The implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) has made progress since 2012 in Côte d’Ivoire. Over the past decades, due to the recurrence of natural disasters caused by climate change and various factors such as uncontrolled urbanization and environmental degradation, many institutions and programs have been implemented. Affiliated to the prime minister’s office, a National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) had been created in 2012 to promote the integration of risk reduction and disaster management into development policies, plans, and programs; to mobilize the necessary financial and material resources; to carry out studies; and to disseminate the strategy and action plan. In addition, a National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management had been developed on the basis of international (Sendai Framework) and regional (Economic Community of West African States strategy) initiatives for “a resilient country to face hazards and risks of natural, technological, or anthropogenic disasters by 2040.” Currently, the DRR platform is functional but not very operational. It is expected that local committees will be established. To strengthen the system of governance, it is necessary to provide efficient resources (human, material, and financial) to the National Platform and to the local committees and authorities (ministries, private sector, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) for prospective, corrective, and compensatory disaster risk management.
101-120 of 187 Results
Natural Hazards Governance in Côte d’Ivoire
Koffi Fernand Kouamé and Kan Désiré Kouassi
Natural Hazards Governance in Cuba
Enrique A. Castellanos Abella and Benjamin Wisner
Natural hazard governance in Cuba elicits widely differing commentaries. While some experts praise it as an extension of state commitment to social welfare, others debate the ethics, necessity, and utility of forced evacuation. However, many disaster experts are unaware of the long-term development of disaster reduction in the country—how Cuban risk governance has evolved in a unique geopolitical and social environment. Mass mobilization to prepare for military invasion and prior response to hurricane disaster provided the foundation for Cuba’s contemporary focus on disaster risk reduction. A pragmatic analysis of the development of natural hazard governance in Cuba and its components reveals key factors for its success in protecting lives. Deployment of local risk management centers, nationwide multi-hazard risk assessment, and early warning systems are recognized as important factors for the effectiveness of disaster reduction in the country. The number of scientific organizations collecting data and carrying out research is also a factor in the reduction of disaster impact and increases the level of resiliency. Over time, an increasing number of organizations and population groups have become involved in risk governance. Risk communication is used as a tool for keeping popular risk perception at an effective level, and for encouraging effective self-protection during hazard events. The continuous development and improvement of a multilateral framework for natural hazards governance is also among the important components of disaster risk reduction in Cuba. However, the economic crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the long-lasting U.S. government blockade have been constraints on economic development and disaster risk reduction. These geopolitical and macroeconomic realities must be recognized as the main causes of the large economic losses and slow recovery after a natural hazard impact. Nevertheless, disaster recovery is carried out at the highest level of management with the goal of reducing vulnerability as much as possible to avoid future losses. Despite economic losses due to natural disasters, Cuban governance of natural hazards is evaluated as a success by most organizations and experts worldwide.
Natural Hazards Governance in Democratic States With Developed Economies
Patrick S. Roberts
Natural hazards have evolved from being the responsibility of subnational governments—if the government intervened all—to become a core function of national governments. The cost of disaster losses has increased over time in states with developed economies, even as fewer lives are lost. Increasing losses are caused by an increasing number of extreme weather events, which wreak havoc on urbanizing populations that build expensive structures in vulnerable locations. Hazards governance attempts to use political and organizational tools to mitigate or prevent damage and bounce back when disasters occur. In large and developed states, authority for hazards governance is fragmented across levels of government, as well as the private sector, which controls much of the infrastructure and property that is subject to losses. The political consequences of disaster losses are mixed and depend on contextual factors: sometimes politicians, government agencies, and nonprofit and voluntary organizations are blamed for failures on their watch, and sometimes they are rewarded for coming to the rescue. The study of disasters has become more interdisciplinary over time as scholars seek to integrate the study of natural hazards with socio-political systems. The future of hazards governance research lies in improving understanding of how to manage multiple, overlapping risks over a period of time beyond next election cycle, and across levels of government and the private sector.
