Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Technical Session 2 Background Paper: Increase public investments for
disaster and climate risk management to protect development gains
SUMMARY
The development decisions that government and its stakeholders make can either reduce or increase
the costs of disasters. Public investments in hazard-prone areas without due regard to risk evaluation
can further exacerbate losses in lives and assets. On the other hand, public investments that incorporate
risk analysis and risk management measures minimize losses and have a positive effect on economic
growth and poverty reduction. Governments, in particular, have a critical role in managing systemic risks
and protecting the most vulnerable populations.
In analyzing the opportunities to reduce disaster risk in the Asia-Pacific Region through public
investments, four key recommendations emerged.
1. Development plans across sectors and at all levels of government include risk-sensitive
investments that are measured for accountability
In order to minimize disaster loss, it is incumbent on governments to shift from ad hoc responses to
directly managing and confronting risks through systematic, proactive, and integrated approaches. This
requires country-level development plans to consider current and future risk across sectors and to
allocate budgets accordingly. A national coordination mechanism that can harmonize development
planning across sectors is often needed for integrated risk management. Equally important, information
and resources must flow among the various levels of government--national, regional, and local—to
achieve the intended impact. Measuring results and incentivizing public employees to manage risk will
help maintain focus on strategic risk management priorities.
2. National and local capacity is enhanced to analyze risk and incorporate it into
development plans and processes
Understanding risk is the first step to managing it. Therefore, priority must be placed on enhancing the
technical and decision-making capacity of governments to manage risk effectively. A capacity needs
assessment can help guide efforts to improve risk management capability. From a technical perspective,
Governments should consider investing in geospatial and other data systems that can help inform landuse and other development planning. In addition, risk profiling should be conducted regularly and
include low-intensity high-frequency disasters (e.g., localized flooding), rapid-onset high-impact
disasters (earthquakes and clyclones), as well as cascading disasters that may involve other hazards (like
the nuclear disaster in Japan triggered by the tsunami). This technical information needs to be
translated into clear choices for decision-makers as they strategically allocate finite resources. The
tradeoffs of investment options must be understood fully, including the cost of inaction.
1
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
3. Governments mitigate the financial impact of disasters and factor the benefits of financial
protection strategies into budget decisions
Consideration to ex-ante and ex-post financial measures to manage the economic impact of disasters is
critical for sound fiscal management. In order to understand the financial implications of disaster risk, a
first step is to develop a national loss database and tracking system for budget expenditures. The
development of a national risk financing plan that includes emergency budget reserves, risk transfer
(insurance) mechanisms, and social safety nets, helps to manage probable disaster losses. Likewise, exante measures that provide the necessary capital for new development investments that are resilient
will help minimize future losses. Since majority of new investments derive from non-governmental
sources, it is important to engage the private sector in development plans and financing schemes.
4. Prioritize resilient public investments in areas of greatest current and future risk
In the Asia-Pacific region, risk is accumulating most rapidly in cities, as people seek economic
opportunities in urban centers. Secondary cities (size??? 500k – 1m??) are growing most rapidly;
therefore, effective urban planning is the foundation to manage risk through sound land-use plans,
zoning, and infrastructure investments. Many of the mega-cities that are in low-lying coastal or other
highly vulnerable areas (major faultlines) pose the greatest current risk, and identifying opportunities for
urban upgrading linked to the outlying ecosystems is essential to build disaster and climate resilience.
Within urban areas, informal settlements are the most vulnerable and require a phased approach for
risk management by first focusing on safeguarding lives and then identifying opportunities to shift the
risk profile through social safety nets, improved access to services, and enhanced opportunities for
livelihoods in safer locales.
Specific action items to implement each recommendation can be found in the last section,
Conclusion/Recommendations (see page__).
Disaster impact in Asia-Pacific Region [suggest that these statistics are used in Introduction section of
the overall publication, and removed from this document]
Disasters are the result of the interaction between hazards, assets, and vulnerability. Rapid and rising
population growth and assets exposed to adverse natural events are recognized as the main drivers of
disaster losses: the increasing numbers of people living in hazard-prone areas, combined with
substandard building standards, largely explain the growing impact of adverse natural events.
The Asia Pacific region has borne the brunt of the world’s disasters. Between 1970 and 2011, almost 2
million people have been killed in disasters, representing 72 per cent of all disaster fatalities globally
(Figure 1). Over the same period, the population of the region has almost doubled from 2.2 billion to 4.2
billion, but the average number of people exposed to annual flooding has more than doubled from 29.5
to 63.8 million; the number of people residing in cyclone-prone areas has grown from 71.8 million to
2
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
120.7 million.
Figure 1: Global and Asia Pacific Disaster Fatalities, 1970-2011
Source: UNISDR analysis based on data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, EM-DAT, the international disaster
database, version: v12.07. Brussels: Université Catholique de Louvain . www.emdat.be
In addition, the current rapid process of urbanization around the world presents a particular challenge:
by 2050, the UN estimates that 70 percent of the world’s rising population will live in cities, and the
population exposed to earthquakes and cyclones in large cities is expected to double. If not addressed,
growing population, economic expansion, and urbanization will lead to environmental degradation,
which will in turn increase hazards and vulnerability.1 Successfully reducing disaster risk to protect
populations and assets is an iterative process and ultimately cost-effective.2
According to the 2012 Asia Pacific Disaster report, over the 40-year period, 1970-2010, the total
reported losses (in monetary terms) from earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia and the Pacific is almost
three times higher than in the rest of the world with 2.5 times more fatalities. Therefore, while the is a
case for boosting public investments for DRM/DRR is clear, it nonetheless needs to be grounded in
evidence and informed by context and ground realities.
Overview: Drivers of disaster and climate risk in the Asia-Pacific region
Asia suffers a disproportionate share of disaster losses (human and material) as a result of natural
hazards, high levels of exposure, and vulnerability. Given current trends of rapid urbanization and
economic growth coupled with climate change projections, Asia is poised to face increasing losses,
unless disaster and climate risk management is incorporated into the decisions people make today.
