IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6options). Accordingly, risks can be addressed through both formal andinformal governance modes and institutions in all countries (Jasparsand Maxwell, 2009), but a clear correlation between particular riskgovernance models and specific political-administrative contexts isdifficult to identify (UNISDR, 2011a). The balance between formal orinformal, or technical and non-technical, risk governance strategiesdepends on the economic, political, and environmental contexts ofindividual countries or scales within countries, and the culture ofmanaging risks (Menkhaus, 2007; Kelman, 2008).6.4.1. Legislation and Compliance MechanismsDisaster risk management legislation commonly establishes organizationsand their mandates, clarifies budgets, provides (dis)incentives, anddevelops compliance and accountability mechanisms (UNDP, 2004b;Llosa and Zodrow, 2011). Creating and improving legislation for disasterrisk reduction was included as a priority area in the HFA (UNISDR, 2005)and the majority of countries – in excess of 80% – now have some formof disaster risk management legislation (UNISDR, 2005; Bhavnani et al.,2008). Legislation continues to be considered as an important componentof effective national disaster risk management systems (UNDP, 2004b;UNISDR, 2011a) as it creates the legal context of the enabling environmentin which others, working at different scales, can act, and it helps todefine people’s rights to protection from disasters, assistance, andcompensation (Pelling and Holloway, 2006). Multi-stakeholder, crosssectorbodies for coordinating disaster risk management actions andimplementing the HFA, known commonly as National Platforms, areseen as key advocacy routes for achieving new and improved legislation(UNISDR, 2005, 2007b). Where National Platforms are less prevalent orless well organized, literature suggests that regional disaster managementbodies are viewed as responsible for advancing legislation (Pelling andHolloway, 2006; UNISDR, 2007b). With new information on the impactsof climate change, legislation on managing disaster risk may need to bemodified and strengthened to reflect changing rights and responsibilitiesand to support the uptake of adaptation options (UNDP, 2009; Llosa andZodrow, 2011; see Case Study 9.2.12 on legislation).There have been few detailed cross-comparative studies that assess theextent to which legislation in different countries is oriented towardmanaging uncertainty and reducing disaster risk compared with disasterresponse (Llosa and Zodrow, 2011). Limited evidence suggests thatlegislation in some countries (such as the United Kingdom, the UnitedStates, and Indonesia) has led to a focus on building institutional capacityto help create resilience to disasters at different scales, but even in suchcases a strongly reactive culture is retained when observing the systemas a whole (O’Brien and Read, 2005, O’Brien, 2006, 2008; UNDP, 2009;O’Brien and O’Keefe, 2010). This has been attributed to lack of politicalwill and insufficient financial and human resources for disaster riskreduction (O’Brien 2006, 2008). Additionally, few studies have assessedwhether disaster risk management legislation includes provision for theimpact of climate change on disaster risk or whether aspects of managingdisaster risk are included in other complementary pieces of legislation(Case Study 9.2.12; Llosa and Zodrow, 2011), though there are also a verylimited number of normative studies on these aspects (Llosa and Zodrow,2011). However, where reforms of disaster management legislationhave occurred, they have tended to: (a) demonstrate a transition fromemergency response to a broader treatment of managing disaster risk;(b) recognize that protecting people from disaster risk is at least partlythe responsibility of governments; and (c) promote the view that reducingdisaster risk is everyone’s responsibility (Case Study 9.2.12; UNDP,2004b; Llosa and Zodrow, 2011).Vietnam has taken steps to integrate disaster risk management intolegislation across key development sectors, including its Land Use Lawand Law on Forest Protection. Vietnam’s Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper also included a commitment to reduce by 50% those falling backinto poverty as a result of disasters and other risks (Pelling and Holloway,2006). Case Study 9.2.12, in examining legislation developmentprocesses in the Philippines and South Africa, highlights a number ofcomponents of effective disaster risk management legislation. Anact needs to be: (a) comprehensive and overarching; (b) establishmanagement structures and secure links with development processes atdifferent scales; and (c) establish participation and accountabilitymechanisms that are based on information provision and effectivepublic awareness and education. Box 6-1 supplements these cases withreflections on the process that led to the creation of disaster riskmanagement legislation in Indonesia.Where risk management dimensions are a feature of national legislation,positive changes are not always guaranteed (UNDP, 2004b). A lack offinancial, human, or technical resources and capacity constraints presentsignificant obstacles to full implementation, especially as experiencesuggests that legislation should be implemented continuously from thenational to local level and is contingent on strong monitoring andenforcement frameworks and adequate decentralization of responsibilitiesand human and financial resources at every scale (UNDP, 2004b; Pellingand Holloway, 2006). In some countries, building codes, for instance, areoften not implemented properly because of a lack of technical capacityand political will of officials concerned (UNDP, 2004b). Where enforcementis unfeasible, accountability for disaster risk management actions isextremely challenging; this supports the need for an inclusive, consultativeprocess for discussing and drafting the legislation (UNDP, 2004b;UNISDR, 2007b). Effective legislation includes benchmarks for action, aprocedure for evaluating actions, integrated planning to assist coordinationacross geographical or sectoral areas of responsibility, and a feedbacksystem to monitor risk reduction activities and their outcomes (UNISDR,2005; Pelling and Holloway, 2006).6.4.2. Coordinating Mechanisms and Linking across ScalesAs the task of managing the risks of changing climate conditions andclimate extremes and disasters cuts across the majority of sectors andinvolves a wide range of actors, multi-stakeholder and cross-governmentmechanisms are commonly cited as preferred way to ‘organize’ disaster358