Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
HFA 2 Key Area 5 Input Paper
Reducing Exposure and Underlying Risk Factors
Authors: [all from Kyoto University, Japan]
Rajib Shaw (Japan), Akhilesh Surjan (India), Nitin Srivastava (India), Glenn Fernandez
(Phillippines), Rajarshi Dasgupta (India), Shohei Matsuura (Japan), Atta ur-Rahman
(Pakistan), and Gulshan Parvin (Bangladesh)
Contributons from:
Countries: [6] Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka
Partners: [17] ADRC, CWS Asia Pacific [Thailand: 3], ICHARM [Japan], ISET [Vietnam: 2], Japan CSO
Coalition, 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
3. Key-Messages and Recommendations for HFA 2
3.1 Reduce the underlying uisk 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 Disaster Risk Reduction 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 disaster risk reduction
3.9 Address risk reduciton in recovery
3.10Enhance DRR education to help reduce underlying risk factors
References
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
2
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
Executive Summary
Disasters affect economic and physical development gains, disrupt social fabric and pose
challenges at different scales. Occurance of disasters, number of reported disasters events,
losses and damages due to disasters, population affected due to disastes - all are showing
increasing trend. In the last 25 years or so, international community has garnered great
momentum to enhance disaster preparedness, response capacities, awareness,
management of disasters. However, HFA [Hyogo Framework for Action] from 2005 to
2013 has shown the least progress in the priority area 4 [reducing underlying risk factors],
both globally and in the Asia Pacific region, which is considered as lack of incorproation of
DRR [disaster risk reduction] in development perspectives.
Asia is an epicentre of urbanization, although majority of the population stil lives in rural
areas and heavily dependent of agriculture. Moreover, barring few, Asian countries sizeable
population are still facing myriad challenges of poverty, lack of basic services and health
facilities, poor quality infrastrucure, weak governance not capable to deliver upto 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. Challenges posed by disasters multiply due to existing
inefficiencies and weaknesses of developing counties. Underlying risk factors cannot be
reduced unless the abovementioned weaknesses are targetted.
This paper reviews the progress and challenges of the HFA 1 Priorty 4, and recommends
future perspectives to be incorporated to reduce underlying risks. Ten sepcific
recommendations are provided based on country and partner contributions and extensive
literature review and research. These are as follow: 1) Reduce the underlying risk factors
for poverty reduction and sustainable development, 2) Enforce environmental plans &
legislations for Disaster Risk Reduction, 3) Enhance economic viability of risk-reduction
measures (cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, tools, etc.), 4) Ensure Disaster Risk Reduction
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 disaster risk
reduction, 9) Address risk reduciton 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 IDNDR. As a discipline, DRR will be 25 years old when the WCDR will be held in
Sendai in the year 2015. While there is tremendous progress made is several fronts which
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 6 countries and 17
organizations in the Asia-Pacific region [regional organizaitons, universities, UN bodies and
INGOs, local governments, and civil society bodies].
3
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
The study brings rich experiences of the authors, 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 sector development planning and programmes 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 which were 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 AMCDRR and HFA2 declaration.
This document is divided into two main parts:
- HFA-1 refelctions, which shows major achievments, 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 in the existing Hyogo Framework for
Action (herein after HFA-1) i.e. ‘Reducing the Underlying Risk factors’ and further to
discuss the major achievements, gaps and challenges in addressing the targets. The
conclusions drawn in this section is based on the review of official reports published by
UNISDR, country specific self assessment reports and other associated literatures. The
existing HFA Priority for Action area 4 has six core indicators to determine the progress. In
general, self-assessment scores in the five HFA Priorities, with Priority 1 obtained the
highest average self-assessment score (3.11) and Priority 4 received the lowest (2.92)
which essentially denotes that Priority for Action area 4 is underachieved. This trend is
consistent with the last reporting cycles making it the most challenging priorities under the
HFA-1. (HFA Asia Pacific 2011-2013, page 1). In fact, in the latest reporting, the average
score for Priority 4 has increased only marginally from the average score of the past
reported cycle in both 2007 – 2009 and 2009 – 2011 (Implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action, Summary of Reports 2007–2013, Page 28). It is further observed,
that no country has essentially made ‘comprehensive achievement’ across all the core
indicators under the priority Area-4 and only 13% of countries undertaking the review in
2013 report either comprehensive or substantial achievement across all indicators
(Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, Summary of Reports 2007–2013,
Page 29). Moreover, priority for Action 4 ‘Reduce the Underlying Risk Factors’ has been
recognized as the most challenging priority to address. (HFA Asia Pacific 2011-2013, page
1). Therefore, the significance of Priority for Action 4 in HFA-1 still remains highly
4
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
contextual and needs further comprehensive actions. Nevertheless, it is also important to
identify the key thematic areas where significant progress has been reported under the
HFA-1 tenure and also the major emerging challenges that need to be addressed in post
2015 framework for action i.e. HFA-2. Following are some general trend that has been
observed and tabled as significant progress across the country boundaries. In the later
section, the major gaps and challenges are also identified and explained in details.