Natural Hazards Governance in Democratic States With Developing Economies
Catastrophic natural disasters have served as reminders of the connection between fragile governments and human losses. Developing economies are impacted most from natural as well as anthropogenic hazards. For example, the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004) claimed 227,898 lives, primarily in three politically fragmented countries with developing economies: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India; and the 2010 Haiti earthquake affected more than 3 million people and killed between 46,190 and 316,000. According to EM-DAT, the cumulative number of global disaster deaths over the past 30 years was 1,677,000, with an annual average of 54,082 deaths. According to Swiss reinsurance companies, the average global natural disaster insurance loss for the last 10 years (2009–2018) was $67 billion, and global insurance losses accounted for 0.09% of global GDP on average. Over the past decade, “natural” disasters have caused more than 780,000 fatalities and destroyed physical properties worth a minimum of $960 billion. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) initiated the international disaster governance agenda for the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) global blueprint in 2005 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in 2015. Since the HFA, the international disaster risk reduction (DRR) community is increasingly viewing disaster risk management (DRM) as a governance concern. Governments are not a single structure; they are divided into various functions, hierarchies, policies, and responsibilities in working to create resilient communities at various levels (national and subnational). In countries with developing economies, government agencies have a significant role in DRM, which includes community-based organizations, science and technology research institutes, environmental protection agencies, and finance ministries. The existence of disaster management systems able to integrate vertical and horizontal coordination efforts is a critical weakness. Although there has been significant improvement globally in government capacities as well as institutional frameworks and legislative provisions for DRR in recent years, progress has been uneven. National-level policy formulation in a top-down model has often not made a significant impact at lower levels of government, where awareness-raising, training, and capacity-building likely would be significantly addressed. An extensive literature review is provided to help understand decentralized governance and its efficacy for local-level risk management of natural hazards for developing economies. Community risk perceptions and ways to respond to disasters vary from location to location; thus, it is important to implement decentralized policies and customize them to local needs and priorities to achieve low-impact sustainable development.
Natural Hazards Governance in Germany
In the Federal Republic of Germany, with its parliamentary system of democratic governance, threats posed by natural hazards are of key national relevance. Storms cause the majority of damage and are the most frequent natural hazard, the greatest economic losses are related to floods, and extreme temperatures such as heatwaves cause the greatest number of fatalities. In 2002 a New Strategy for Protecting the Population in Germany was formulated. In this context, natural hazard governance structures and configurations comprise the entirety of actors, rules and regulations, agreements, processes, and mechanisms that deal with collecting, analyzing, communicating, and managing information related to natural hazards. The federal structure of crisis and disaster management shapes how responsible authorities coordinate and cooperate in the case of a disaster due to natural hazards. It features a vertical structure based on subsidiarity and relies heavily on volunteer work. As a state responsibility, the aversion of threats due to natural hazards encompasses planning and preparedness and the response to disaster. The states have legislative power to create related civil protection policies. The institutional and organizational frameworks and measures for disaster response can, therefore, differ between states. The coordination of state ministries takes place by activating an inter-ministerial crisis task force. District administrators or mayors bear the political responsibility for disaster management and lead local efforts that can include recovery and reconstruction measures. The operationalization of disaster management efforts on local levels follows the principle of subsidiarity, and state laws are implemented by local authorities. Based on this structure and the related institutions and responsibilities, actors from different tiers of government interact in the case of a natural hazard incident, in particular if state or local levels of government are overwhelmed: • states can request assistance from the federal government and its institutions; • states can request assistance from the police forces and authorities of other states; and • if the impact of a disaster exceeds local capacities, the next higher administrative level takes on the coordinating role. Due to the complexity of this federated governance system, the vertical integration of governance structures is important to ensure the effective response to and management of a natural hazard incident. Crisis and disaster management across state borders merges the coordination and communication structures on the federal and state levels into an inter-state crisis management structure. Within this governance structure, private market and civil society actors play important roles within the disaster cycle and its phases of planning and preparedness, response, and recovery/reconstruction, such as flood insurance providers, owners of critical infrastructure, volunteer organizations, and research institutions. • critical infrastructure is a strategic federal policy area in the field of crisis management and is considered a specific protection subject, resulting in particular planning requirements and regulations; • volunteer organizations cooperate within the vertical structure of disaster management; • flood insurance is currently available in Germany to private customers, while coverage is considered low; and • research on natural hazards is undertaken by public and private higher education and research institutions that can form partnerships with governmental institutions.
