untitled

Contents

Introduction

Key ﬁndings and recommendations

A 20-point plan to reduce risk

Global disaster risk: the challenge

Disaster risk and poverty trends at the local level

The underlying risk drivers

Global climate change

Progress in addressing disaster risk

Conclusions

List of tables and ﬁgures

Absolute and relative mortality risk for tropical cyclones

Mortality risk for tropical cyclones in two countries with similar exposure: Japan and the Philippines

Inﬂation adjusted economic losses as a share of global GDP

Impact of economic losses

A comparison of extensive housing damage and intensive housing destruction in Tamil Nadu,

India (1976–2007)

Extensive ﬂood and rain loss reports in Costa Rica (1990–2007)

Extensive ﬂood reports in Cali, Colombia (1950–2000)

Use and supply of assessed ecosystem services

Redistribution of extensive risk in central Peru between 1970–1985 and 1985–2006

Tropical cyclone intensity and occurrence (1977–2006) grouped by sea surface temperature for 1985–2006

Hyogo Framework: Average progress by income classiﬁcation

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

Introduction

Development efforts are increasingly at risk. A faltering global economy, food and energy insecurity,

conﬂict, global climate change, declining ecosystems, extreme poverty, and the threat of epidemics

seriously challenge progress towards improving social welfare and economic growth in many developing

countries.

In 2008, the deaths of approximately 140,000 people in the Myanmar cyclone and the collapse

of more than ﬁve million buildings and damage to 21 million more in the China earthquake, were stark

reminders that disaster risks associated with tropical cyclones, ﬂoods, earthquakes, droughts and other

natural hazards are a key part of this interlocked set of threats.

The Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction focuses attention on that challenge. It

identiﬁes disaster risk, analyses its causes, shows that these causes can be addressed and recommends

the means to do so. The over-riding message of the Report is that reducing disaster risk can also help

in reducing poverty, safeguarding development and adapting to climate change, with beneﬁcial effects

on broader global security, stability and sustainability. Given the urgency posed by climate change, the

Report forcefully argues the case for taking action now.

The Report is the ﬁrst biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction prepared in the context

of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). The ISDR, launched in 2000, provides a

framework to coordinate actions to address disaster risks at the local, national, regional and international

levels. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), endorsed by 168 UN member states at the World

Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan in 2005, urges all countries to make major efforts to

reduce their disaster risk by 2015.

The Report was coordinated by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(UNISDR) Secretariat, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the

World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization

(WMO), the United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the ProVention

Consortium, the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute and a wide range of other ISDR partners. The Kingdom

of Bahrain, the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), UNDP, UNEP,

the Government of Norway, the Government of Switzerland, the ProVention Consortium and the German

Technical Cooperation (GTZ) contributed ﬁnancial resources that enabled the successful development of

the Report.

Key ﬁndings and recommendations

Global disaster risk

is highly concentrated in poorer countries with weaker governance.

Particularly in low and low-middle income countries with rapid economic growth, the exposure
of people and assets to natural hazards is growing at a faster rate than risk-reducing capacities are
being strengthened, leading to increasing disaster risk.

Countries with small and vulnerable economies, such as many small-island developing states

(SIDS) and land-locked developing countries (LLDCs), have the highest economic vulnerability
to natural hazards. Many also have extreme trade limitations.

Most disaster mortality and asset destruction is intensively concentrated in very small areas

exposed to infrequent but extreme hazards. However, low-intensity damage to housing, local
infrastructure, crops and livestock, which interrupts and erodes livelihoods, is extensively spread
within many countries and occurs very frequently. Such damage represents a signiﬁcant and
largely unaccounted for facet of disaster impacts.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Poorer communities suﬀer a disproportionate share of disaster loss. Poor households are usually

less resilient to loss and are rarely covered by insurance or social protection. Disaster impacts lead
to income and consumption shortfalls and negatively aﬀect welfare and human development,
often over the long term.

Weather-related disaster risk is expanding rapidly both in terms of the territories aﬀected, the

losses reported and the frequency of events. This expansive tendency cannot be explained by
improved disaster reporting alone. In countries with weaker risk-reducing capacities, underlying
risk drivers such as poor urban governance, vulnerable rural livelihoods and ecosystem decline
underpin this rapid expansion of weather-related disaster risk.

Climate change is already changing the geographic distribution, frequency and intensity of

weather-related hazards and threatens to undermine the resilience of poorer countries and their
citizens to absorb loss and recover from disaster impacts. This combination of increasing hazard
and decreasing resilience makes climate change a global driver of disaster risk. Climate change
will magnify the uneven distribution of risk skewing disaster impacts even further towards poor
communities in developing countries.