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 safeguard measures are a prerequisite for disaster risk reduction and such
consideration exists from effective natural resource management, judicial use of
environmental resources, conservation and sustainable development. Under the HFA-1
(Priority for Action 4), core indicator 1 & core indicator 6 broadly deals with the
environmental aspects for Disaster Risk Reduction. More precisely, the core indicator 6
describes the urgency of procedures that needs to be in place to assess the disaster risk
impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure which directly denotes the
use of environmental impact assessment of the developmental projects. Importantly, most
of the progress in this Priority for Action has been achieved through the development and
adoption of protected areas legislation (stated by 83% of reporting countries), addressing
DRR in climate change adaptation programs and projects (97%), availability and
application of Environmental Impact Assessment (94%) as well as incorporation of DRR
into national and sectoral public investment systems (50%) and the availability of
procedures for DRR incorporation into major development and infrastructural projects.
(HFA Asia Pacific 2011-2013, page 24). For example, Bangladesh introduced the Wild
Conservation and Preservation Act and forest transit Root 2011, developed Ecologically
Critical Areas (ECA) Management Guideline, and introduced EIA Guidelines for 5 Sectors
(Bangladesh Country Report National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action, 2011-2013, Page 30), Similarly, 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 in India (HFA Asia Pacific 2011-2013, page 24). In Sri
Lanka, the government developed Special Area Management Plans (SAMP) incorporating
DRR concerns for six specific coastal locations in Sri Lanka. On the other hand, National
Working Group on DRR mainstreaming has been established in Pakistan to conduct impact
assessments on mega-projects, such as the construction of dams, highways and irrigation
facilities at an early stage of project development. (HFA Asia Pacific 2011-2013, page 24).
Therefore, it can be concluded that under the core indicator 1 & core indicator 6, significant
progress in formulating legislations, guidelines and environmental plans has been made by
majority of the countries where as environmental impact assessment has been made a
prerequisite for developmental projects in most of the countries.
2.1.2 Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Climate Change Adaptation
(CCA)
‘Progress Review of HFA 2011-2013 Asia–Pacific’ has reported the national level progress
5
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
and achievement of different priorities of HFA. Review of National Progress Reports show
that legislative arrangements and bodies have been established to directly address DRR
and/or CCA. Among 36 countries, which have made self-assessment related to HFA
progress, thirty-two countries (89%) reported that they have established new
DRR/DRM/CCA bodies specifically to deal with climate and disaster risks. Different
Governments have undertaken measures to mainstream DRR and CCA into economic and
social sectors through appropriate policies, legislation and funding mechanism. Main
progress in the Priority for Action 4 (reduce the underlying risk factors) has been achieved
by addressing DRR in climate change adaptation programs and projects. It shows that 97%
of the countries are following this approach to achieve HFA goal (HFA-Asia-Pacific 20112013, page 24). Countries that are commonly known for their attention to capacity building
in DRR/DRM/CCA include 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 (HFA-Asia-Pacific 2011-2013 pp.38). In Pacific,
Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action 2005 – 2015,
emphasis has been placed on the development of a Joint National Action Plan for DRM and
CCA. Pacific countries are working toward integrating regional platforms on DRM and CCA
in their Roadmap for Integrated DRM and CCA. In fact, disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation are so tightly linked to development initiatives that it is no wonder that
most of the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are already engaged in the process of DRR/DRM
and CCA integration into their respective budgetary and planning processes. Furthermore,
most PICs are in the middle of establishing multi-sectoral platforms for DRR, with a special
attention to CCA issues (HFA-Asia-Pacific 2011-2013, Page 49).