The development decisions that government and its stakeholders make can either reduce or increase
the costs of disasters. Public investments3 in hazard-prone areas without due regard to risk evaluation
1
World Bank and Government of Mexico 2012 – Improving the Assessment of Disaster Risks to Strengthen
Financial Resilience, World Bank, https://www.gfdrr.org/G20DRM
2
UNISDR. 2011. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.
http://www.preventionweb.net/gar
3
Public investments include government-funded infrastructure projects, sectoral investments (e.g., agriculture,
health, education), ecosystem based projects, and social protection schemes.
3
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
can further exacerbate losses in lives and assets. Anecdotal information indicates that in rapidly
developing economies in the Asia Pacific region, damages to public funded infrastructure such as
schools, hospitals, irrigation facilities, roads, bridges, water supply and market sites constitute a large
portion of direct and indirect costs of disasters.
On the other hand, public investments that incorporate risk analysis and risk management measures
have a positive effect on economic growth and poverty reduction. For example, building earthquake
resistant schools can improve education while reducing potential deaths among school children.
Upgrading old drainage and water infrastructure in rapidly urbanizing areas can reduce a city’s
vulnerability to floods while improving the quality of water and sanitation.
The public sector has an important role in influencing future risk through its public investment decisions
and its influence on the overall national development plans. While the risk profile of the Asia-Pacific
region is continuously changing and responsibility to manage this risk is a shared action, governments
play an important role in managing the risk of systems and protecting the most vulnerable populations.
This paper focuses on promoting public investments as a vehicle to reduce disaster and climate risks. It
also highlights opportunities for governments to incorporate risk management techniques into their
operations and planning as well as identifies the areas that need more attention and should factor into
the thinking on the post-2015 HFA.
MANAGING RISK THROUGH SOUND PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
[NOTE: additional information from the WB’s WDR 2014 on Managing Risk for Development will be
incorporated into this section.]
Understanding risks: Risk information for resilient development
Risk information is the basis of sound decision making across every aspect of resilient development and
DRM. Detailed risk assessment should be used to guide decision making by governments, businesses,
and citizens. Recognizing, assessing, and understanding risk are the first steps toward reducing its
effects. New techniques have emerged that allow for detailed analysis of hazard, exposure, and
vulnerability on a territorial or sectorial basis. These risk assessments are providing insight on the root
causes of risks and provide increasingly useful information in the design of more resilient development
processes and programs (Box 1). Many risk assessments, however, are too technical or too vague to
answer the questions that decision makers face. By developing information for a purpose, sharing it
widely, and communicating it well, policymakers and the public can better understand their risks,
prepare for them, and reduce their effects through planning and investment.
Box 1: Innovations in mapping risk and visualization of hazard and damage scenarios
4
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Helping policy makers and individuals better understand and internalize the risks they face the outputs of
probabilistic risk assessments have many policy applications:





Territorial planning to identify, for example, flood plains or geographic damage scenarios from earthquakes or
tsunamis;
Infrastructure risk assessment for an assessment of expected damage from specific hazard scenarios;
Cost benefit analysis for mitigation measures;
Preparedness measures for support of emergency and contingency planning for different crisis scenarios;
Insurance premium calculations for provision of accurate information about annual expected loss and
probable maximum loss for a specific area.
Investing in robust geospatial risk information
In practice, risk assessments can only be as good as the data which informs them. The underlying data to
feed into risk assessments is often lacking in developing countries. Exposure data is the hardest and
most expensive to gather and organize, but new approaches in data collection and sharing, supported
by new technologies, can help fill these gaps. Open Data approaches and community mapping initiatives
are examples that have shown promising results across the Asia region.
Box 2: Collaborative and Participatory Risk Mapping in Indonesia
The Community Mapping for Resilience program in Indonesia is an example of a large-scale exposure data
collection system. The program began in 2011 through a partnership led by the Australia- Indonesia Facility for
Disaster Reduction (AIFDR), Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan
Bencana, BNPB), and the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT), with support from the Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery and the World Bank.
The initiative’s main goal is to use OpenStreetMap to collect building-level exposure data for risk assessment
applications. OpenStreetMap offers several important features: open source tools for online or offline mapping, a
platform for uploading and hosting data with free and open access, and an active global community of users.
In a little over a year, more than 160,000 individual buildings have been mapped and new partners, including five
of Indonesia’s largest universities, local government agencies, international development partners such Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), and civil society organizations, have been trained and
are using the platform.
Similar approach was utilized to map the boundary of more than 2,600 neighborhood units in the Capital City of
Jakarta to strengthen flood preparedness at the community level. In post Merapi volcano eruption reconstruction
in Yogyakarta, a collaborative approach employing the same technique and involving hazard experts and
community leaders was carried out to conduct risk micro-zoning to identify areas safe for settlement.
5
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
The prospect of using innovative and participatory approach in generating and validating geospatial
information on the locational distribution of peoples, assets and hazards is increasingly being
recognized. Many developing countries that are undergoing rapid development and experiencing
limitation in data availability can now use this approach to better understand their risk context and
properly response to those risks. Investing in geospatial data to fill the risk information gap using highresolution satellite and aerial imagery combined with participatory and collaborative processes to map
hazard, settlement and asset boundaries have now becomes the tool of choice. Governments have
started recognizing technically sound and validated crowd source data as credible source of risk
information for their official mapping.
Box 3: Open Cities Project in South Asia
The World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery launched the Open Cities project in
November 2012 to create open data ecosystems that will help facilitate data driven urban planning and disaster
risk management in South Asian cities. Since its inception, Open Cities has brought together stakeholders from
government, donor agencies, the private sector, universities and civil society groups to create usable information
through community mapping techniques, build applications and tools to inform decision-making and develop
networks of trust and social capital necessary for these efforts to become sustainable. This process has been
evolutionary, with opportunities for experimentation, learning, failure and adaptation incorporated into the
project planning.
Three cities were chosen to launch the work in: Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Kathmandu, Nepal.
Batticaloa, a major coastal city of the eastern province of Sri Lanka, is located in a hazard prone area that was
severely impacted by the Sri Lankan civil war and the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami. To fill a gap in risk information,
Open Cities started a pilot project to map the building stock including critical assets of the Manmunai North
Divisional Secretariat (DS) that covers an area of 68 km2 and about 90,000 people around the town of Batticaloa.
