Risk Returns

[

] 30

First and foremost, there is still a lack of political or institutional

commitment to DRR efforts under normal circumstances. Often,

it is only after large-scale disaster that countries are motivated to

improve DRR measures. This has been observed in many recent inci-

dents, most notably the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the Kashmir

earthquake of 2005, and cyclone Nargis in 2008.

Secondly, there is also a lack of dedicated or adequate resources,

including human and technical capacities for disaster risk reduc-

tion. These constraints are especially reported in low-income

countries as well as at lower levels of government and community

levels within them. In those circumstances, disaster risk reduc-

tion efforts often depend on external funds and partners, both

bilateral and multilateral. Furthermore, they tend to be seen as ad

hoc initiatives rather than continuous practices, with insufficient

transfer of skills and competency.

Finally, while new institutional and legislative frameworks have

been established in line with HFA Priority 1, the link between

national policies on disaster risk reduction and sector policies is

often weak or not explicit. DRR organizations often do not have

the political authority or technical capacity to intervene in develop-

ment planning, environmental planning and other relevant fields. In

this context, the creation of an integrated multi-sector institutional

system for disaster risk reduction that could bring greater cohesion

and synergy to ongoing sector-based approaches remains difficult.

Despite many gaps and challenges, the HFA has already produced

tangible results on many fronts, most notably, a change in the ways

people understand and respond to imminent disaster risks. However,

in view of growing losses from natural disasters, further efforts to

accelerate the implementation of the HFA are crucial. Therefore, it

is necessary to enhance the effectiveness of HFA policy guidelines

across countries, both high-income and low-income, and at different

levels of government. In this respect, the HFA still lacks consist-

ency among its priority areas in terms of how concrete and how

useful these areas might be. HFA Priority 4 is a case in point, where

there are difficulties in integrating disaster risk reduc-

tion, climate change adaptation and development due

to its cross-cutting nature, involving a wide spectrum

of policy sectors. More pragmatic guidelines, together

with appropriate technical support, are necessary for

all levels of government. Less than four years remain to

achieve the planned objectives of HFA. To attain more

meaningful results, countries should set strategies based

on their own analysis of strengths and weaknesses and

by prioritizing their activities.

Challenges and future perspectives

Regional cooperation on DRR in the Asia-Pacific region

has stemmed from the overwhelming need to respond

to recurring catastrophic events, as mentioned above.

Particularly since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,

regional and sub-regional initiatives have proliferated.

Questions have been raised as to whether this prolifera-

tion reflects enhanced regional or national capacities to

withstand disasters.

Nevertheless, the entire picture should be seen

as a reflection of the diversity and dynamism of the

Asia-Pacific region, and as an indicator that a mere

streamlining of existing mechanisms and institu-

tions will neither work nor provide a viable solution.

Instead, measures should be taken to ensure that all

these efforts continue to enhance, not impair, the

relevant countries’ ownership of current and emerging

activities. Measures should also be taken to maintain

or strengthen the coherence between these initiatives,

and to establish clear links between them, thereby

delivering practical gains at all levels, including the

community level, and further enhancing the ‘culture

of safety’ in this region.

Haiti earthquake, January 2010

Disaster education, Jakarta Indonesia, March 2010

Image: ADRC