Natural Hazards Governance in Ghana
Ghana faces a very low range of perennial natural hazards but high catastrophe due to the lack of proper planning and preparedness. Floods, drought/famine, landslides, fires, climate change, and sporadically earthquakes are some natural hazards that plague the tropical West African country, Ghana. Floods, the most common disaster in the country, cause epidemics of water-related diseases like cholera, typhoid, and malaria. The disaster governance in Ghana was mostly in a conventional ad hoc mode of response and relief-centric manner. However, since the early 21st century, understanding has grown on risk causes; therefore, the paradigm shift to prevention–mitigation and thus mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into development is forming an agenda in development governance. Legal and policy framework has given the mandate to some key institutions for policy guidelines, capacity development, and emergency response at national, regional, and local levels, although without implementation hitches. Disaster risk reduction in Ghana is spearheaded by the National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), established in 1996. NADMO has been at the forefront of managing disasters in the country since its establishment, but due to the limited resources, it is seen to do more postdisaster management. Postdisaster management is the sharing of relief items and offering help, after disasters, to affected persons. Nonetheless, we have seen a tremendous increase in the management of disasters in Ghana.
Natural Hazards Governance in Indonesia
Geographically, Indonesia is located in southeast Asia between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. It is recognized as an active tectonic region because it consists of three major active tectonic plates: the Eurasian plate in the north, the Indo-Australian plate in the south, and the Pacific plate in the east. The southern and eastern parts of the country feature a volcanic arc stretching from the islands of Sumatra, Java, Nusa Tenggara, and Sulawesi, while the remainder of the region comprises old volcanic mountains and lowlands partly dominated by marshes. Territorially, it is located in a tropical climate area, with its two seasons—wet and dry—exhibiting characteristic weather changes, such as with regard to temperature and wind direction, that can be quite extreme. These climatic conditions combine with the region’s relatively diverse surface and rock topographies to provide fertile soil conditions. Conversely, the same conditions can lead to negative outcomes for this densely populated country, in particular, the occurrence of hydrometeorological disasters such as floods, landslides, forest fires, and drought. The 2017 World Risk Report’s ranking of countries’ relative vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts, and sea-level rise calculated Indonesia to be the 33rd most at-risk country. Between 1815 and 2018, 23,250 natural hazards occurred here; 302,849 people died or were otherwise lost, 371,059 were injured, and there were 39,514,636 displaced persons, as well as billions of rupiah in losses. The most frequent type of natural hazard has been floods (8,919 instances), followed by cyclones (5,984), and then landslides (4,947). Following these latest disasters and acknowledging that Indonesia is becoming increasingly vulnerable to such natural hazards, the country’s government established a comprehensive disaster management system. Specifically, it instituted an organization capable of and responsible for handling such a wide-reaching and complex situation as a natural hazard. A coordinated national body had first been developed in 1966, but the current discourse concerning proactive disaster risk management at national and local levels has encouraged the central government to adapt this organization toward becoming more accountable to and involving the participation of local communities. Law No. 24/2007 of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Disaster Management, issued on April 26, 2007, established a new National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), but it also focusses on community-based disaster risk management pre- and post-disaster. Through the BNPB and by executing legislative reform to implement recommendations from the international disaster response laws, Indonesia has become a global leader in legal preparedness for natural hazards and the reduction of human vulnerability.
Natural Hazards Governance in Mexico
As a result of the earthquakes that occurred in September 1985 and their human and material consequences, disaster care in Mexico became institutionalized and acquired the rank of public policy when the first national civil protection law was published years later. More than 30 years after the creation of the National Civil Protection System, there have been some important advances; however, they have not been translated into higher levels of safety for populations exposed to risk. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the country’s risk, as well as the number of disasters and associated material losses, increase year by year. To a large extent, this stems from an approach based predominantly on post-disaster response by strengthening preparedness and emergency response capacities and creating financial mechanisms to address reconstruction processes, as opposed to broader approaches seeking to address the root causes of risk and disasters. Post-disaster actions and reconstruction processes have failed to achieve acceptable levels of efficiency, and disorganization and misuse of resources that should benefit disaster-affected populations still prevails.
