disaster risk knowledge should inform all development investment decisions, including
aid-funded as well as public and private sector investments. Ultimately, risk-sensitive
approaches to development increase the sustainability of development outcomes and
protect investments.
18
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
3.8 Institutionalize Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR)
The importance of CBDRR has been already viewed as one of the key factors in achieving the
goals of HFA (Shaw 2012). Past disasters such as the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995
have introduced important CBDRR concepts, “self-help” and “mutual-help” that advocates
enabling of communities to become effective first responders to disasters before public help
is available. The East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 revealed that even with
substantial investments in DRR infrastructures and technology, it is ultimately the coping
capacity of the communities that determines the fate of their survival, especially for mega
disasters. Recognizing the need to continuously strengthen CBDRR, various governments,
international donors and community-based organizations in the Asia Pacific Region have
developed and implemented projects with different targeted issues. On the other hand, the
effectiveness and sustainability of CBDRR efforts have repetitively been challenged because
there is still a strong tendency for CBDRR to be project or pilot based, thus making continuity
of activities difficult for local stakeholders when the project period is finished due to lack of
funding and guidance. With this situation, CBDRR may be conducted only on short term or
ad hoc basis, making evaluation problematic because measurable outcomes from CBDRR
activities commonly take longer period of time.
Effective and sustainable implementation of CBDRR lies in placing efforts to institutionalize
good practices conducted at the community level. Firstly, good practices should be complied
and studied at the central and/or regional government levels for reflecting some of their
components into DRR policy frameworks and action planning. Secondly, provision for
establishing a general account budget specifically for CBDRR at local levels is essential to
enable continuous implementation of activities. Regular monitoring and evaluation of
activities by community participation is also important for local governments and
communities to understand their strengths and gaps as well as for taking actions for
readjusting to new DRR needs and changes. Building partnerships of various stakeholders
from different sectors is often advocated as utmost importance, but it is not common to see
specific cases of these partnerships being institutionalized. Finally, as CBDRR efforts also
contribute to building sustainable communities, it must be integrated into community
development plans and also be incorporated into community events, such as traditional
festivals and other social functions of the locality.
The primary actor for institutionalizing CBDRR is the local government, but it is important
that other community stakeholders participate in the process. In some countries, where
international assistance plays an important role, a system to institutionalize community’s
consent over investment decisions for development that may pose risks for community
members needs to be devised.
Promoting inclusion and strengthening volunteer networks for effective local level action is
also important. Strengthening the capacities and skills of community and volunteer
organizations both formal and informal, enhancing leadership skills and encouraging active
participation to anticipate disasters in and around the communities and reduce their
vulnerabilities are some of the actions required to strengthen and enhance local level action.
19
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
3.9
Address risk reduction in recovery
Disaster recovery can be considered a development opportunity, which is often used or
miss-used (Shaw 2013). At the aftermath of a disaster, there has always been pressure to
quickly restore support systems and livelihoods and repair damages. In most of the cases,
this undermines the quality of relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation works. The pressure
of time and other constrains such as the difficulties in communication and transportation in
the post-disaster environment makes it difficult to restore the lives and livelihoods with
enhanced resilience. However, recovery is a balance between speed and quality. The speed
is higher when it is done in a centralized way, by single agency. However, when it comes to
cooperation and collaboration among different stakeholders, departments and agencies,
the process becomes slow.
There is a general consensus to address risk reduction or resilience building through the
recovery process. The recovery of 2001 earthquake of Gujarat, India was used effectively
to enhance the building safety in the region, and also addressing regional development
issues like water, health, education etc. Similar trends were also found after post 2004
tsunami recovery in Aceh, where land use planning and coastal regulations were improved.
Post 2010 Pakistan flood also introduced strong land use regulations and its
implementation. In recent post 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, roles of
schools and vital infrastructures in the coastal areas are revisited, and specific changes are
made in the education system to look at the governance issues also, in addition to disaster
education and awareness raising.
Shaw (2013) has introduced the GET [governance, education and technology] framework in
post disaster recovery, which leads to resilience building of local communities. It suggests
specific measures for regulations and institutional changes [related to governance],
education and awareness raising of different stakeholders, and technology related issues,
which can be linked to long-term issues, and thereby introducing DRR practices.
The small economies, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island
Developing States (SIDS) are particularly vulnerable to disasters. Even a small scale
disaster in such countries have proportionately much higher impact on the economy than
in larger countries, making it immensely more difficult for them to recover from the losses.
Maldives, for example suffered more than 62% of its GDP during the Indian Ocean Tsunami
making it impossible to stand up on its own feet without substantial assistance from the
international community and multi-lateral financial institutions. This may not always be
forthcoming in same measure for all the countries. The Asia-Pacific has the largest
concentration of small economies in the world making the region particularly vulnerable to
disasters. HFA tacitly endorsed the underlying risks of these economies by making a special
reference to these countries in the annex. The post‐HFA framework should make a more
explicit reference by suggesting for these countries a mix of strategies including promotion
of more diverse economies, pre‐disaster financial recovery planning, preferential trade and
tariff agreements, common catastrophe insurance pools, and other risk financing
mechanisms.
20
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
3.10 Enhance DRR education to help reduce underlying risk factors
The goal of developing disaster resilient communities is heavily dependent on the success
of DRR education (Petal 2008 cited in Shaw et al. 2011). The continuous implementation of
formal and non-formal DRR education, linked to community-based disaster risk reduction
promises the development of a culture of safety which can make societies less vulnerable
and more resilient to the impacts of disasters in the future. In some countries, DRR
education has been integrated at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels as well as in
the training of teachers. DRR education and training modules should also be prepared for
cities, municipalities, and provinces to enhance the capacity of local government officials
and specialized DRR personnel to develop, manage, and administer non-formal DRR
education programs and IEC efforts for the citizens. Given the number of local government
units across countries, this is expected to be a massive undertaking for providers of DRR
education at all levels.
