Ä¢¹½´«Ã½

Chapter 7     Reforming risk governance

As highlighted by the HFA Progress Review (Chapter 4), the institutional arrangements, legislation and policy for disaster risk management (DRM) focus on disaster management, preparedness and response. Even where multi-sector institutional systems have been created for DRM, responsibility and policy are still usually anchored in disaster management organizations, which often lack the political authority or technical capacities to influence important decisions related to national and sector planning and investment. Responsibility for DRM may also be mandated to local governments that often lack the necessary resources and capacities. Such conditions create barriers to civil society participation and result in weak accountability.

As the previous chapter highlighted, there are major opportunities to reduce disaster risk by adapting development instruments, such as national public investment planning systems, social protection mechanisms, and national and local infrastructure investments. In most countries, however, existing risk governance arrangements are inappropriate, and reforming them is therefore fundamental to reducing disaster risk.

In central government, this means anchoring overall responsibility for DRM in a ministry or office with adequate political authority to ensure policy coherence across development sectors. Incremental decentralization accompanied by clear mandates, budgets and systems of subsidiarity, promotes ownership and improved risk governance capacities at all levels. Scaling up community initiatives can be enabled by local planning, financing and investment that build on civil society partnerships. Improved accountability mechanisms enshrined in legislation and work processes, social audit processes, and a free press and active media, all contribute to improving the awareness of rights and obligations on all sides.

7.1 Problems with risk governance

Over the past two decades, many countries have invested in developing national policy, and strengthening and reforming institutional and legislative systems for DRM. Civil protection and civil defence agencies, often in the defence sector, have progressively been replaced by a new generation of multi-sector and multilayered DRM systems, where responsibility is placed in each sector and decentralized to local governments. However, it has been repeatedly highlighted (Hewitt, 1983; Stallings, 1995; Lavell and Franco, 1996; Wisner et al., 2004) that both national policy and the institutional and supporting legislative systems remain fundamentally skewed to supporting disaster management, in particular preparedness and response, rather than risk reduction. At the national level, responsibility is still usually anchored in disaster management organizations, which often lack the political authority or technical capacities to influence important decisions related to national and local sector planning and investment. Whereas such systems often mandate responsibility for DRM to local governments, they may lack the necessary resources and capacities. Such conditions create major barriers to civil society participation and result in weak accountability.

In some countries, developments outside the realm of DRM have also influenced these arrangements. In the United States of America, for example, the events of 11 September 2001 shifted attention away from a broader focus on DRM, which had evolved through the 1990s, to an emphasis on crisis management and emergency preparedness and response under a newly created Department of Ä¢¹½´«Ã½land Security (Gerber, 2007).

7.2 Locating responsibility for DRM at the centre of power

The role of a national disaster risk reduction policy cannot be overestimated. It must be clear and comprehensive, yet detailed enough to define the roles and responsibilities of different actors in development sectors as well as local governments. The HFA Progress Review highlights that about one third of the 82 countries and territories who reported have a national disaster risk reduction policy in place, and another third are currently developing one or are in the process of having it reviewed.

Where responsibility for DRM is located within central government has an enormous positive influence on the effectiveness of policy and accompanying legislation and investment. In principal, ultimate responsibility should be vested at the highest possible political level (UNISDR, 2009). However, where DRM has been located in the Office of the President or Prime Minister, it has often been rendered politically weak, poorly resourced and, moreover, far removed from central development and planning processes (UNESCAP and UNISDR, 2010). Also, when responsibility lies within an environment ministry or an emergency management organization, as is more common, impact and influence on national or local sector development planning and investment decisions may be minimal (Box 7.1). In South Africa, the National Disaster Management Center (NDMC) is part of the Department for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs which is perceived as having a low profile (Williams, 2011), and limited links between the NDMC and local governments mean that this positioning has not been very successful. Where responsibilities have been vested in interior or defence ministries, the predominance of disaster management functions, such as preparedness and response, has generally been reinforced.

Where multi-sector, decentralized systems have been created, often with names that allude to risk reduction and management, this has tended to introduce disaster management into sectors and local governments, rather than focusing attention on using development planning and investment as opportunities for DRM (UNISDR, 2007). ‘DRM focal points’ within ministries and technical agencies can increase awareness of such issues within sectors but, unless they have the resources and the authority to call the sector to account for risk reduction, their impact is limited and depends on individual performance and relationships (Williams, 2011). A good example of successful leadership and mainstreaming is in Mozambique, where the Coordinating Council of Disaster Management is chaired by the Prime Minister and attended at the ministerial level (Williams, 2011).

In some countries, a national disaster risk reduction policy framework has been developed that defines an overall strategic vision for disaster risk reduction that allows for specific policies to be developed in each sector. The HFA Progress Review, however, shows that without political authority it is difficult to ensure coherence between national and sector policies, or to influence sector priorities. For example, Algeria’s disaster management law of 2004 requires coordination of all relevant sectors, but it has been implemented with limited success. In contrast, in the Gambia, the National Disaster Management Council is chaired by the Vice President with several cabinet ministers as regular members, resulting in strong leadership and commitment to DRM and its successful integration into the country’s national development policy, the National Vision 2020 (Lisk, 2010).


Mauritius, the Republic of Moldova, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam all reported on the challenge of implementing well-developed national policy due to the lack of corresponding legislation to enable adequate enforcement and coordination. However, specific DRM legislation is rarely the only legislation related to reducing risks. Even countries that have adopted comprehensive legislation regulate risks through myriad sector laws and orders with respect to land use, building and water management. This may lead to multiple and competing institutional responsibilities to address underlying risk drivers and contradictory policy objectives.

The incipient incorporation of DRM into national planning and public investment systems highlights an opportunity to explicitly locate political authority and policy responsibility for DRM, and for climate change adaptation, in a central planning body such as national planning departments or ministries for economy and finance. Given their role in deciding the allocation of the national budget, these ministries could have greater political leverage over planning and investment in each sector if they had policy responsibility for DRM.

There may be political resistance to moving such responsibility to a central planning or finance ministry, particularly where the existing structure is in the defence sector. However, as the focus of DRM shifts from managing disasters to reducing risks, the political incentives for strengthening the role of finance and planning ministries are likely to become more explicit.