As a first outcome of the project, the basic characteristics, such as number of floors, usage, construction materials
of the wall and roof were collected for all the buildings in the area, about 30,000 buildings. The data is now freely
available in OpenStreetMap and in the government geospatial data sharing platform RiskInfo (www.riskinfo.lk) for
easy use by many stakeholders
Incorporating risk information into public investment decisions
Any risk information is only as useful as the decision it informs. Communicating risk information in a
format that is easy to understand and can lead to action, empowers individuals and policy makers. For
example, a map or analysis showing simply the intensity of earthquake shaking from an event with a
given probability is unlikely to lead to action. Japan actively engages communities in developing hazard
maps, helping raise awareness and increasing understanding of the risks they face and the mitigation
options they can undertake.
Translating the probability and probable losses of disasters into impacts on lives, livelihoods or the
government’s budget can help demystify risk data and translate it to actionable information. In
6
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Indonesia for example, the free software InaSafe can be used by anyone to produce realistic natural
hazard “what if?” impact scenarios for better planning, preparedness and response activities.
Box 4: The Indonesia Scenario Assessment for Emergencies (InaSAFE)
In October 2012 Indonesia’s National Agency for Disaster Management, in partnership with the World
Bank, the Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction, GFDRR and the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID)—launched version 1.0 of the Indonesia Scenario Assessment for Emergencies (InaSAFE).
This is a free, open source, and publicly available desktop and web-based GIS software that produces realistic
natural hazard impact scenarios for events like floods and earthquakes. InaSAFE produces the kind of information
needed by governments and the people they serve, allowing them to put contingency plans into place to prepare
communities against disasters. InaSAFE received “Rookie Open Source Project of the Year Award” in 2013 from
Black Duck, a company that tracks and rates open source projects around the world.
On 7 April 2104 version 2.0 of the software was launched by BNPB providing improved user interface, impact
functions and tools, and making it adaptable to different country context as an international tool. The project had
also developed multiple languages documentations to support international users.
The Importance of risk quantification and understanding of financial impact
The cost of disasters to governments, households and businesses is growing. Yet developing countries
typically lack financial protection against the impacts of these disasters and rely on ex-post measures
(e.g. budget reallocations, donor assistance and post disaster lending from development agencies) to
attempt to meet financing needs. A country with an otherwise robust disaster risk management
approach can still be highly exposed to budget shocks caused by major disasters, which could erode its
economic and fiscal position. Disaster risk financing strategies can help ensure that governments,
businesses, and people can access financial protection, like adequate budget reserves, and risk transfer
solutions, such as insurance. Financial protection can be a vehicle to bring together ministries of finance
and other government agencies, such as public works and civil protection, in an effort to improve
countries’ overall resilience to disaster. Working with ministries of finance to better understand the
financial impact of disasters and the development benefits of various financial protection strategies and
DRM investments presents a crucial entry point to elevate risk management within the ministries that
control public investments.
There is growing interest by developing countries to proactively manage the financial and fiscal costs
better. But countries often lack the capacity, resources, and experience to properly use existing products
to better manage this risk. Globally countries and international donors invest significant resources in
data collection and risk modeling. But the resulting technical risk information (e.g. simulated losses,
average annual losses, probable maximum losses, etc.) is often unsuitable for financial analysis to inform
DRFI decision-making. To support policy decisions, countries need to close the gap between technical
outputs and financial analysis which is useful to non-technical decision makers.
Box 5: Disaster Risk Financing Analytics in the World Bank
7
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
As mechanisms and instruments to better manage financial risk become more complex and technically advanced,
countries often lack the capacity, resources, and experience to properly use existing products. Globally countries
and international donors are investing significant resources in data collection and risk modeling. But the resulting
technical risk information (e.g. simulated losses, average annual losses, probable maximum losses, etc.) is often
unsuitable for financial analysis to inform DRF decision-making. To support policy decisions, countries need to
close the gap between technical outputs and financial analysis which is useful to non-technical decision makers.
Responding to this demand, the World Bank is increasing work on DRFI Analytics. This program combines rigorous
actuarial risk modeling techniques with technology to develop the tools and know-how required for financial
analysis to inform DRF decision making. It will also document good practices and lessons learned from projects
which included such analysis, work with counterparts to build their expertise and understanding in the use of DRF
decision tools, and monitor and test the effectiveness of the solutions developed.
Based on risk financing analytics, a country could then put in place a mechanism for financial protection
utilizing risk transfer market through insurance. Countries with smaller territories could collaborate with
others located in a contiguous geographic region to form a larger risk markets and form a pool which
then diversify the risk portfolio and potentially reduce premium cost.
Box 6: Risk information underwriting disaster risk financing and insurance in the Pacific
PCRAFI provides a good example of small island states acting jointly to strengthen risk information and financial
resilience. Launched during the 2006 World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings, PCRAFI provides participating countries
with risk assessment tools to make better decisions on where and how to reduce disaster risks on their territories.
The initiative also aims to inform a dialogue on integrated disaster risk financing strategies.
The Pacific Risk Information System - the starting point for the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing
Initiative - is the region’s most comprehensive collection of risk information. The most comprehensive collection of
risk information for the entire Pacific Region, this has resulted in a comprehensive historical catalogue of
earthquakes and tropical cyclones, a database of geo-referenced assets and digitized maps for the 15 countries
which contains about 30 per cent of the estimated total number of buildings (approximately 3 million buildings),
and probabilistic analyses and mapping of risk. The vast information from PacRIS is managed and owned by the
countries through the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and is accessible to policymakers.
2013 saw the launch of the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Insurance Pilot, building on this risk information.
6 Pacific island countries –Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu - currently
participate in the insurance pilot which tests a risk transfer arrangement modeled on an insurance plan, and uses
‘parametric triggers’, such as cyclone intensity or earthquake magnitude to determine payouts, which allows for
quick disbursements.
8
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
The World Bank acts as an intermediary between Pacific island countries and a group of reinsurance companies –
Sompo Japan Insurance, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance and Swiss Re. AIR
Worldwide provides the underlying risk modeling for the transaction. The Government of Japan currently cofinances the insurance premiums of Tonga, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Cook Islands
fully fund their insurance premium from their own sources.
Financial protection is one component of an integrated approach to disaster risk management and
reducing the risk trajectory. To sustainably reduce the financial impact of disasters, governments need
to consider ways to reduce the underlying drivers of this risk. Financial protection complements this by
helping a government address residual risk, which is either not feasible or not cost effective to mitigate.