Natural Hazards Governance in Nepal
Natural hazards in Nepal have traditionally been managed on an ad hoc basis as and when they occur, with individuals and communities largely responsible for their own risk management. More recently, however, there has been a shift from response to disaster preparedness and risk reduction, in line with the United Nations Hyogo Framework for Action and the more recent Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Like many developing countries, Nepal has received significant financial and technical support to implement DRR programs from the national to the community levels. While this has provided a much-needed incentive for action in this post-conflict, transitional state, it has also created a complex governance landscape involving a multitude of government and non-government stakeholders. Heavily influenced by the neoliberal development agenda, and in the absence of an up-to-date disaster management act, DRR programs focused largely on institution-building and technical interventions, for example, the establishment of disaster management committees, the retrofitting of schools and hospitals, and the development of flood early warning systems. Such interventions are highly technocratic and have been critiqued for failing to address the root causes of disasters, in particular, the systemic poverty, social inequality and marginalization that characterizes Nepal. Nepal is also undergoing a complex political transition, which has seen the ratification of a new constitution, federal restructuring, and local elections for the first time in 20 years, as well as the passing of the new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act 2017. There is much scope for optimism but successful risk reduction moving forward will require commitment and action at all levels of the governance hierarchy, and a wider commitment to address the social injustice that continues to prevail.
Natural Hazards Governance in Nigeria
Steve I. Onu
Nigeria, like many other countries in sub–Saharan Africa, is exposed to natural hazards and disaster events, the most prominent being soil and coastal erosion, flooding, desertification, drought, air pollution as a result of gas flaring, heat waves, deforestation, and soil degradation due to oil spillage. These events have caused serious disasters across the country. In the southeast region, flooding and gully erosion have led to the displacement of communities. In the Niger Delta region, oil exploration has destroyed the mangrove forests as well as the natural habitat for fishes and other aquatic species and flora. In northern Nigeria, desert encroachment, deforestation, and drought have adversely affected agricultural production, thereby threatening national food security. The federal government, through its agencies, has produced and adopted policies and enacted laws and regulations geared toward containing the disastrous effects of natural hazards on the environment. The federal government collaborates with international organizations, such as the World Bank, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Center for Infectious Disease Research (CIDR), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNHCR, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to address disaster-related problems induced by natural hazards. However, government efforts have not yielded the desired results due to interagency conflicts, corruption, low political will, and lack of manpower capacity for disaster management. There is a need for a good governance system for natural hazards prevention and reduction in the country. This will require inter-agency synergy, increased funding of agencies, capacity building, and public awareness/participation.
Nigeria Natural Hazard Governance: Institutional Perspective
Rakiya Babamaaji, Halilu Shaba, Chiemeka Nsofor, Grace Mbaiorga, Aisha Musa, Vincent Owan, Olasunkanmi Okunola, Ege Chinyere A, and Godstime Kadir
Nigeria is affected by several types of natural disasters, such as floods, landslides, drought, pest invasion, gully erosion, coastal erosion, soil erosion, and storms, among others. The National Emergency Relief Agency was established in 1976 by the federal government purely as a relief organization focusing only on post disaster management to coordinate its disaster response activities. It later became the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), delegated with the primary responsibility for coordinating federal emergency preparedness, planning, management, and disaster assistance functions in the country. NEMA also has been delegated with the responsibility for establishing a disaster assistance policy. In this stewardship role, NEMA has the lead in developing and maintaining the National Disaster Response Plan. There have been significant strides made in the effort to clearly define policies and institutions and promote collaboration with critical national agencies and stakeholders and related international organizations. As such, an institutional perspective of the natural hazard governance structure in Nigeria became critical. The evolution of natural hazard governance in Nigeria also highlights the coordination and types of disasters as policy triggers. There is a legal framework of disaster management that empowered NEMA as the coordinating agency for disaster management in Nigeria, especially in collaborating with offices such as the Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency, the Surveyor General of the Federation, the National Space Research and Development Agency, and the Nigerian Meteorological Agency in areas of flood vulnerability mapping as well as international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and nongovernmental organizations. A review of the challenges in the implementation and management of policy and of the implementation of the natural hazard governance in Nigeria are critically important.