2.1.3 Incorporation of DRR in Development and Infrastructure Projects
The vision of incorporating DRR in development projects was to stimulate the
adoption of risk sensitive strategy in all sectors of development planning. During the
HFA-1 tenure, the national governments have realized the significance of mainstreaming
disaster risk reduction into policy, plans and infrastructural developments. In the past,
most of the infrastructural developments in the hazard prone areas have negatively
affected the pace of country economic growth rate. Realizing the significance and nature of
linkages between disaster and infrastructural development campaign, the federal
governments have successfully initiated various strategies for devising and enforcing
targeted approaches for minimizing vulnerabilities and mitigating the adverse
consequences of disasters in development program. The broad mission has been the
achievements of sustainable socio-economic and physio-ecological development goals
through reducing exposure and underlying risk factors. Such DRR policies and plans have
guided the key stakeholders involved in decision making and implementation of
development plans. As mentioned, in India, DRR is now integral part of all new
development projects under the close monitoring of finance ministry. This has been made
possible due to the dedication and commitment of federal governments in incorporating
DRR into policy and planning. Similarly, Bangladesh has expedited the DRR mainstreaming
into all sectors through risk sensitive development planning and implementation and
reinforcing climate and disaster resilient development. Governments are now paying
6
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
serious attentions on establishment of mechanism for enhancing their capacities and
operationalizing plans in their respective functional areas. In Pakistan, a national working
group has been established to mainstream DRR in mega-projects at an early stage of project
planning and development. The federal governments are now working in close
collaboration with the regional and local planning authorities in mainstreaming DRR in all
infrastructural development planning and programs.
2.2 Major Gaps and Challenges under HFA-1 Priority for Action Area 4
Based on the UNISDR’s official report and countries’ self assessment reports, the weakest
areas of progress under the HFA-1 priority for Action Area 4 can be identified as: (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 Disaster Risk Reduction and sectors such as
infrastructure, construction, irrigation, agriculture, education, health, and livelihoods.
However, how much investment is actually being spent on DRR in each of these sectors has
not generally been clear. Strong 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-. Implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action - Summary of Reports 2007-2013). 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, The Hyogo Framework
for Action in Asia and the Pacific: Regional Synthesis Report 2011-2013).
2.2.2 Enforcement of Land Use policies & Zoning System
Land use policy and zoning system is one of the key strategies in reducing exposure and
under lying risk factor. Ministers at the 5th AMCDRR in Yogyakarta call 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 mechanism to regulate building
7
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
codes, land use zoning and urban development but generally they have significantly poor
capacity of operationalization and enforcement. For example, in Indonesia, the major
challenge in addition to overlapping regulations is poor enforcement of zoning and
therefore efforts have been made to implement these regulatory and policy instruments in
true spirits, but so far the process is not successful. The physical development and
encroachments onto the active floodplain have increased the human exposure to flood risk.
However, flood risk assessment and mapping have not been carried out to designate risk
sensitive zoning and enforcement. 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. Similarly, in Turkey construction are undertaken without taking into
consideration the effective building codes. In Afghanistan, lack of financial resources is the
major barrier in implementing building codes and guidelines for earthquake resistant
designs (Afghanistan HFA National Progress Report 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
In general, countries are lacking institutional capacities in the economic and productive
sectors; therefore it is pertinent that Governments should pay special attention on
enhancing institutional capacities in the economic and productive sectors for hazard
mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. 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. In case of Afghanistan, due to climate change there is an increasing
frequency of drought that has reduced the agricultural production and the country ranked
weak institutional capacity a major challenge in wake of effective economic and productive
sector. Another challenge is the low level of DRR knowledge and understanding at the
institutional level as in case of low technical expertise. It was also pointed out in the SAARC
regional progress report in 2013 that financial constraints and lack of appropriate
allocation of budget to implement HFA at the local and regional level is a great challenge.
This gap can be addressed by involving line ministries at every stage from the process of
formulating policy to its execution. The instant prerequisite is to assess technological,
institutional and policy options to rationalize the role of organizations for further
strengthening institutional capacities in economic and productive sectors. This need to be
supplemented and ensured that marginalized group including children and gender
inequality is properly addressed in all phases of disaster.