Absent a risk financing strategy, a country with an otherwise robust disaster risk management approach
can remain highly exposed to financial shocks, either to the government budget or to groups throughout
society.
Disaster risk financing and insurance can play an important role in helping countries to address the
underlying risk trajectory. Disaster risk financing supports governments to assess and clarify their
contingent liabilities to disasters, and the potential impact thereof on fiscal accounts. This can be an
entry point that brings together ministries of finance and other government agencies, such as public
works and civil protection, in an effort to improve countries’ overall financial resilience to disasters.
Quantifying the potential financial impact of risk can ‘put a price’ on risk and through that promote a
shift by financial officials to become aware of disaster risk in public investments. This also empowers
decision makers to analyze cost-benefit tradeoffs from investing in risk mitigation, risk retention, and
risk transfer. Increasing the insurance of public and private assets can provide homeowners and small
businesses with incentives to invest in risk reduction measures in order to reduce insurance premiums.
Subnational and local governments often bear a significant portion of disaster costs. For example, often
they must pay for the repair of assets such as roads, schools, health clinics and other infrastructure. Yet
local governments in developing countries often do not have sufficient resources or expertise to either
mitigate these risks or bear the budgetary burden of the post-disaster costs. Expanding disaster risk
financing and insurance to support subnational governments implement financial protection measures
will not only help increase the financial resilience of regional or local authorities, but it also reduces the
potential financial burden on the central government. Often this requires additional investments in
addressing the usually lower capacity and expertise at the subnational level. With the rapid rate of
urbanization in developing countries, integrating disaster risk financing and disaster risk management
into city-level planning has also become increasingly urgent. In Asia, for example, unprecedented levels
of economic and population growth has led to a rise in vast cities such as Jakarta or Metro Manila, often
located near coastlines and rivers, making them highly vulnerable to typhoons, rising sea levels, and
other effects of climate change.
9
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Risk-sensitive land use planning
Unplanned and unregulated land use, lack of environmental controls and poor building standards
contribute significantly to asset losses. These trends are likely to continue and together with a changing
climate and increased climatic variability, it is expected to result in an increased number in disasters.
From 1980 to 2010, Asia added over one billion people to its cities—more than all other regions
combined—and another billion inhabitants are expected to live in urban areas by 2040. Much of this
growth will take the form of informal settlements located in areas at risk given the limited availability
and affordability of land in these cities, placing a significant number of particularly vulnerable
households at risk. In the last decade, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Manila, and many other cities have
been repeatedly hit by floods. In the last five years, Asia has experienced a large share of wide-scale
natural catastrophes, including earthquakes in the Tohoku region in 2011, Padang in 2009, and
Wenchuan in 2008; typhoons in 2009 in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Philippines, and
Vietnam; a cyclone in Myanmar in 2008; and large-scale floods in 2011in Cambodia, Thailand, and the
Philippines.4
The key to manage the underlying risks is through risk-sensitive land use planning. Risk-sensitive land
use planning identifies the safest areas to prioritize investments in urban development and
infrastructure projects. Land use plans influence the location, type, design, quality and timing of
development. Risk-based land use planning aims to: i) identify and mitigate the root cause of disaster
risks embedded in existing land development practices through regulated use of land in hazard-prone
areas and building codes, ii) reduce losses by facilitating faster response through provision of open
spaces and well planned road network for rescue operations, and iii) promote controlled urban growth
without generating new risks, `building back better’ through rebuilding and upgrading infrastructure
using hazard-resistant construction in accordance with a comprehensive plan.5
Box 7: Hazard Zoning
In Metro Manila, Philippines, fault zoning in the City of Muntinlupa included demarcation of danger and no-build
zones along 10 km. zone, tax relief, relocation and financial assistance to affected residents. However, land surveys
conducted by the Zoning Administration Office would usually be unwelcome, notices to vacate danger zones would
fall on deaf ears; informal settlements continued to thrive. The government did not acquire land for relocation nor
provide sufficient assistance for resettlement.
In Istanbul, the Metropolitan municipality launched a micro-zonation project in the high-risk south-western part;
detailed information on local ground conditions were used to establish appropriate design parameters and
building codes for construction. Scenario Analysis: distribution of peak ground acceleration and number of heavily
damaged buildings Distribution of vulnerable buildings in Sumer neighborhood; Distribution of earthquake
weakness scores through the Zeytinbumu District
Quoted from Urban Resilience (2013); Source: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality - Disaster Coordination Center,
WBI, 2009.
4
Strong, Safe and Resilient: A Strategic Policy Guide for Disaster Risk Management in East Asia and the Pacific, The
World Bank, 2013.
5
Building Urban resilience: Principles, Tools and Practice, The World Bank, 2013.
10
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
3. The right information at the right time to make critical investments across sectors
To inform public investments and provide an enabling environment to avoid the creation of new risk,
policy makers need an understanding of the risks faced by their countries and communities. To build
resilient societies, policy-makers and the public must have access to the right data and information to
inform good decisions - decisions, such as where and how to build safer schools, how to insure farmers
against drought, and how to protect coastal cities against future climate impacts.
Box 8: Risk Assessment and Urban Upgrading in the Philippines
In the greater metropolitan Manila area, around 12 million people—accounting for a fifth of the country’s total
population—fuel the country’s economy, generating close to 40 percent of its GDP. Despite its role as the
Philippines’ economic engine, Manila lacks sufficient plans and infrastructure to protect the people and assets that
are perennially affected by flooding. In response, the Philippines government and GFDRR put in place a flood risk
management master plan that prioritizes policy reform and investments costing approximately $9 billion. The
government has approved the plan and its price tag, with an initial allocation of $120 million for immediate and
critical investments. Studies have begun on a plan that proposes structural—or engineered—changes in the Upper
Marikina River catchment area, upstream of Metro Manila, and the Laguna Lakeshore, and the government is in
discussions with nearby communities on new housing and resettlement options. Improved risk assessments are
informing new land use regulations, watershed conservation, and reforestation, and are improving the Philippines’
flood forecasting and warning system.