Natural Hazards Governance in Russia
Boris Porfiriev and Svetlana Badina
A major implication of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 involved the radical transformation of the national security system. Its fundamentally militaristic paradigm focused on civil defense to prepare and protect communities against the strikes of conventional and nuclear warheads. It called for a more comprehensive and balanced civil protection policy oriented primarily to the communities’ and facilities’ preparedness and response to natural hazards impact and disasters. This change in policy was further catalyzed by the catastrophic results of the major disasters in the late 1980s, such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion of 1986 and the Armenian earthquake of 1988. As a result, in 1989, a specialized body was organized, the State Emergency Commission at the USSR Council of Ministers. A year later in the Russian Federation (at that time a part of the Soviet Union), an analogous commission was established. In 1991, it was reorganized into the State Committee for Civil Defense, Emergency Management, and Natural Disasters Response at the request of the president of the Russian Federation (EMERCOM). In 1994, this was replaced by the much more powerful Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergency Management, and Natural Disasters Response (which kept the abbreviation EMERCOM). In the early 21st century, this ministry is the key government body responsible for (a) development and implementation of the policy for civil defense and the regions’ protection from natural and technological hazards and disasters, and (b) leading and coordinating activities of the federal executive bodies in disaster policy areas within the Russian Federation’s Integrated State System for Emergency Prevention and Response (EPARIS). In addition, as well as in the former Soviet Union, the scientific and research organizations’ efforts to collect relevant data, monitor events, and conduct field and in-house studies to reduce the risk of disasters is crucially important. The nature of EPARIS is mainly a function of the geographic characteristics of the Russian Federation. These include the world’s largest national territory, which is vastly extended both longitudinally and latitudinally, a relatively populous Arctic region, large mountain systems, and other characteristics that create high diversity in the natural environment and combinations of natural hazards. Meanwhile, along with the natural conditions of significant size and a multiethnic composition of the population, distinctive features of a historical development path and institutional factors also contribute to diversity of settlement patterns, a high degree of economic development, and a level and quality of human life both within and between the regions of Russia. For instance, even within one of the region’s urbanized areas with a high-quality urban environment and developed socioeconomic institutions, neighboring communities exist with a traditional lifestyle and economic relations, primitive technological tools, and so on (e.g., indigenous small ethnic groups of the Russian North, Siberia, and the Far East). The massive spatial disparity of Russia creates different conditions for exposure and vulnerability of the regions to natural hazards’ impacts on communities and facilities, which has to be considered while preparing, responding to, and recovering from disasters. For this reason, EMERCOM’s organizational structure includes a central (federal) headquarters as well as Central, Northwestern, Siberian, Southern, and Moscow regional territorial branches and control centers for emergency management in all of the 85 administrative entities (subjects) of the Russian Federation. Specific features of both the EMERCOM territorial units and ministries and EPARIS as a whole coping with disasters are considered using the 2013 catastrophic flood in the Amur River basin in the Far East of Russia as a case study.
Natural Hazards Governance in South Africa
Dewald van Niekerk, G.J. Wentink, and L.B. Shoroma
Disaster and natural hazard governance has become a significant policy and legislative focus in South Africa since the early 1990s. Born out of necessity from a dysfunctional apartheid system, the new emphasis on disaster risk reduction in the democratic dispensation also ushered in a new era in the management of natural hazards and their associated risks and vulnerabilities. Widely cited as an international best practice in policy and law development, South Africa has led the way in natural hazard governance in sub-Sahara Africa as well as in much of the developing world. Various practices in natural hazard governance in South Africa are alluded to. Particular attention is given to the disaster risks of the country as well as to the various natural hazards that drive this risk profile. Statutory and legislative aspects are discussed through a multisectoral approach, and by citing a number of case studies, we show the application of natural hazard governance in South Africa. Certain remaining challenges are highlighted that are faced by the South Africa government such as a lack of political will at the local government level, deficits in risk governance, difficulties in resource allocation, a lack of intergovernmental relations, and a need for enhanced community participation, ownership, and decision making.