2.2.4 Disregard for Community based Climate Change Adaptation & Disaster Risk
Reduction
Since the implementation of HFA, it is apparent that there has been a growing concern
among the country government for climate change adaptation viz.-a-viz. disaster risk
reduction. It is also evident that over the past three assessment cycles, that intuitional
approach of Climate change adaptation and Disaster Risk reduction has gained momentum
8
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
and several federal governments has adopted multiple schemes for CCA & DRR. The
institutionalization of CCA & DRR has been certainly a welcome change; however, it is
extremely important to involve the communities at risk in a more proactive manner. The
existing approach has been by & far a ‘top down’ hierarchical approach which has been
undertaken by the majorities of the countries. It is observed that to ‘reduce the underlying
risk factors’ there has been several social, economic schemes to enhance community
resilience of the vulnerable population. However, despite of the existence such policies,
ground level implementation has been poor. Therefore, it is important to involve the
communities into mainstream climate change adaptation process and disaster risk
reduction mechanisms. For example, Bangladesh has recently started a Pilot project with
respect to Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change (CBACC) through Coastal
aforestation in the coastal vulnerable areas of 4 districts. Importantly, Community based
disaster risk reduction approach is strongly emerging, however, at present it requires
institutionalization and legal sanctity which has been lacking in majority of the countries. In
the wake of such need, more community based approaches need to be encouraged both at
policy and implementation level.
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-Implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action - Summary of Reports 2007-2013). 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 (UNISDR- Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction
2013). In China, for example, only 3 percent of properties are insured against earthquake
and 5 percent against typhoons and floods (UNISDR- Global Assessment Report on Disaster
Risk Reduction 2013). 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- Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action - Summary of Reports
2007-2013). It has been shown that businesses that have invested in risk management may
economically outperform their competitors (UNISDR-Implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action - Summary of Reports 2007-2013). 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- Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013).
3 Recommendations for HFA 2
This section provides 10 recommendations which are related to the underlying risk factors.
These 10 receommendations 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.
9
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
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 recilience in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Context: Asia is the epicenter of urbanization. Population concentration is not only limited
to large cities but medium and small cities are also registering unprecented growth. The
scale and volume of developments 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 generating young
professionals in the related subjects to help transforming the decisions into actions.
Context: Asia-Pacific region is one of the most risk prone region in the world. The region
brings stark contrast where a significant proportion of population is still struggling without
access to basic amenities and infrastructure to be able to live decent quality of life.
Governments in the developing countries of Asia are striving to strike a balance between
development priorities and reducing underlying risk factors. Both technical and
professional capacities, especially at local level, does 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
It is worldwide recognized that the efforts related to disaster risk reduction must be
systematically integrated into policies, plans and programs for sustainable development
and poverty reduction (UNISDR, 2007). Out of three strategic goals of HFA, the first one is
the more effective integration of disaster risks consideration into sustainable development
policies, planning and programming at all levels (UNISDR, 2007). However, systematic
action to address disaster risk in the context of sustainable development is a big challenge,
which is predicted by scholars long back in 1994 in Yokohama Strategy. 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, HFA-Asia Pacific, 2011-2013). First Global
10
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
Assessment Report (GAR, 2009) on Disaster Risk Reduction, Risk and Poverty in a Changing
Climate has shows how different risk drivers including disasters are enhancing poverty.
GAR, 2009 recommended that these underlying risk drivers are crucial not only to achieve
HFA but also for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Adaptation.
There is no doubt that disasters have a disproportionate impact on the poor. They suffer
most and they get more affected (GAR 2009, UNISDR, 2007, HFA-Asia Pacific 2011-2013,
Parvin, and Shaw, 2013, Johnson, 2006, Yodmani, 2001). In the last two decades both
poverty reduction and disaster management approaches have paradigm shift. Poverty
reduction approach has been shifted from income poverty to human poverty and disaster
management approaches has been shifted from top-down relief and response to
intersectoral risk management. Therefore, in the present approach of Disaster Risk
Reduction there are wider rooms for the poor. At the same time donors are pushing to
incorporate sustainability issues and environmental consideration into poverty reduction
strategies (Strange and Bayley, 2008). But still have a long way to transform Poverty
Reduction Strategy (PRS) to Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS). On the other hand,
national progress reports related to HFA show that there are raising awareness and efforts
for the resilience and disaster risk reduction of the poor and vulnerable communities.
However, all the attempts are disconnected, inadequate and unable to fully capture all
underlying risk factors associated with poverty and sustainable development (HFA-Asia
Pacific, 2011-2013).
