IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Chapter 7Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration across ScalesGARs also note this area of weakness, but note that it is possible forcountries to address underlying risk drivers using an assortment ofmechanisms to increase resilience (e.g., raising awareness, education,training, risk assessments, early warning systems, building safety, microinsurancein macro-financing schemes) (UNISDR, 2009a, 2011a).It was also acknowledged in the 2009 GAR that weather-related disasterrisk is escalating swiftly, in terms of the regions affected, frequencyof events, and losses reported. This frequency relates to occurrencepatterns as well as improved reporting of all categories of weatherrelatedhazards. Data was collected from a sample of 12 Asian and LatinAmerican countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,the Indian states of Orissa and Tamil Nadu, Iran, Mexico, Nepal, Peru,Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. The report further noted that these increaseswill magnify the uneven distribution of risk between wealthier andpoorer countries (UNISDR, 2009a, p. 11). Furthermore, a conclusion isdrawn in the report that climate change is changing the geographicaldistribution, intensity, and frequency of these weather-related hazards,threatening to exceed the capacities of poorer countries and theircommunities’ abilities to absorb losses and recover from disasterimpacts (UNISDR, 2009b). However, the 2011 GAR reported significantprogress with a decrease in global mortality risk from tropical cyclones andflooding, with the only exception being South Asia where vulnerabilityis still increasing (UNISDR, 2011a, p. 28).The 2009 and 2011 GARs, as well as the discussion they generated inthe Global Platforms of 2009, have brought a regional dimension toperformance assessment, in an effort to monitor progress.When evaluating the progress of HFA on each of its five Priorities forAction, the GNDR found that the lowest level of progress across all thefive priorities was at the lowest scale in community participation indecisionmaking on DRR (GNDR, 2009). These findings also indicate theneed for a stronger link between policy formulation at international andnational levels to policy execution at local levels. Rapid progress hasbeen made in the development of comprehensive seasonal and longtermearly warning systems (EWS) to anticipate droughts, floods, andtropical storms. These systems have proved to be effective in savinglives and protecting property. In the 2009 GAR, the status of EWS wasreviewed (UNISDR, 2009a, Box 5.2 on p. 127). This was based on adetailed progress review of EWS undertaken by WMO (WMO, 2009).Typical examples of the effectiveness of EWS in reducing the impact ofcyclones and flooding can be found in Mozambique, where their EWSwas first tested in a cyclone in 2007 (Foley, 2007) and in Bangladesh,where the flood and cyclone EWS has been progressively developedover three decades (Paul et al., 2010; also see Case Study 9.2.11).A key finding concerned the importance of education and sharingknowledge, including indigenous and traditional knowledge, and ensuringeasy and systematic access to best practice tools and internationalstandards, tailored to specific sectors (see Section 7.4.5). There is somerecognition of the benefits in harmonizing and linking the frameworksand policies for DRM and CCA as core policy and programmatic objectivesin national development plans and in support of poverty reductionstrategies. DRM policies also need to take account of climate change.Nevertheless, countries are making significant progress in strengtheningcapacities, institutional systems, and legislation to address deficienciesin disaster preparedness and response (GNDR, 2009; UNISDR, 2009a).In preparing for the mid-term review of the HFA, the UNISDR secretariatcommissioned a desk review of literature to form “a baseline of thedisaster risk reduction landscape.” Forty-seven key documents wereidentified, mainly consisting of reports from UNISDR offices and partnerorganizations: NGOs and international development banks (UNISDR,2011b).The HFA Mid-Term Review 2010-2011 raised two important internationalissues. The first need is to develop accountability mechanisms at alllevels to measure the actions taken and progress achieved in DRR. Thesecond need is for the international community to develop a morecoherent and integrated approach to support the implementation of theHFA. The review suggests that this will require connected action of thevaried international actors (UNISDR, 2011b).However, it is important to reflect on the reality that all of these methodsto review international progress in risk reduction – country progressreports, the 2009 and 2011 GARs, the reports of the GNDR, and theMid-Term Review of the HFA – are all internally produced reports by theparticipating agencies with external advisory boards and peer review,but all involving self-assessment. The GNDR’s publications are fullyindependent from the UN and governments, but make no claim to bescientifically accurate assessments. The country HFA reports are onlineat www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/progress/?pid:73&pih:2.All the above studies attempted to assess HFA performance and, asnoted above, none were totally separate from the work or institutionsbeing assessed. Furthermore, none looked specifically at the performanceof the lead organization, UNISDR, in comparison with other multilateralbodies. This report came in 2011, when the UK Aid Agency, theDepartment for International Development (DFID), published aMultilateral Aid Review. The purpose was to ensure maximum value formoney for UK aid by examining the performance of 43 multilateralorganizations. This peer-reviewed assessment placed the UNISDR in a43rd-ranked position in an assessment of 43 multilateral organizations(DFID, 2011).This independent and comparative assessment included an evaluationof UNISDR since its foundation and identified its strength as globalcoordinator of the three Global Platforms in DRR that have beensuccessful in advocacy and raising awareness. However, the assessmentalso identified a series of shortcomings in UNISDR. They included its poorperformance in international coordination and its focus on national-levelresponses rather than its global mandate, which is broad rather thanspecific in focus. Further criticisms include inadequate attention tostrategic considerations as well as leadership failures, with the reportstating that there was no clear line of sight from UNISDR’s mandate, to405