Natural Hazards Governance in South Asia
Mihir Bhatt, Ronak B. Patel, and Kelsey Gleason
South Asia is faced with a range of natural hazards, including floods, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis. Rapid and unplanned urbanization, environmental degradation, climate change, and socioeconomic conditions are increasing citizens’ exposure to and risk from natural hazards and resulting in more frequent, intense, and costly disasters. Although governments and the international community are investing in disaster risk reduction, natural hazard governance in South Asian countries remain weak and often warrants a review when a major natural disaster strikes. Natural hazards governance is an emerging concept, and many countries in South Asia have a challenging hazard governance context.
Natural Hazards Governance in the Philippines
Kanako Iuchi, Yasuhito Jibiki, Renato Solidum Jr., and Ramon Santiago
Located in the Pacific Ring of Fire and the typhoon belt, the Philippines is one of the most hazard prone countries in the world. The country faces different types of natural hazards including geophysical disturbances such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, meteorological and hydrological events such as typhoons and floods, and slow-onset disasters such as droughts. Together with rapidly increasing population growth and urbanization, large-scale natural phenomena have resulted in unprecedented scales of devastation. In the early 21st century alone, the country experienced some of the most destructive and costliest disasters in its history including Typhoon Yolanda (2013), Typhoon Pablo (2012), and the Bohol Earthquake (2013). Recurrent natural disasters have prompted the Philippine government to develop disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) strategies to better prepare, respond, and recover, as well as to be more resilient in the face of natural disasters. Since the early 1940s, the governing structure has undergone several revisions through legal and institutional arrangements. Historical natural disasters and seismic risks have affected and continue to threaten the National Capital Region (NCR) and the surrounding administrative areas; these were key factors in advancing DRRM laws and regulations, as well as in restructuring its governing bodies. The current DRRM structure was instituted under Republic Act no. 10121 (RA10121) in 2010 and was implemented to shift from responsive to proactive governance by better engaging local governments (LGUs), communities, and the private sector to reduce long-term disaster risk. This Republic Act established a national disaster risk reduction and management council (NDRRMC) to develop strategies that manage and reduce risk. Typhoon Yolanda in 2013 was the most significant test of this revised governance structure and related strategies. The typhoon revealed drawbacks of the current council-led governing structure to advancing resilience. Salient topics include how to respond better to disaster realities, how to efficiently coordinate among relevant agencies, and how to be more inclusive of relevant actors. Together with other issues, such as the way to co-exist with climate change efforts, a thorough examination of RA 10121 by the national government and advocates for DRRM is underway. Some of the most important discourse to date focuses on ways to institute a powerful governing body that enables more efficient DRRM with administrative and financial power. The hope is that by instituting a governing system that can thoroughly lead all phases of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery, the country can withstand future—and likely more frequent—mega-disasters.
Natural Hazards Governance in Turkey
H. P. Gülkan
The current outlook in disaster risk management in Turkey is examined in its historic context in this article. Policies, legislation, and specific responsive actions have culminated in 2009 in the formation of a nationwide Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (“Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı” or AFAD in Turkish) that reports directly to the prime minister. Earthquakes are the principal drivers for disaster management in Turkey. The assessment of the system in effect in Turkey from a management science viewpoint is summarized. The chronological description of the Turkish system has been linked to major disaster occurrences and consequent legislative changes.
Natural Hazards Governance in Western Europe
Florian Roth, Timothy Prior, and Marco Käser
Western Europe is an area dominated by established democratic governments, backed by strong economies, for the most part. Drawing on refined technical risk analyses, preventive measures, and comprehensive resources for emergency response, countries from Western Europe have managed to mitigate the most prevalent and recurring hazards. Over the centuries, European governments have been successful in reducing the death toll related to natural phenomena. This has been achieved by addressing all three dimensions of the risk triangle—hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. However, cultural and political differences result in subtle, but distinct differences in the context of natural hazard governance. While these differences can be considered a strength in dealing with local hazards under specific contexts, they can complicate effective and coordinated prevention, preparedness, and response measures toward large-scale hazards. This is especially the case with transboundary hazards, the regional response to which has strongly influenced hazard governance in Western Europe. Evolving risk circumstances have resulted in constant adaptations in hazard governance in the region, including local, national, and transboundary arrangements, and a more recent re-localization in the face of new complex threats that has fallen under the umbrella of resilience building.
