GAR 2015 Main Report

179

city, particularly in informal settlements (Agarwal, 2011

Agarwal, Siddharth. 2011,The state of urban health in India; comparing the poorest quartile to the rest of the urban population in selected states and cities, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13-28.. .

; Subbaraman et al., 2012

Subbaraman, Ramnath, Jennifer O’Brien, Tejal Shitole, Shrutika Shitole, Kiran Sawant, David E. Bloom and Anita Patil-Deshmukh. 2012,Off the map: the health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 24, No. 2 (October): 642-643.. .

). The municipal government is regulating and investing in a landscape of fluid and erratic changes in demographics, exigencies and prospects (Bertaud, 2011

Bertaud, Alain. 2011,Starving Mumbai from infrastructure investments and new floor space: A critique of Mumbai’s Malthusian urban policy over the last 40 years, Mumbai FAR/FSI Consortium.. .

). In addition, it is forced to grapple with corruption in a society (Gandy, 2012). The next disaster is already in the making.

The case of Mumbai provides just a small glimpse of the limitations of the current approach to disaster risk reduction as well as what the “new normal” of accelerating disaster risk is starting to look like.

Part II of this report highlights the success of the HFA in catalysing major investments by countries as well as regional and international organizations in disaster management. The different priorities for action identified in the HFA have different degrees of complexity and therefore manageability. And the disaster risk management sector has made significant progress in those areas where its governance arrangements are appropriate ( GAR 13 paper

UNDP, 2014a

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR..
Click here to view this GAR paper.

As suggested in Chapters 1 and 6, while the HFA created space for addressing underlying risk, particularly in Strategic Goal 1 and Priority for Action 4, this space has been only partially explored by governments, regional and international organizations. HFA progress reports have consistently highlighted a low level of achievement of Priority for Action 4. The syncretic evolution, consolidation and expansion of a disaster risk management sector from its origins in emergency management has led to its understanding and practice as disaster management (Enia, 2013

Enia, Jason. 2013,The spotty record of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Understanding the incentives of natural disaster politics and policy making, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 50 (2013): 213-224.. .

; Hewitt, 2013; UNISDR, 2013a

UNISDR. 2013a,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: From Shared Risk to Shared Value: the Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. .

; 2011a). If disasters are understood as exogenous threats, then priority is given to policies, plans, strategies and other instruments designed to protect people and their assets from such threats rather than addressing the generation and accumulation of risk inside development.

As a result, it would appear that HFA Strategic Goal 1, the integration of disaster reduction into sustainable development policies and planning, has not been realized sufficiently. The generation and accumulation of new disaster risks, particularly extensive ones, seem to be outstripping the increasing efforts to protect development against those risks. As underlined in Part I of this report, as the HFA draws to a close, disaster risk remains a growing challenge, particularly in low and middle-income countries. And the extensive risks of today can become the intensive risks of tomorrow.

However, this apparent shortfall masks a more complex reality. Innovation and progress in other agendas, including those related to climate change, environment, water, urban design and management and sustainability, are leading to the adoption of policies and practices that have direct or indirect co-benefits for disaster risk reduction, even if they are not labelled as such. Given the focus of the disaster risk management sector on preparing for emergencies and managing disasters, these practices are all too rarely documented through the HFA Monitor. Although the tide of risk generation and accumulation would still seem to be flowing in, there is now growing momentum in some sectors to transform development in a way that addresses some of the underlying risk drivers.

Unease and uncertainty

Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that notwithstanding this momentum, the world is going to see rapidly accelerating disaster risk over the coming decades.

Despite the introduction of alternative metrics to measure progress in development, such as the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2014b

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014b,Human Development Report, Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York.. .

), the Genuine Progress Indicator (Talberth et al., 2007

Talberth, John, Clifford Cobb and Noah Slattery. 2007,The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: A Tool for Sustainable Development, Redefining Progress. February 2007.. .

), the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2013

Helliwell, John, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs, eds. 2013,World Happiness Report 2013, Avail-able from http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WorldHappinessReport2013_ online.pdf. .

) or the Social Progress Index (Porter et al., 2014

Porter, Michael E., Scott Stern and Michael Green. 2014,Social Progress Index 2014, Social Progress Imperative. Washington, D.C.. .

