IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersBox 6-1 | Enabling Disaster Risk Management Legislation in IndonesiaIndonesia: Disaster Management Law (24/2007)The legislative reform process in Indonesia that resulted in the passing of the 2007 Disaster Management Law (24/2007) created astronger association between disaster risk management and development planning processes. The process was considered successfuldue to the following factors:• Strong, visible professional networks – Professional networks born out of previous disasters meant a high level of trust andwillingness to coordinate and became pillars of the legal reform process. The political and intellectual capital in these networks,along with leadership from the MPBI (The Indonesian Society for Disaster Management), was instrumental in convincing thelawmakers about the importance of disaster management reform.• Civil society leading the advocacy – Civil society leading the advocacy for reform has resulted in CSOs being recognized by theLaw as key actors in implementing disaster risk management in Indonesia.• The impact of the 2004 South Asian tsunami helping to create a supportive political environment – The reform process wasinitiated in the aftermath of the tsunami that highlighted major deficiencies in disaster management. However, the direction of thereform (from emergency management toward disaster risk reduction) was influenced by the international focus, through the HFA,on disaster risk reduction.• An inclusive drafting process – Consultations on the new Disaster Management Law were inclusive of practitioners and civilsociety, but were not so far-reaching as to delay or lose focus on the timetable for reform.• Consensus that passing an imperfect law is better than no law at all – An imperfect law can be supplemented by additionalregulations, which helps to maintain interest and focus.Source: UNDP (2004b, 2009); Pelling and Holloway (2006).risk management systems at the national level (UNISDR, 2005, 2007b;see Section 6.3.3), as well as for addressing the challenges associatedwith adaptation to climate change (ONERC, 2009). The HFA terms these‘National Platforms,’ defined as a “generic term for national mechanismsfor coordination and policy guidance on disaster risk reduction that aremulti-sectoral and inter-disciplinary in nature, with public, private and civilsociety participation involving all concerned entities within a country”(UNISDR, 2005). In some countries such coordinating mechanisms arereferred to by other names (Hay, 2009; Gero et al., 2011) but essentiallyperform the same function. Guidelines on establishing National Platformssuggest that they need to be built on existing relevant systems andshould include participation from different levels of government, keyline ministries, disaster management authorities, scientific and academicinstitutions, civil society, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the private sector,opinion shapers, and other relevant sectors associated with disasterrisk management (UNISDR, 2007b). Evaluations and reflections on theeffectiveness of National Platforms for delivering results on the HFA andon disaster risk management more broadly indicate widely varyingresults (GTZ/DKKV, 2007; UNISDR, 2007c, 2008c; UNISDR/DKKV/Councilof Europe, 2008; Sharma, 2009). An assessment in Asia foundNational Platforms struggling to obtain the legal mandate to secure fullparticipation of stakeholders, particularly NGOs, difficulty in obtainingsustainable funding sources, and challenges associated with translatingintent into implementation (Sharma, 2009). On the other hand, pockets ofevidence exist where National Platforms have succeeded in generatingsenior political commitment for disaster risk reduction, in strengtheningintegration of disaster risk reduction into national policy and developmentplans, and in establishing institutions and programs on disaster riskmanagement with engagement from academia, media, and the privatesector (UNISDR, 2008b; Sharma, 2009). This assessment found only alimited number of genuinely independent studies on the effectivenessof National Platforms, with evidence particularly weak in Africa andelsewhere.While the evidence again suggests significant differences betweencountries, on balance, national coordination mechanisms for adaptation toclimate change and disaster risk management remain largely disconnected,although evidence suggests that the trajectory is one of improvement(National Platform for Kenya, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2010b; discussed inChapter 1). Benefits of improved coordination between adaptation toclimate change and disaster risk management bodies, and developmentand disaster management agencies, include the ability to (i) explorecommon tradeoffs between present and future action, includingaddressing human development issues and reducing sensitivity todisasters versus addressing post-disaster vulnerability; (ii) identifysynergies to make best use of available funds for short- to longer-termadaptation to climate risks as well as to tap into additional fundingsources; (iii) share human, information, technical, and practice resources;(iv) make best use of past and present experience to address emergingrisks; (v) avoid duplication of project activities; and (vi) collaborate onreporting requirements (Mitchell and Van Aalst, 2008). Barriers tointegrating disaster risk management and adaptation coordinationmechanisms include the underdevelopment of the ‘preventative’component of disaster risk management, the paucity of projects that359