chapter 4 - DRK

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strictly under embargo until Wednesday 22 September at 00:01 GMT (02:01 Geneva time)CHAPTER 7reduction systems that were multi-sectoral and inter-institutional. In each country,a national commission for risk management and disaster prevention was set up. Forinstance, in Nicaragua, the Sistema Nacional para la Prevención, Mitigación y Atenciónde Desastres (national system for disaster prevention, mitigation and response,now known as SINAPRED) was created in 2000 to work with local governmentsto strengthen the country’s institutional capacity for disaster preparedness and management,integrating disaster mitigation and risk reduction into local developmentprocesses. Local governments are responsible for activities related to prevention,mitigation, preparation, response, rehabilitation and reconstruction within theirterritories, based on risk assessments. Several municipalities have incorporatedpreventive planning especially in regard to approving building licences and landuse, and different sectors including health, education and planning share disasterrisk information. The system operates with a national disaster fund. Most of thesenational systems are, however, relatively new and need time to consolidate. Anotherconcern is that local governments may be allocated responsibilities for which theylack the capacity and resources.Addressing the limits in disaster risk reductionby municipal and city governmentsWhile local government engagement is essential for disaster risk reduction, manydisaster risks need coordinated action across a range of local governments. For instance,many large cities are composed of different municipalities (local governments) and disasterrisks are often concentrated in particular municipalities. For example, São Paulois made up of a central city with about 11 million inhabitants and 38 separate municipalities,while Buenos Aires consists of a central city of some 3 million inhabitants and26 municipalities. The municipalities with the highest disaster risks are often amongthe weakest financially and have the largest concentrations of low-income groups livingin informal settlements. They therefore have the largest deficits in provision for theinfrastructure and services that underpin risk reduction.Most flood problems in urban areas require a river basin management approach but forlarge cities, this can require investments and coordination among many different localgovernment units – often including local governments controlled by opposing politicalparties. Or extreme weather events can simply overwhelm the capacity of a localgovernment or require actions outside its boundaries and competence.In December 2009, several small and medium-sized cities in Argentina, includingSalto, Pergamino, Arrecifes, Carmen de Areco and San Antonio de Areco, were floodedafter torrential rains led to local rivers overflowing their banks. San Antonio de Areco,a town of more than 21,000 inhabitants, was hit particularly hard and 3,000 peoplehad to be evacuated. The city government could not address the causes of the flooding.In part this was linked to rainfall in the whole region being greater than normal,146
Strictly under embargo until Wednesday 22 September at 00:01 GMT (02:01 Geneva time)due to El Niño. Many other factors contributed to the floods, however, including alack of control within the Areco river basin, for example, narrow sections of the riverwere not dredged, bridges and highways impeded water flow, changes in land use hadincreased the speed of run-off, and increased run-off caused by local drainage channelsconstructed by property owners in an uncoordinated manner.However, there are examples of coordinated actions among neighbouring local governments.In San Salvador, El Salvador, mayors of the metropolitan area formed acommittee to work together, with the support of the city planning unit, on certainissues such as water provision, solid waste treatment, environmental protection andcity infrastructure. After the earthquakes in 2001, the planning unit started work onmicro-zoning of risk in the Ilopango Lake basin, which also called for the involvementof other municipalities within the basin that were outside the metropolitan area.Perhaps the main barrier to risk reduction is translating what is known into what isdone. Many city and municipal governments, if asked, know that they should have along-term development plan for their city that includes disaster risk reduction. Manyalso know that this is important for climate change adaptation. The issue, therefore,is why this is not done. Obviously for many urban centres, it is because they have nodevelopment plan or if they do, it is not adhered to. But, as Box 7.1 illustrated, evenfor city governments that are able to implement their development plans, getting localdisaster risk reduction included in the plans needs trained government staff in keypositions and political support. It also needs local governments with funding capacity.It comes as no surprise that most of the innovations described so far in this <strong>chapter</strong>come from cities in middle-income nations where local governments have beenstrengthened. Disaster risk reduction needs long-term plans and support, especiallywhere the backlogs in key infrastructure and services are largest – which brings us backto the very large mismatch between what needs to be done and local capacities.Civil society groups including local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) andgrass-roots organizations have key roles in emergency responses after disasters but theystruggle to influence physical reconstruction. In addition, the channels and vehicles forparticipation – necessary to allow them to influence disaster risk reduction – are oftenabsent. The effectiveness of disaster risk reduction is not just what a local governmentdoes but also what it encourages and supports.Support from higher levels of governmentand budgetary constraintsVery few city governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America have the financial resourcesto invest in disaster risk reduction without support from provincial or national government.That support may not be forthcoming if, for example, the city government’spolitical orientation differs from that at provincial or national level.World Disasters Report 2010 – Focus on urban risk147
Page 1 and 2:
Strictly under embargo untilWednesd
Page 4 and 5:
A global humanitarian organizationT
Page 6 and 7:
Strictly under embargo until Wednes
Page 8:
Page 12:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: Strictly under embargo until Wednes
Page 101: Strictly under embargo until Wednes
Page 118 and 119: 114CHAPTER 6Strictly under embargo
Page 142 and 143: 138CHAPTER 7Strictly under embargo
Page 194 and 195: 190ANNEX 2Strictly under embargo un
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
214INDEXStrictly under embargo unti
Page 220:
The International Federationof Red
show all

chapter 4 - DRK

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?