Holistic and comprehensive approaches addressing disaster risk reduction, poverty
reduction and sustainable development are needed. Developing mutually supportive,
innovative, multidimensional and intersectoral policies, planning and programming for risk
reduction, poverty alleviation and sustainable development are utmost requirement.
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 & legislations for Disaster Risk
Reduction
The increase in extreme hydro-meteorological events is growingly recognized as a future
threat and most importantly, the underlying risk factors of disasters are increasing as
people continue to live in vulnerable areas, such as low lying coastal areas, steep hillsides,
flood plains, highly agglomerated urban areas and besides the hazardous industrial
establishments. The risk is further aggravated with the disappearance of coastal forests,
massive deforestation, wetland reclamation and desertification. It is well known that the
environment, development and disasters are strongly interconnected yet the synergies
between these factors are often be not understood properly which leads to dysfunction of
ecosystems & environmental services precisely in the middle income countries (Shaw and
Tran 2012). At the 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 to reduce the impact of natural disasters. In short, the
11
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
critical linkages between Environment & Disasters can be summarized in the following
points- (a) 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 (b) Environmental degradation multiply the actual impacts of hazards on
social, economic and ecological front & (c) Environmental degradation is an hazard in itself.
Therefore, sustainable ecosystem management and environmental sensitive developmental
plans can greatly offer cost-effective solutions to reduce the underlying risks of disasters.
Importantly, owing to massive awareness regarding the environmental degradation, the
world has experienced a welcome change as many countries evolved with legislations
related to environmental impact assessment as a prerequisite to developmental projects.
Similarly, legislations related to exclusive coastal zone management or protection &
conservation of sensitive areas/ecosystems has also emerged simultaneously.
Unfortunately, implementation of such environmental plans, guidelines and legislations has
been lacking and therefore such guidelines/legislations do not essentially ensure any
improvement in the vulnerable locations. Further, it is also important that 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, it
is imperative that environmental regulations needs to be strengthened & effectively
implemented at all the level of governments and the accountability of stakeholders needs to
be enhanced through proper set of legislations. The main agenda of restoration of
ecosystem services and environmental benefits for disaster risk reduction 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 envisage 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.)
Number of reported disasters as well as economic losses associated with the disaster
events is increasing across the globe and Asia-Pacific region in no exception. 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
potential losses from future earthquakes and cyclonic winds alone at USD189 billion per
year.
Despite of these alarming estimates of loss and damage, economic viability of risk reduction
measures remained an underrated issue. Last decade witnessed enormous international
effort towards bringing a significant change in the regime of risk-reduction, which is now
12
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
changed from reactive to proactive, albeit at a varying degree. While this change has
galvanized governments to prepare disaster management plans, improve responsepreparedness, enhance early-warning systems, capacity building of government
functionaries, etc.; it is 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.
It has been often quoted in DRR related documents that an investment of a dollar during
pre-disaster phase can save about 7 dollars in recovery/rebuilding phase. However, in
developing countries of Asia-Pacific region, governments find it difficult to even cater to the
developmental aspiration of the society. Education, health, livelihood & employment,
infrastructure, provision of basic services, etc. receives major share of national budgets.
Mainstreaming DRR calls for dovetailing risk reduction measures in developmental
programs, however, barring few countries, mainstreaming remains an unfinished agenda.
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
disaster risk reduction measures.
 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
Disasters can bring unforeseen effects to the industrial production sector and devastate the
national economy as observed in the 2011 Thailand Floods. According to reports,
inundation of industrial estates along the Chao Phraya River Basin caused estimated
damages of about THB 237.4 billion [about USD 7 billion] and losses up to THB 328 billion
[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
13
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
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. This was observed in the aftermath of
Thailand Floods as well as 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, where 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
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
Not only larger-scale catastrophes but also routine annual disaster events result in loss of
population and assets / livelihood / productive-days in the Asia-Pacific region. Rapid
urbanization in the region is increasing presence of assets and population in vulnerable
areas. Climate change is expected to further intensify hydro-meteorological events, which
frequents the region more often than before. These issues coupled with existing poor
quality public and critical infrastructure, lower spread of early warning and similar softmechanisms, and inadequate DRR capacities at local level, wash away development gains of
decades.