While floods are the primary threat, Manila also lies near seismic fault lines, a flood and earthquake risk
assessment to help the government make smarter investments in public infrastructure. As a result, this study is
informing the design and construction of the government’s new wastewater treatment plants in Manila. The
Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Health, and the Department of Education have
partnered with GFDRR and the World Bank to make 200 critical public buildings like schools and hospitals in Manila
safer and more resistant to multiple hazards. Meanwhile, the Philippines continues to suffer from the financial
shocks that disasters can cause. In order to reduce the government’s fiscal burden, the Department of Finance has
begun to develop a national risk financing strategy. In FY13, a catastrophe risk modeling produced a historical
catalog of natural disasters for the country, including the metropolitan Manila area, as well as a database of their
consequences to people, infrastructure, and the economy.
The Philippines provides an example of what can be accomplished when government, partners, financing, and a
necessary sense of urgency all come together. The Philippines has made real progress in integrating disaster risk
management into its national development plan, resulting in prioritized investments as well as policy and
institutional reforms to reduce future risk. Most importantly, the country has recognized that disaster risk
reduction entails the whole of government and society in order to protect precious development gains.
When it comes to the safety of existing school structures, the problem may be lack of knowledge and
capacity among school construction decision makers. Supporting structural assessments of the
vulnerability of schools can be a starting point for reducing the risk of loss of life and education
interruption. The findings of an earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul, for example, allowed the
government of Turkey to retrofit 633 school buildings serving more than 750,000 students. Large-scale
11
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
retrofitting programs are often not affordable for low-income countries, however. Most countries will
have to avoid future risks by choosing safe locations for new schools, adopting risk-informed building
practices, and ensuring effective oversight of the construction process.
Box 9: Incorporating Disaster Resilience into Cultural Heritage Buildings in Bhutan
In Bhutan it was estimated that the physical loss of the structures—mainly lhakhangs (temples) and dzongs
(fortresses)—was US$13.5 million USD for the 2009 earthquake and US$6.96 million for the 2011 earthquake.
These are large losses for a small developing country. The actual loss however, is much larger, since it goes beyond
the loss of the physical structures and includes the loss of interior assets known as nangtens (paintings, sculptures,
carvings, etc.). In many cases, these were one of a kind and irreplaceable. Moreover, the loss to spiritual values
and traditions brought about by such disasters cannot be estimated in terms of monetary value.
The government of Bhutan faces some clear challenges as it seeks to improve the understanding of disaster
management and the resilience of cultural heritage sites. The availability of appropriate technical skills and
financial resources to monitor and sustain the programs has been the biggest challenge so far. Seismic engineering
is a moderately new concept in Bhutan; while practical knowledge of modern building techniques, such as use of
reinforced concrete, has been borrowed from neighboring countries, knowledge of traditional techniques is very
dependent on in-country capacity. Most of the technologies and skills involved in promoting seismic resilience in
cultural heritage buildings are based on knowledge passed down among artisans and on observations of the older
buildings. A lot of research and practical investigation remains to be done to really understand the behavior of
these structures.
A Japanese technical assistance program supported by the World Bank is currently helping the government of
Bhutan to better understand the country’s earthquake risk, as well as the opportunities and challenges associated with
risk mitigation. This program should help Bhutan to carry out both a nationwide vulnerability assessment of various
typologies of buildings, including vernacular buildings, and a pilot program to retrofit five selected buildings. Postearthquake damage assessment formats are also being developed under the same project. One other important
outcome envisaged from this project is the integration of available information on earthquake hazards and seismic
vulnerability in a single platform using the Global Earthquake Model methodology.
Poverty - application of risk financing and insurance principles and tools to social protection schemes
The application of insurance principles and tools to disaster-linked social safety nets helps governments
strengthen the resilience of low-income populations. In the Philippines a survey is mapping out the
poorest communities as a first step towards better targeting of social welfare support to communities,
including assistance related to disaster risk.
Other regions have made importance experiences in this regard which can inform future work in Asia. In
2005, Ethiopia established the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), now one of the largest disasterlinked food security programs in Sub-Saharan Africa, to provide cash and food transfers to the
chronically food insecure population. Since 2006, DRFI tools have been piloted and implemented to
support the PSNP. For example, the PSNP includes a 20 percent regional level contingency budget to
12
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
scale up coverage beyond the capacity of the core program during harsher droughts. In 2010, a federal
level contingent financing window became a permanent feature of the PSNP. A macro-level drought
index insurance pilot was also implemented in 2006 to provide coverage to the Government of Ethiopia
in case of catastrophic drought. In 2007, Oxfam, together with a group of partners including the
reinsurer Swiss Re, launched HARITA in Ethiopia. A pilot program to address the needs of small-scale
farmers through drought insurance, credit, and risk reduction, HARITA allowed farmers to pay for
insurance through labor, an idea based on “food-for-work” programs.
Private sector – e.g., business continuity planning and (supply chain) network resilience
In more developed economy, the private sector plays a major role in creating employment and
supporting the local economy, and key to regional sustainability. The private sector also holds an
important role in investing in resilient economic infrastructure and production as well as distribution
systems. In the event of a disaster, the role of the private sector therefore becomes even more
important in both ensuring business continuity, and keeping the economy going. Effective cooperation
among disaster-resilient private sector players helps ensure a resilient and sustainable civil society. One
lesson learned from past catastrophic events such as the Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake,
Hurricane Katrina, the GEJE, and the Thailand flood is that the private sector plays an important role in
reducing national and regional economic damage when it is well prepared.6
Box 10: Impact of Bangkok Flood 2011 to Regional Industries
As the regional and global economies are increasingly integrated by business connectivity and supply chain, a
disaster event in one location today may actually impact industry in a broader region or even globally. The Japan
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) conducted a thorough study on the impact of 2011 flood, which
inundated many automotive and electronic industrial complexes along the rivers in Ayutthaya province in Thailand,
to productions from factories in Thailand and neighboring countries. The flood itself affected 7 major industrial
locations and severely impacting more than 800 companies. More than half of the affected companies were
Japanese owned and produced both components and finished products for regional and global markets.
The study found that, among others, as a consequence of the flood in November 2011 when the automotive
production in Thailand rapidly declined (a decline of 85.0% from the year-earlier month), the production also fell
from the year-earlier month in the Philippines (-22.1%), Vietnam (-11.3%), and Malaysia (-2.5%). The production
made a sharp drop to +0.7% from the corresponding month a year ago even in Indonesia, when it enjoyed a strong
automotive production in 2011.
