Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Mitigating the impacts of disasters287Box 12.8 Elements of successful reform for disaster risk reduction legislationA recent study by Tearfund has reviewed the processes leading tothe successful reform of national disaster risk reduction legislation.The following recommendations draw from this report, andtogether emphasize the need for strong leadership, a commitmentto participation in the process of drafting legislation, and clarity inthe required roles and outcomes of local-level actors, who includelocal authorities:• Reform requires sustained high-level political support.• Reform is greatly facilitated by high-level political support anda well-placed policy champion with technical knowledge, skill,commitment and creative initiative.• The leadership of the reform process must be explicitlycommitted to broad stakeholder consultation.• Review of the pre-reform policy and legislative context isnecessary to understand the pre-existing mandates ofagencies. As far as possible, legislation should fit into existinggovernment planning cycles and procedures for implementationand monitoring.• External facilitators can enable the reform process. Sincedisaster risk reduction is a fairly new policy area, it can easilybe perceived as a threat or as duplicating existing policy andSource: Pelling and Holloway, 2006budget lines. In addition, the need to build high-level and crosssectoralsupport is challenging for sectoral actors.International expertise or neutral, but informed, nationalactors, such as academics, may be well placed to act as technicaladvisers for dialogue.• Create a clear identity for disaster risk reduction. Disasterrisk reduction is developmental and should clearly be seen asa separate policy area from relief-oriented disaster management.• Align new legislation with international best practice and useterminology consistent with contemporary global thinking.• Develop an implementation plan during the development oflegislation. This should clearly demarcate responsibilities,timelines for action, agreed benchmarks and protocols forreview.• Legislation must explicitly state required outcomes at thecommunity level, such as local early warning systems orcommunity-based disaster-contingency plans.• Monitor performance and implementation. As risk changes incharacter, the nature and tasks of frontline policy actors willalso change and legislation needs to be able to reflect thischange to empower disaster risk reduction.Disaster riskcontinues to growdespite existinglegislativeframeworks forurban risk reduction(through legislation) and in enabling learning (through internationaland South–South partnerships).Many cities have a solid base of legislation for urbanrisk management, including legislation to enforce land-useplanning, construction standards and industrial risk management.The challenge at this level is to implement andenforce legislation. It is at the level of national legislation fordisaster management policy and planning where there ismost scope for clarifying legislation that can support citylevelplanning.A review of legislation in Central America found thatwhile progress was made after Hurricane Mitch, in 1998, inintroducing new legislation, urban concerns were not fullyaddressed. 26 In particular, links between disaster managementand urban management were not strong, leading to a missedopportunity to enhance urban planning as a risk reductiontool. Coordination across levels and sectors of government isessential to prevent blind spots in national or urban riskassessment and policy development that would cause unseenrisk to accumulate, often at the local scale. Box 12.8 presentsrecent work by Tearfund that identifies common characteristicsof successful legislative reform processes.Disaster risk continues to grow despite existinglegislative frameworks for urban risk reduction. This is adirect product of failure to implement legislative duties.This, in turn, is a product of financial and human resourceshortages, as well as cultural norms, which undermine theeffectiveness of legal regimes. There are a number of ways inwhich implementation can be maximized. Those who willeventually have responsibility for policing or implementingurban planning law should be consulted in the drafting oflegislation.Urban- and national-level legislative reform hasusefully engaged with international forums for risk reduction.The Habitat Agenda, which promotes the need toimprove the quality of human settlements through solidarity,cooperation and partnerships, and the ISDR, which can actto provide information on good practice or facilitateSouth–South learning, are examples of this.Regional cooperation can be similarly useful inpromoting successful reform and implementation of riskreduction in urban planning. The Asian Urban DisasterMitigation Program (AUDMP) 27 and the African Urban RiskAnalysis Network 28 have been instrumental in sharing informationon risk reduction and building communities ofpractice for urban professionals working on risk reduction intheir respective regions.DESIGNING DISASTER-RESISTANT BUILDINGS ANDINFRASTRUCTUREUS$1 invested in construction saves US$40 ifthe building has to be rebuilt after an earthquake;US$1 invested in retrofitting savesUS$8. 29This estimate of the economic benefits of safe constructionand retrofitting in Turkey is compelling. Technological andengineering expertise is available in most cities to designbuildings and infrastructure for disaster-proofing. Whendevelopment projects fail, this is more a reflection of failuresTechnological andengineeringexpertise is availablein most cities todesign buildings andinfrastructure fordisaster-proofing