Economic growth, observed in recent decades in Asian region is fuelling lifestyle
aspirations. Private sector (including manufacturing sector, industries, service sector, etc.)
is expanding its outreach beyond national boundaries to cater to the growing consumption
14
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
needs of the region. A large number of transnational corporation have also shifted their
manufacturing base / call-center in the Asia-Pacific region due to availability of human
resources at lower cost. This has also created greater interdependencies across countries.
Thailand Flood of 2011 severely affected Toyota’s supply chains and its impacts was felt
globally. Tourism industry of Thailand was also greatly affected due to floods.
Building collapse as well as fire in buildings in Dhaka, which are used as garment
manufacturing factories housing thousands of workers, is also an urgent reminder of the
private sector’s involvement in disaster risk reduction. Asia-Pacific region is dotted with
huge coastal area. In the recent decades, development of coastal areas as Special Economic
Zone (SEZ) has prompted private sector as well as governments to invest heavily. In
Bangladesh and China, population growth in Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) was almost
twice compared to national population growth rate between 1999-2000. Economic
development strategies and policies helped in urban development along the coast.
Risk-transfer instruments such as insurance have significantly low penetration in the AsiaPacific region. Both private sector as well as individuals either are not aware of risktransfer mechanism or cannot afford it. A large section of informal sector housing and
businesses remain outside of risk-transfer mechanism. One of the first step to increase
insurance coverage and engage private sector in DRR is to understand (i) how the disaster
and climate change related risks are perceived by the businesses and the society (ii) what
strategies, plans, resources, capacities, etc. are in place to prevent-manage-respond to risks
(iii) what human and financial consequences a given region has faced due to disaster events
and expected to face in future.
Risk assessment and effective communication of it forms the key element in this regard.
Climate change brings dimension of uncertainty in risk assessment. A risk assessment tool
needs to be locally contextualized, easy to use and comprehensive to know what will be
affected and to which extent. Cascading effects of disasters should also be considered, as it
is very strong message emerged from Tohoku-Triple-Tragedy. Local capacities should be
built in risk assessment avoid need of external experts to regularly update risk assessment.
Quantification of risk requires good quality of local and regional data, which shall also be
updated regularly.
Risk perception varies greatly among different stakeholders. With effective risk
communication strategy and risk-awareness at different levels, risk perception can be
altered. Due to large income variation among population, it is required to have different
options of insurance for different economic groups. Needs of people engaged in informal
sector and small businesses shall be especially understood and addressed while designing
risk-transfer tools. Private sector shall be part of risk assessment and communication
strategy to ensure buy-in in disaster risk reduction.
 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.
15
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5



February 5, 2014 Version
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 disaster risk reduction 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.
3.6 Enforceme structural codes and land use regulations
The purpose of land regulation is to obtain the beneficial use of hazard-prone areas with a
minimum damages and little expenditure on hazards protection (Rahman and Khan 2013).
The most effective way to ensure that inappropriate development in the hazard prone area
will not continue in future if land use regulation is prepared and subsequently
implemented. 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. In Pakistan,
the flood management machinery has initiated the preparation and development of flood
zoning in 1988 but so far no proper attention has been given to complete.
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. Similarly, ministry of industries should develop safety
codes for all industries to reduce industrial risks and periodically monitor implementation
of safety codes in industry. Similarly, the urban authorities should strictly enforce building
codes and land use regulations as they have full-fledged institutional and organizational
set-up than the rural system. 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
16
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
rationalize organizational roles and institutional reform to formulate and enforce a land
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 authorities should strictly enforce building codes and land use regulations as
they have full-fledged institutional and organization set-up than the rural system
 National housing authority 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 high disaster 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, for better utilization and management of
resources in humanitarian action for use in a short period of time, especially in disaster
scenarios. 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
17
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
and after the occurrence of disasters. This would facilitate multi-hazard mapping at
national and local level, as proposed by several countries and organizations. Some of the
tehcnical organizaitons like ICHARM in Japan has developed extensive resoruces and
tehcnology, which can be used properly to serve the communities. The other example of
sharing data is through satellite images like Sentinal Asia, condcuted by ADRC in Japan in
cooperaiton 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 initaitives.
Without spatial data, one cannot expect effective and efficient disaster management (Cutter
et. al, 2003 and 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 disatsers in the
Asian region, special emphasis needs to be given on water related risk information and data
base management.