As industry and private sector play an important role in employment, export earning and tax revenue for countries
and local communities, making their business more resilient to disasters through measures to secure their
6
Business Continuity Plans, Knowledge Note 2-4, The World Bank, GFDRR and the Government of Japan, 2012.
13
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
production and supply chains as well as financial health would be critical in the future more globalized economy
increasingly vulnerable to disasters.
Source: Floods in Thailand that caused a significant impact on trade environment, etc. of neighboring
nations/regions, including Japan. METI Japan 2012.
4. Disaster risk governance for effective disaster risk reduction
Governance is the umbrella under which disaster risk reduction takes place. Governance and
management seem to lie at the heart of achieving success in terms implementing and enforcing DRR
related activities and ultimately reducing losses.
Disaster risk governance relates to many levels and actors involving processes of national decisionmakers, local communities and various government agencies. On the one hand, at the national level,
there is a need to forge greater horizontal linkages between key central ministries, such as finance,
planning, rural development and entities dealing specifically with disaster risk management. On the
other hand, there is also a need for greater vertical alignment between national and local level
initiatives. Currently, across several countries in the region, a chasm exists between local initiatives and
national policy, with weak or unclear institutional structures, capacity and resources for disaster risk
management at the intermediary scales.
Box 11: Global Assessment Report 2011: Build risk governance capacities
Chapter 7 of the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR2011) identifies the
following necessary elements for disaster risk governance, which are:
Show political will - Place policy responsibility for DRM and climate change adaptation in a ministry with political
authority over national development planning and investment;
Share power - Develop decentralised, layered functions; use principle of subsidiarity and appropriate levels of
devolution including budgets and to civil society;
Foster partnerships - Adopt a new culture of public administration supportive of local initiatives and based on
partnerships between government and civil society; and
Be accountable - Ensure social accountability through increased public information and transparency; use
performance-based budgeting and rewards.
Disaster risk governance analytical framework below can be used to analyze various elements of
disaster risk governance and its presence and functioning to address disaster risks:
Element
Indicator
Measurement
14
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Element
Indicator
Measurement
Political will
Political commitment
Good governance and decisionmaking
Legislation
Policies
Plans
Frameworks
Accountability
Transparency
Efficiency
Responsiveness
Predictability
Trust
Centralised coordination
Multi-sectoral centralised structures
Development integration
Participation
Understanding disaster risks
Planning to eliminate, reduce,
prepare for, and recover from
disasters
National disaster risk reduction
platform
NDRMC/NDMO
Other committees (e.g. climate
change adaptation, food security,
water and catchment management)
Plans
Decentralised implementation
Local ownership and decisionmaking
Development integration
Delegation and provision of
authority
Clear role and responsibility division
Local inter-sectoral coordination
Localised policies, plans, bylaws,
frameworks Participation
Networks
Volunteers
Involvement of at-risk groups
Budget
Community-based disaster risk
management
Various horizontal and vertical
stakeholder involvement
Civil society
Community/citizens
Public authorities
Civil servants
Politicians
Media
Private sector
Gender
Youth
Public private partnerships
Private sector initiatives
Corporate (social) responsibility
Community engagement and
structures
Local disaster risk ownership
Local plans
Development integration
Communication
Various horizontal and vertical
communication channels
Advocacy
Right to information
Information flow and application
Public awareness
Networks
Culture of risk avoidance/safety
Appropriate decision-making
15
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
Element
Indicator
Measurement
Assets
Human resources
Financial resources
Capacities
Indigenous knowledge
Skilled and knowledge staff and
community members
Budget allocations
Formal and non-formal education
and training
Research
DRR/development integration into
project design
Social protection mechanisms
Application of indigenous knowledge
systems
Risk analysis and management
Disaster risk profiles and mapping
Evidence of disaster risk reduction
Risk maps
Risk communication
Source: UNDP (?)
Preparing for the varied typologies of disasters: hazards come in various guises (natural and manmade),
and the consequent disaster risk they pose can also vary significantly. Evidence shows that exposure of
dispersed populations to repeated or persistent hazard conditions of low or moderate intensity, often of
a highly localized nature, can lead to debilitating cumulative disaster impacts. Such sort of extensive risk
is part and parcel of the disaster risk reduction agenda and can be overcome through improving current
institutional and governance arrangements. At the same time, the disaster impact, both economic and
social, can be significantly reduced for hazards that pose intensive risk to populations. The capacities to
respond to these two forms of risks differ, therefore a degree of flexibility has to be built into
institutional structures to adequately reduce extensive (small scale, more common) and intensive (high
magnitude, less common, more headline grabbing) disaster risk.
Evidence-based planning, both at the local as well as national level is a critical element that underpins a
robust institutional framework that is fit-for-purpose. Risk profiling (exposure and vulnerability
mapping) of populations would aid in determining the types of capacities needed as well as the
budgetary allocations for ex-ante initiatives to reduce disaster risk. It is worth emphasizing that there is
no ideal governance framework, but rather better and worse institutional arrangements. Much depends
on the country-context and the existing institutional structures. Therefore, a risk profiling and
consequently a capacity needs assessment should form the basis for institutional and governance
alignment.
5. Governance and accountability at various levels
16
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
As indicated above, Disaster risk governance relates to many levels and actors involving processes of
national decision-makers, local communities and various government agencies. The characteristics,
accountabilities and dynamics at national, sub-national (provincial, district and municipality) and local
levels (community, village) vary significantly due to various factors such as provisions institutional and
legal frameworks, opportunities for mutual interaction within a DRR framework, role of elected
representatives, and so on. It is important to understand these dimensions and the roles each group
has, its accountability and linkages with others both horizontally and vertically in the governance
structure.
National level: Significant changes have taken place in the region with respect to institutional and legal
structures for disaster risk governance following the 2004 Asian tsunami disaster which prompted
several governments to establish new institutions with legal mandates and budgets to plan and
implement disaster risk reduction. Typically these institutions are directly chaired by the office of prime
minister/ president as disasters require a mandate for national disaster risk management agencies to act
swiftly, mobilise field operations and convene other departments – and therefore need a strong
connection to the political leadership and/or with staff at field level who can act expeditiously. National
authorities derive powers from legislation and typically respond to high profile disasters but usually not
address local disasters, which are mostly affecting vulnerable groups in communities and these events
may not be captured by formal disaster reporting structures.
