Official Government Wires
humanitarian news and analysis
a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Disaster risk reduction: Following the money
LONDON, 26 September 2013 (IRIN) - The world takes disaster risk
reduction (DRR) seriously these days; it has been nearly 10 years since
the Hyogo Framework for Action put the issue on the map. The World
Bank, which used to have only 20 people working on DRR, now has more
than a hundred. But even now, money spent on DRR is just a small
fraction of aid funding. For every US$9 dollars spent responding to
disasters, only $1 is spent on preventing and preparing for them. And,
says a new report, for every $100 spent on development aid, just 40
cents is invested in protecting that aid from the impact of disasters.
eduction> , Financing Disaster Risk Reduction, is the outcome of some
serious number-crunching by the World Bank's Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), which tracked DRR financing over the past 20 years -
where the money came from and where it went. The money came from
relatively few donors, they found, and went overwhelmingly to just a
small group of countries, and often unexpected ones.
The World Bank itself is the source of much of the money, along with
the Asian Development Bank and just one national donor, Japan, whose
own geographical position has given it direct experience of
earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. (Japan also hosted the
Hyogo meeting in 2005.)
The main aid recipients, the report found, are middle-income countries.
China and Indonesia are far ahead, and Bangladesh is the only poorer
country in the top ten.
Protecting assets, not people
"There is some correlation between mortality risk levels and volumes of
financing, but only at the high-risk level," the report says.
The mortality risk index (MRI), developed by the UN International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction, gauges countries' vulnerability to a
variety of hazards, including tropical storms, floods, earthquakes and
landslides . Bangladesh, China and
Indonesia rank high on the MRI, and they receive a great deal of DRR
assistance. But much lower-risk countries like Argentina, Brazil,
Mexico and Turkey have received a lot of DRR assistance, as well, while
the much more risk-prone Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Myanmar and
Sierra Leone have received hardly any.
Jan Kellett of ODI, one of the lead authors of the report, points out
that effort has mostly gone into protecting economic assets rather than
"Low economy at risk and high population at risk: very little money,"
he says. "Nepal, Malawi, Niger, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan all
get less than two dollars per capita. So high population at risk does
not seem to drive financing for DRR."
The authors admit this has been a hard report to compile, especially
because it is difficult to pin down exactly what qualifies as DRR
spending and how it is often recorded.
Dom Hunt, Concern's disaster risk reduction advisor, has looked at this
issue in Pakistan, and he told IRIN: "After the floods there, for
example, we were reconstructing houses, so the budget line might have
been on 'shelter and reconstruction'. But actually, a lot of the
shelter was being built on raised platforms; the bottom third of the
building was waterproofed, and it was designed to withstand low- and
medium-intensity floods in the future. The same with water and
sanitation. If you are raising up a latrine, that just goes down as the
cost of the latrine, so how do you know how much money has been spent
on DRR? The answer is: you don't."
There were many large flood-prevention projects in the early part of
the 20-year period under review, which may have skewed the figures. In
the last five years, the amount of aid for DRR has risen slowly, but
the spending has evened out, with more relatively small projects, more
DRR measures incorporated into reconstruction and development projects,
and a wider geographical spread.
The advent of climate adaptation funding
has helped; a
great deal of this financing goes to small island developing states.
Francois Ghesquiere, the head of the World Bank's GFDRR Secretariat,
says the challenge now is to integrate climate change adaptation
programmes with DRR.
"One area where I think we certainly can make progress to align much
better the finance going to climate adaptation with that going to DRR,"
he said. "If you go to the Solomon Islands, the government is really
not big, but you have one department that deals with climate adaptation
and one department that deals with disaster risk management. And
because they get funding from two different sources and they certainly
don't want to start pooling these resources, they don't talk to each
other and have developed completely different language to talk about
the same issues."
The other change over the past 20 years has been in how much countries
are allocating their own money to disaster planning and risk reduction.
Ghesquiere says he has seen a real change of attitude among finance
ministers. The work that finance companies and the insurance industry
have done on assessing risk has been influential, and ministers are now
beginning to realize what it means for their economies if, for
instance, their country sits on a seismic fault, Ghesquiere said.
Middle-income countries are now funding most of their own DRR work.
Poorest and most vulnerable
But many of the poorest and most vulnerable countries are still doing
little to prepare for disaster.
Joel Hafvenstein, previously Tear Fund's programme director for
Afghanistan, says he can attest to the challenges of doing DRR work in
Afghanistan, and the difficulty of getting donor funding for work
there. But he says there is public willingness to take on these
"At [a] community level, it's possible to do some powerful risk
reduction work, even in environments like Afghanistan. We've seen
communities mobilizing to talk about the reasons why disasters affect
them the way that they do. It's getting past the idea that this is just
an act of God or an act of nature that they can't do anything about.
They come up with things like, 'If we did come together and build this
protection wall here, it would actually protect the most important bits
of our land - so why don't we do it?'" Hafvenstein explained.
"Community level is where you are most likely to see gains, even in
areas of poor governance. It is higher risk to experiment with building
local government and national government policies in places where the
governance is very fragmented, but I think we have got to invest in
some of those higher-risk things, because there are local governments
in Afghanistan who mean well, and their main obstacle is lack of
knowledge and lack of resources."
Read report online
[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United
Feedback | Terms &
Conditions | RSS feeds News
Feeds | About IRIN
UPI distributes certain third party submissions from official government news agencies, such as this article. Since UPI does not control the material included in these submissions, UPI does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of the material in such submissions, and UPI does not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed therein.