The 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 of data and information is also important for the complex disaster, as evidened
from the nuclear meltdown in the East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Safety regulations,
and monitoring of cricial infrastrucutres inluding nulcear power plants [through
appropriate independent and technical miniroting mechanism] is required in future which
will reduce underlying risk factors, and wil also enhance the trust 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 needs to be indicated by the legal framework.
3.8 Institutionalize community based disaster risk reduction
The importance of Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction [CBDRR] has been already
coined in many documents and 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
18
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
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
ODA 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.
3.9
Address risk reduction in recovery
Disaster recovery can be considered a development opportunity, which is often used or
mis-used [Shaw 2013]. At the aftermath of a disaster, there has always been pressure to
quickly restore support systems, livelihood 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 transport 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
19
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
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 redcution or resilience building through the
recovery process. The recovery of 2001 earthquake of Gujarat, India was used effectively
to enhance the buildign safety in the region, and also addressing regual development issues
like water, health, educaiton 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 regulaitons and its implementation. In
recent post 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, roles of schools and vital
infrastrucutres in the coastal areas are revisited, and specific changes are made in the
eudcation system to look at the governance issues also, in addition to disaster educaiton
and awareness raising.
Shaw (2013) has introduced the GET [governance, education and technology] framework in
post disatser recovery, which leads to reislience building of local communities. It suggests
specific measures for regualtions and institutional changes [related to governance],
education and awareness raising of different stakeholders, and technology related issues,
which can be linked to longer term issues, and thereby introducing disaster risk reduction
practices.
3.10 Enhance DRR rducation 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
20
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
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 educaiton is higher education. In recent years, several
universities in the Asia-Pacific region have started disaster risk reduction master prorgams
(Shaw et al., 2011). This is improtant to develop disaster risk reduction as an academic
discipline. With past 24 years of maturity of the subject, risk reduciton can be recognized
as an academic discipline through its incorporation in the university curriculum and
generating young professionals in the subject. This needs to be storngly considered in the
HFA 2 framework.
References
Amdahl, G. (2002). Disaster Response: GIS for Public Safety, Published by ESRI, Redlands California.
Retrieved Dec 26, 2013 from http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/ winter0102articles/gishomeland.html
Cutter, S. L., Richardson, D. B. and Wilbanks, T. J. (2003). The Geographic Dimension of Terrorism,
New York and London: Toutledge.
GAR, 2009, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, Risk and Poverty in Changing
Climate, United Nations, Geneva
HFA-Asia Pacific, 2011-2013, Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia and the Pacific,
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva
Jain, S. and McLean, C. (2003). A Framework for Modeling and Simulation for Emergency Response,
Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, Fairmont Hotel, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA.
Johnson, Jeff Dayton, 2006, Natural Disaster and Vulnerability, OECD Development Center Policy
Brief No. 29
Mansourian, A., Rajabifard, A., Zoej, M. V., & Williamson, I. (2004). Facilitating disaster management
using SDI. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, 6(1), 30.
21
Kyoto University contribution to KA 5
February 5, 2014 Version
Parvin, Gulsan Ara and Rajib, Shaw, 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, Springer
Publisher
Shaw R. (2012): Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction, Emerald Publisher, UK, 402 pages
Shaw R. and Tran P. (2012): Environment and Disaster Linkages, Emerald Publisher, UK, 354 pages
Shaw, R., Takeuchi Y., Gwee Q., and Shiwaku K. (2011): “Disaster Education: An Introduction.” In
Shaw, Rajib, Koichi Shiwaku, and Yukiko Takeuchi (eds.). Disaster Education. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1-22.
Shaw R., Mallick F. and Takeuchi Y. (2011): Essentials of Higher Education in Disaster Risk
Reduction: Prospects and Challenges, in Disaster Education, 95-113, Emerald Publisher, UK
Strange and Bayley, 2008, `Sustainable Development- Linking economy, society, environment,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), France
UNISDR, 2007, Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR), Geneva
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 20112013. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/ 32851.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2013. Implementation of
the Hyogo Framework for Action - Summary of Reports 2007-2013.
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/32916.
Yodmani S., 2001, `Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction-Protecting the poor,
paper delivered at the “Social Protection Workshop 6: Protecting Communities—Social
Funds and Disaster Management” under the Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty held at the
Asian Development Bank, Manila, 5-9 February 2001.
22