To help reduce underlying risk factors, DRR education should include the impacts of
natural hazards as well as the effects of changing social, economic, and environmental
conditions to the risk exposure and vulnerability of citizens. Learners should be aware of
the nature of every disaster and their impacts on health, education, agriculture, livelihoods,
and infrastructure.
Mechanisms of support can help build an enabling environment for DRR education to be
successful. First, strong leadership at the education ministry is needed in pursuing
nationwide school-based initiatives to tackle DRR. Second, school support networks are
necessary. Schools lack the resources to implement DRR education initiatives on their own.
Thus, partnerships and sponsors are needed to sustain such projects. Private sector
companies, NGOs, and civil society organizations can partner with public schools to provide
support, including facilities, infrastructure, textbooks, computers, science laboratory
equipment, and teaching and skill development. In order to ensure a broad and diverse
base of resources and inputs, school officials should reach out to local emergency agencies,
government committees, service organizations, parent-teacher associations, and businesses.
Primary and secondary schools should also develop partnerships with tertiary schools,
especially for support in teacher training. Third, the potential of using social media should
be explored as the Internet and mobile phones are becoming very popular across all age
groups. Social media can enable educators to reach a wider audience cost effectively. And
finally, a cross-sectoral approach should be used. DRR is not an issue confined to one
specific sector, so addressing it effectively requires inputs from a wide variety of
stakeholders, some of who may have a better understanding of what is needed at the local
level. Budgetary constraints remain one of the challenges in implementing DRR education
strategies so this issue should be addressed by providers and supporters of DRR education.
The other important part of education is higher education. In recent years, several
universities in the Asia-Pacific region have started DRR postgraduate programs (Shaw et al.
2011). This is important to develop DRR as an academic discipline. With over two decades
of maturity of the subject, risk reduction can be recognized as an academic discipline
21
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors
through its incorporation in the university curriculum and generating young professionals
in the subject. This needs to be strongly considered in the HFA 2 framework.
Recommendations
1. Reduce the underlying risk factors for poverty reduction and sustainable development
2. Enforce environmental plans & legislations for DRR and other legislation that
contributed to reducing disaster risk
3. Enhance economic viability of risk-reduction measures (cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness,
tools, etc.)
4. Ensure DRR for industrial production sector
5. Ensure appropriate roles of Insurance and private sectors
6. Enforce structural codes and land use regulations
7. Prepare, utilize and make easily available, data based on scientific evidence
8. Institutionalize community based DRR
9. Address risk reduction in recovery
10. Enhance DRR education to help reduce underlying risk factors
References











Amdahl, G. (2002) Disaster Response: GIS for Public Safety. California: ESRI. Available from:
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/winter0102articles/gis-homeland.html
[Accessed
12/26/13].
ANDMA (Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority) (2013) Afghanistan: National
progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013).
Available from: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/31607_afg_NationalHFAprogress_201113.pdf [Accessed 12/26/13].
Cutter, S. L., Richardson, D. B. and Wilbanks, T. J. (2003) The Geographic Dimension of Terrorism.
New York and London: Routledge.
Dayton-Johnson, J. (2006) Natural Disaster and Vulnerability. OECD Development Center Policy
Brief No. 29. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dev/37860801.pdf [Accessed 12/26/13].
DDM (Department of Disaster Management – Bangladesh) (2013). Bangladesh: National
progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013).
Available from: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/28810_bgd_NationalHFAprogress_201113.pdf [Accessed 12/26/13].
Jain, S. and McLean, C. (2003) A Framework for Modeling and Simulation for Emergency
Response. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans, USA.
Mansourian, A., Rajabifard, A., Valadan Zoej, M. J., and Williamson, I. (2004) Facilitating disaster
management using SDI. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, 29-44.
Parvin, G. and Rajib, S. (2013) Role of Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) in Coastal Community’s
Disaster Risk Reduction, Response and Recovery: A Case Study of Hatiya, Bangladesh. Disasters
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 165-184.
Shaw R. (2013) Disaster Recovery: Used or Mis-used Development Opportunities. Tokyo: Springer.
Shaw R. (2012) Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction. Bingley: Emerald.
Shaw R. and Tran P. (2012) Environment and Disaster Linkages. Bingley: Emerald.
22
Key Area 5 – Reducing Underlying Risk Factors









Shaw, R., Takeuchi Y., Gwee Q., and Shiwaku K. (2011) Disaster Education: An Introduction. In:
Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K. and Takeuchi, Y. (eds.). Disaster Education. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 1-22.
Shaw R., Mallick F. and Takeuchi Y. (2011) Essentials of Higher Education in Disaster Risk
Reduction: Prospects and Challenges. In: Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K. and Takeuchi, Y. (eds.). Disaster
Education. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 95-113.
Strange, T. and Bayley, A. (2008) Sustainable Development: Linking economy, society,
environment. Paris: OECD.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2007) Hyogo
Framework for Action, 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to
Disasters. Geneva: UNISDR.
UNISDR (2009) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.
UNISDR (2013a) Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action - Summary of Reports
2007-2013. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/32916 [Accessed
12/26/13].
UNISDR (2013b) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013: From Shared Risk
to Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available from:
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2013/en/home/download.html [Accessed
12/26/13].
UNISDR AP (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction – Asia and Pacific)
(2013) The Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia and the Pacific: Regional Synthesis Report
2011-2013. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/ 32851 [Accessed
12/26/13].
Yodmani S. (2001) Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the poor.
Paper delivered at the Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty, ADB, 5-9 February 2001.
23