Natural Hazards Governance in Zambia
Zambia, like many other developing nations, is grappling with the challenges of development in the context of climate change. The development–climate change–disaster nexus has emerged as one of the most intractable problems that countries such as Zambia are currently facing. The most common hazards are usually hydro-meteorological in nature. These are floods and droughts. Climate change is responsible for causing weather-related disasters and in making communities more vulnerable to the effects of disasters. Zambia, like many developing economies that are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors, such as agriculture and natural resources, is very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In responding to the challenges of climate change, the government has developed adaptation strategies and plans. The Zambian government has made strides in aligning development planning with disaster risk management. The mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction has been outlined in the Zambia Vision 2030 and the National Development Plans. The National Climate Change Response Strategy was developed to respond to the challenges that climate change and variability pose on the Zambian economy. It offers a coordinated response to climate change issues in the country, envisaging Zambia as “a Prosperous Climate Change Resilient Economy.” The Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit under the Office of the Vice President is the institution responsible for disaster risk reduction and management in Zambia. It responds to natural, human-induced, and complex hazards. The legal framework for disaster risk management (DRM) in Zambia is provided by the Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2010 (GRZ, 2010). Its provisions are operationalized by the Disaster Management Policy of 2015 and the Disaster Management Manual of 2015. As a way of domesticating the Sendai Framework, the government has development a National Disaster Risk Management Framework. The goals of this framework are to prevent and reduce existing risks in the country through the implementation of integrated and inclusive economic, social, cultural, health, legal, education, political, environmental, structural, and institutional measures. Although major achievements have been made in setting up the legal and institutional frameworks for disaster risk governance, gaps in the localization of DRM programs, especially at local and community levels, still exist. The absence of such programs and lack of awareness of disaster risks contribute to the vulnerabilities of communities at the local level. In order to reduce their vulnerability, strengthening local-level structures is necessary. Such structures can only be articulated by a robust disaster risk governance framework that is decentralized to local levels.
Natural Hazards Governance in Zimbabwe
The frequency and complexity of hazard occurrences in rural and urban Zimbabwe has made the governance discourse fashionable in efforts to mitigate the devastating effects in contemporary settings. So common is the reactive attitude at national and subnational levels that hazard governance has been made inescapable in aligning with the notion that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” through design and implementation of context specific interventions. The 1992 drought is one unforgettable occurrence which triggered a plethora of actions such as dam construction, irrigation development, and the establishment of agricultural banks to support recovery initiatives in Zimbabwe. Strides to embrace the role of science and technology are evident through the establishment of research and academic institutions to anchor disaster risk management. Despite these efforts, vulnerable groups, government institutions, NGOs, and donors have invested less than in the predisaster phase.
The Governance of Flood Risk Management
Jason Thistlethwaite and Daniel Henstra
Natural hazards are a complex governance problem. Managing the risks associated with natural hazards requires action at all scales—from household to national—but coordinating these nested responses to achieve a vertically cohesive course of action is challenging. Moreover, though governments have the legal authority and legitimacy to mandate or facilitate natural hazard risk reduction, non-governmental actors such as business firms, industry associations, research organizations and non-profit organizations hold much of the pertinent knowledge and resources. This interdependence demands horizontal collaboration, but coordinating risk reduction across organizational divides is fraught with challenges and requires skillful leadership. Flood risk management (FRM)—an integrated strategy to reduce the likelihood and impacts of flooding—demonstrates the governance challenge presented by natural hazards. By engaging stakeholders, coordinating public and private efforts, and employing a diversity of policy instruments, FRM can strengthen societal resilience, achieve greater efficiency, and enhance the legitimacy of decisions and actions to reduce flood risk. Implementing FRM, however, requires supportive flood risk governance arrangements that facilitate vertical and horizontal policy coordination by establishing strategic goals, negotiating roles and responsibilities, aligning policy instruments, and allocating resources.