At national level, accountability between various ministries (such as agriculture, environment, etc.) is
guided by various legal provisions under the law of the country. Such provisions are rigid and at times
have been established either by legislation or practice (in the absence of well laid down written
structures).
Interaction at national level between civil society, academic and research community are limited and
usually these are not part of established structures with dedicated resources and accountability
structures in place. At national level, there is also state-donor interaction which varies significantly with
each country given its vulnerability and development contexts.
Sub-national level
At provincial, district level and municipality levels, the roles and responsibilities of various government
agencies converges to a single institutional entity dealing with competing priorities and with limited
financial resources and usually lack of appropriate skilled capacity. Accountability between government
and civil society is not well defined. At times, donor funded projects bring the government and civil
society groups together in the implementation of a project. Sub-national level governance structures
provide the necessary interface between national and local stakeholders and at times play important
roles in shaping the programme activities and resources and provide feedback to national planning.
Local level
At the village and community levels where disasters directly impact the vulnerable groups, vertical
linkages of local level are not well integrated with formal structures and even the horizontal governance
17
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
structures are weak or loosely defined and with lack of any accountability. Awareness about risks
perceived by community may be based on a number of cultural and historical factors and influenced by
those NGOs and local community based and voluntary organization who have trusted relationship with
local communities. At times, community based disaster risk management efforts are standalone efforts
and not linked to national disaster risk reduction efforts.
Box 11: Disaster risk management in the Philippines
Some good examples of institutional arrangements surround DRM have emerged from within the
region. For example, over the past two decades, DRM has risen up the political agenda in the Philippines
and organisational arrangements have witnessed a radical transformation. The country is regularly cited
as an example of good practice in DRM legislation, organisational structures, and participatory locallevel initiatives and projects (Kellett and Peters, 2014).
The fundamental basis for DRM in the Philippines was set out by presidential decree in 1978, and in the
same year, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) was established and became the highest
policy-making body and focal point for DRM in the country (Penalba et al., 2012). However, as is the in
Mexico, legislation on DRM was criticised for focusing on short-term disaster response and
conceptualising disasters as an immediate product of hazards, ignoring people’s vulnerability. This
meant that national policies did not include longer-term pre-disaster risk reduction and risk avoidance
measures. This issue was partly addressed with the enactment of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Act of 2010 (DRRM Act), which initiated a shift from response and preparedness and a
comprehensive risk management approach.
Box 12: Pakistan
In the case of Pakistan the 2005 Kashmir earthquake prompted important changes in the policy and
institutional environment, promoting a shift under the 2006 National Disaster Management Ordinance
(NDMO) towards a more proactive approach to dealing with disaster risk (World Bank, 2009). The
framing and language of disaster risk is well advanced today, at least in policy documents and civil
society literature, stressing societal vulnerability as a driver of disaster risk and an undermining factor in
dealing with disasters. At the national level, there have been significant attempts to encourage proactive
measures that put the management of risk at the fore in development policy, but overall challenges
impede operationalizing these measures into effective organisational structures, with adequate focus on
the local level. Given the current social context, action to manage disaster risk is complicated by conflictrelated insecurity, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and along the tribal belt (Federally Administered
Tribal Areas-(FATA)). Frequent and large-scale natural hazard-related disasters coincide with large
movements of internally displaced persons and refugees from Afghanistan, and cross-border insecurity
(Azad and McElhinney, 2011).
18
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
DRM related public expenditure reviews: to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of institutional
structures, an institutional and public expenditure review is a useful tool to map and consequently align
governance structures with allocation of resources. It involves an analysis of the allocation, management
and results of public expenditures and may cover all government expenditure or focus on a few priority
sectors. A common representation of a public expenditure review is that it should present what was
planned to be spent (the budget); what was actually spent (in terms of expenditures); what was
achieved (outputs) and whether these achievements met policy objectives (outcomes), together with an
assessment of the institutional mechanisms controlling expenditure and managing performance.
Disaster risk reduction actions may not be limited to one or even a few sectors, but may cover several
including environment (climate adaptation and mitigation measures), rural and agricultural
development, urban, employment, education, and health and therefore require a ‘whole of
government’ approach. However, a preliminary analysis should be limited to ‘disaster sensitive’ sectors.
Box 13: DRM related public expenditure review in Indonesia
Indonesia has a well elaborated budget classification system for disaster management. Defined in
the Disaster Management Law (27/2007), ‘DRR is every effort to reduce the potential loss due to
the occurrence of a natural disaster in a certain place and time, in the form of death, sickness, loss
of security, damage or loss of property, or other life disturbances’. DRR efforts have been classified
by seven programs and 33 activities (Government Regulation of 21/2008 on the Implementation
of Disaster Management); the classification is based on the HFA. Any activity in the budget data
that has the same meaning as the above definition and classification is reviewed and accounted as
a DRR investment. The primary source of data used by Darwanto (2012) to track DRR investments
was the annual government budget data (APBN) of the MOF, which is detailed, time series, and
well structured, especially since 2011, when a new budget data system was established.
Table below shows that government allocations to DRR (excluding rehabilitation and reconstruction)
has been increasing significantly year on year. Actual DRR investments are greater as this does
not track DRR activities embedded in other actions. As compared with international investments in DRR,
the total of USD 6.4 billion allocated for the period 2006-2012 is approximately 25 times
greater than total international commitments to DRR in Indonesia in the 30 years from 1980
(UNISDR and Disaster Aid Tracking, World Bank 2012ix). Loans or grants sourced internationally
accounted for approximately 14 percent of the total DRR budget in 2011, with projections for 2012
around 9 percent.
Table: Total and per capita budget allocations for Disaster Management 2006-2012 (in USD,
2009 prices)
19
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
6. Looking ahead
Make risk assessments collaborative and ensure strong engagement with decision makers.
In Indonesia, the development team created InaSAFE in close collaboration with the National Agency for
Disaster Management (BNPB) and the Jakarta government, increasing its impact and sustainability and
driving demand for similar tools globally.
Build credibility with a rigorous and transparent approach that articulates uncertainty.
Risk information lacking a rigorous scientific approach or producing erroneous results can result in poor
investment decisions and damage the credibility of government officials and disaster risk experts. For
example, several studies judged Haiti to have low seismic risk—an assessment tragically contradicted by
the January 2010 earthquake.