), the decisions of governments and investors alike

	179 city, particularly in informal settlements (Agarwal, 2011 x Agarwal, Siddharth. 2011,The state of urban health in India; comparing the poorest quartile to the rest of the urban population in selected states and cities, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 13-28.. . ; Subbaraman et al., 2012 x Subbaraman, Ramnath, Jennifer O’Brien, Tejal Shitole, Shrutika Shitole, Kiran Sawant, David E. Bloom and Anita Patil-Deshmukh. 2012,Off the map: the health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 24, No. 2 (October): 642-643.. . ). The municipal government is regulating and investing in a landscape of fluid and erratic changes in demographics, exigencies and prospects (Bertaud, 2011 x Bertaud, Alain. 2011,Starving Mumbai from infrastructure investments and new floor space: A critique of Mumbai’s Malthusian urban policy over the last 40 years, Mumbai FAR/FSI Consortium.. . ). In addition, it is forced to grapple with corruption in a society (Gandy, 2012). The next disaster is already in the making. The case of Mumbai provides just a small glimpse of the limitations of the current approach to disaster risk reduction as well as what the “new normal” of accelerating disaster risk is starting to look like. Part II of this report highlights the success of the HFA in catalysing major investments by countries as well as regional and international organizations in disaster management. The different priorities for action identified in the HFA have different degrees of complexity and therefore manageability. And the disaster risk management sector has made significant progress in those areas where its governance arrangements are appropriate (UNDP, 2014a x UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014a,Disaster Risk Governance During the HFA Implementation Period, Background Paper prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. Click here to view this GAR paper. ). As suggested in Chapters 1 and 6, while the HFA created space for addressing underlying risk, particularly in Strategic Goal 1 and Priority for Action 4, this space has been only partially explored by governments, regional and international organizations. HFA progress reports have consistently highlighted a low level of achievement of Priority for Action 4. The syncretic evolution, consolidation and expansion of a disaster risk management sector from its origins in emergency management has led to its understanding and practice as disaster management (Enia, 2013 x Enia, Jason. 2013,The spotty record of the Hyogo Framework for Action: Understanding the incentives of natural disaster politics and policy making, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 50 (2013): 213-224.. . ; Hewitt, 2013; UNISDR, 2013a x UNISDR. 2013a,Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: From Shared Risk to Shared Value: the Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.. . ; 2011a). If disasters are understood as exogenous threats, then priority is given to policies, plans, strategies and other instruments designed to protect people and their assets from such threats rather than addressing the generation and accumulation of risk inside development. As a result, it would appear that HFA Strategic Goal 1, the integration of disaster reduction into sustainable development policies and planning, has not been realized sufficiently. The generation and accumulation of new disaster risks, particularly extensive ones, seem to be outstripping the increasing efforts to protect development against those risks. As underlined in Part I of this report, as the HFA draws to a close, disaster risk remains a growing challenge, particularly in low and middle-income countries. And the extensive risks of today can become the intensive risks of tomorrow. However, this apparent shortfall masks a more complex reality. Innovation and progress in other agendas, including those related to climate change, environment, water, urban design and management and sustainability, are leading to the adoption of policies and practices that have direct or indirect co-benefits for disaster risk reduction, even if they are not labelled as such. Given the focus of the disaster risk management sector on preparing for emergencies and managing disasters, these practices are all too rarely documented through the HFA Monitor. Although the tide of risk generation and accumulation would still seem to be flowing in, there is now growing momentum in some sectors to transform development in a way that addresses some of the underlying risk drivers. Unease and uncertainty Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that notwithstanding this momentum, the world is going to see rapidly accelerating disaster risk over the coming decades. Despite the introduction of alternative metrics to measure progress in development, such as the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2014b x UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2014b,Human Development Report, Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York.. . ), the Genuine Progress Indicator (Talberth et al., 2007 x Talberth, John, Clifford Cobb and Noah Slattery. 2007,The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: A Tool for Sustainable Development, Redefining Progress. February 2007.. . ), the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2013 x Helliwell, John, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs, eds. 2013,World Happiness Report 2013, Avail-able from http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WorldHappinessReport2013_ online.pdf. . ) or the Social Progress Index (Porter et al., 2014 x Porter, Michael E., Scott Stern and Michael Green. 2014,Social Progress Index 2014, Social Progress Imperative. Washington, D.C.. . ), the decisions of governments and investors alike	Page 1 Page 10 Page 20 Page 30 Page 40 Page 50 Page 60 Page 70 Page 80 Page 90 Page 100 Page 110 Page 120 Page 130 Page 140 Page 150 Page 160 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 ->Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 200 Page 210 Page 220 Page 230 Page 240 Page 250 Page 260 Page 270 Page 280 Page 290 Page 300 Page 310