Risk data and information should be shared in appropriate digital formats with all stakeholders.
In the Pacific, all datasets from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative are
available online, but many past risk identification projects were only handed out in paper form, making
it difficult for partners to access the information behind them. In Nepal, for example, the government
has received risk information in the form of paper reports several times, without receiving the input
data or final results in a digital format that is accessible for later use and development.
Risk information should show possible impacts clearly and drive actions to reduce it.
Hazard analytics—for example, the intensity and likelihood of cyclones affecting a particular area—can
help inform some specific policy changes, such as building codes. However, a full risk analysis—for
example, showing the full range of potential losses from these hazards for public and private property,
as well as the expected annual average losses—is usually needed to make the case for more serious
investments to reduce expected losses, both human and economic.
Building financial resilience in areas with high risk to disasters is a critical development challenge
moving forward
Inherently designed for managing the financial impact of loss and damages caused by shocks from
natural hazards, disaster risk financing and insurance can help countries prepare for increased climate
variability and extreme events associated with climate change. The consultations for the successor
agreement to the Hyogo Framework for actions brings an opportunity to capture this increasing
importance given by governments to financial protection and making it a core priority of any
comprehensive DRM strategy. Reflecting the lessons learned since 2005, this new framework should
promote the adoption of holistic national disaster risk financing strategies, tailored to each country’s
individual circumstances and needs.
Innovative mechanism for investing in resilience need to be developed
20
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
While disaster risk financing may provide resources in time of disaster preventing the diversion of
limited development resources to emergency and recovery, relying on ‘business as usual’ public
spending to invest on resilience alone will not be sufficient. Measures to increase resilience such as
through structural retrofitting, urban upgrading or ecosystem rehabilitation would require additional
investment costs, albeit relatively marginal compared to the benefit of risk avoidance. Combination of
standard compliance and enforcement for privately owned assets, and financing for resilient investment
supported by favorable fiscal and lending policies for both public and private development needs to be
developed moving forward.
Embed disaster risk governance within broad governance structures
Disaster risk governance needs to be aligned and embedded within the existing governance structures in
a country to harness the positive linkages and at the same time developing new linkages to address
disaster risks by broadening the governance structures to allow participation and contribution from
various government and non-government entities (NGOs, private sector, and others) to address disaster
risks. Integrated approaches and promotion of participation of various actors at different levels may not
only add to identification of local (extensive) risks but also ensure more targeted action towards
reducing these risks.
Encourage and foster improved linkages between and across various levels of governance
Disaster risk exists at all levels, though there have been positive changes in the region for the
establishment of national institutional structures under the HFA, yet more needs to be achieved to
address and reduce disaster risks. The vertical and horizontal linkages between governance structures
play important roles in improving understanding of risks and how these risks are addressed in an
coordinated and organized manner with clear roles and responsibilities
Encourage local partnerships
Local governments play crucial role in coordinating and supporting community efforts towards
preparedness, response and disaster risk reduction due to their proximity to vulnerable groups. Disaster
risk governance should promote and encourage innovative partnerships among various local groups and
stakeholders to allow full utilization of local values and cultural practices. Such innovative partnerships
will not only have full ownership but will be sustainable.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HFA2
Below are the recommendations for priority actions and activities to improve disaster and climate risk
management through sounds public investments.
1. Planning/Governance/Capacity: Development plans across sectors and at all levels of
government include risk-sensitive investments that are measured for accountability.
21
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Cross-sectoral and inclusive coordination: National coordination mechanism is
established and given authority to ensure coordination and planning across sectors
for DRM and to include key external stakeholders (private sector).
Plans based on risk info: Integrated development plans (including infrastructure,
land-use, and ecosystem management) are based on risk assessments.
Adaptive management: Framework for public and private investments are
reviewed periodically for institutional bottlenecks and investment gaps and
adapted to changing circumstances based on new information and analyses.
Resource alignment: Resources and capacity are aligned in priority institutions and
locations.
Vertical coordination: Budgets for priority actions flow from national to local levels
Measurement: Measurements of “resiliency” are included in development plans.
2. Developing Information systems and analyses for strategically targeting investments:
Increase national and local capacity to analyze risk and incorporate it into development plans
and processes.
a.
Risk assessments from national to local: Carry out risk profiling and capacity
needs assessment, that include low-intensity, high-frequency disasters, and
cascading disasters that involve human-induced disasters (nuclear, among
others), at national and sub-national levels .
b.
Geospatial and data investment: Invest in geospatial information and other
critical data systems with sufficient detail for development planning (including
land-use plans and zoning).
c.
Capacity to apply data/info: Build capacity to translate technical risk information
and analyses into clear choices for decision-makers.
3. Financing/Investment Trade-offs: Ministries of finance mitigate the financial impact of
disasters and factor the benefits of financial protection strategies into budget decisions.
a.
Policy framework: Include risk management strategies into the policy framework
for development.
b.
National tracking system: Develop a national loss data base and tracking system
for public expenditure for DRR/CCA.
c.
Resilience financing: Develop financing schemes to provide the necessary capital
for development investments that include positive value of resilient investments.
d.
Risk financing: Develop a national risk financing plan (including budget reserves,
risk transfer (insurance) solutions, and social safety nets) to address probable
disaster losses.
e.
PPPs: Engage the private sector in development planning and financing schemes.
4. Urban Resilience: Focus investments on areas of greatest current and future risk, by
factoring local, national, regional, and global trends (economic growth, migration,
urbanization, and climate change) into risk analyses and development planning.
a. Urban planning: Prioritize resilient development plans (land-use plans, zoning,
infrastructure needs) and investments in areas expected to grow most rapidly.
22
Draft for comments: Version- 18 April 2014
b. Urban upgrading: Upgrade urban centers and restore the linked ecosystems through
public investments to build disaster and climate resilience
c. Urban slums: Develop a phased strategy to address risks in informal settlements,
focusing on: 1) life-saving measures (evacuation and early-warning systems);
2)development plans that attempt to prevent the problem from worsening (consider
labor migration and incentives for new migrants to locate in relatively safer places);
3) resilience-building programs for poor (social protection and safety nets, improving
access to services)
-oo0oo-
23