Progress towards reducing disaster risk is still mixed. In general terms, countries are making

signiﬁcant progress in strengthening capacities, institutional systems and legislation to
address deﬁciencies in disaster preparedness and response. Good progress is also being made
in other areas, such as the enhancement of early warning. In contrast, countries report little
progress in mainstreaming disaster risk reduction considerations into social, economic, urban,
environmental and infrastructural planning and development.

The governance arrangements for disaster risk reduction in many countries do not facilitate the

integration of risk considerations into development. In general, the institutional and legislative
arrangements for disaster risk reduction are weakly connected to development sectors.

The policy and institutional frameworks for climate change adaptation and poverty reduction are

only weakly connected to those for disaster risk reduction, at both the national and international
levels. Countries have diﬃculty addressing underlying risk drivers such as poor urban and local
governance, vulnerable rural livelihoods and ecosystem decline in a way that leads to a reduction
in the risk of damages and economic loss.

Documented experience in upgrading squatter settlements, providing access to land and

infrastructure for the urban poor, strengthening rural livelihoods, protecting ecosystems, and
using microﬁnance, microinsurance and index-based insurance to strengthen resilience shows
that it is possible to address the underlying drivers of disaster risk. However, in most countries
these experiences are not integrated into the policy mainstream.

A failure to address the underlying risk drivers will result in dramatic increases in disaster risk

and associated poverty outcomes. In contrast, if addressing these drivers is given priority, risk can
be reduced, human development protected and adaptation to climate change facilitated. Rather
than a cost, this should be seen as an investment in building a more secure, stable, sustainable
and equitable future. Given the urgency posed by climate change, decisive action needs to be
taken now.

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

A 20-point plan to reduce risk

Accelerate efforts to avoid dangerous climate change

Agree measures such as an effective multilateral framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and policies for sustainable carbon budgeting. These are essential if potentially catastrophic

increases in disaster impacts and associated poverty outcomes are to be avoided in disaster

prone developing countries.

Increase the economic resilience of small and vulnerable economies

Coordinate policies on trade and productive sector development with policies in climate change

adaptation and disaster risk reduction in order to strengthen economic resilience, particularly in

the case of SIDS and LLDCs.

Promote the development of catastrophe pools between such countries to allow the transfer

of sovereign risk at an affordable cost and provide a more reliable mechanism for recovery and

reconstruction.

Adopt high-level development policy frameworks to reduce risk

Adopt overarching national development policy frameworks at the highest level, backed by the

necessary political authority and resources, focusing on the underlying drivers of disaster risk.

These should bring coherence to, align and integrate existing efforts being pursued under the

HFA and through poverty reduction and climate change adaptation instruments.

Focus development policy on addressing the underlying risk drivers

Build the capacities of urban and local governments to integrate disaster risk reduction

considerations into a broader strategy to ensure the supply of safe land, secure tenure,

infrastructure and services, and adequate, disaster resistant housing for the urban poor.

Invest in natural resource management, infrastructure development, livelihood generation and

social protection to reduce vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of rural livelihoods.

Protect and enhance ecosystem services through mechanisms such as protected area

legislation, payment for ecosystem services and integrated planning.

Shift the emphasis of social protection from an exclusive focus on response to include pre-

disaster mechanisms and more effective targeting of the most vulnerable groups.

Adopt an approach supportive of local initiatives

Promote a culture of planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction that builds on

government–civil society partnerships and cooperation and is supportive of local initiative, in

order to dramatically reduce the costs of risk reduction, ensure local acceptance, and build

social capital.

Build on existing systems for public administration to incorporate innovations into the governance

of disaster risk reduction

Ensure that responsibility for disaster risk reduction is vested in the highest level of political

authority and is explicitly incorporated into national development plans and budgets.

Harmonize and where possible integrate the governance arrangements for disaster risk reduction

and climate change adaptation.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Global disaster risk: the challenge

Risk is intensively concentrated
The risk of both mortality and economic loss in
disasters is highly concentrated in a very small
portion of the Earth’s surface. Countries with
large populations exposed to severe natural
hazards account for a very large proportion of
global disaster risk. For example, 75% of global
ﬂood mortality risk is concentrated in only three
countries: Bangladesh, China and India.

Similarly mortality and economic loss are

concentrated in a very small number of disasters.
Between 1975 and 2008, EMDAT

recorded

8,866 disasters killing 2,283,767 people. Of
these 23 mega-disasters killed 1,786,084 people,
meaning that 0.26% of the events accounted
for 78.2% of the mortality

. In the same period

Promote greater synergy in hazard monitoring and risk identiﬁcation, leading to comprehensive

multi-hazard risk assessment, through the functional integration of the scientiﬁc and technical

bodies responsible for meteorology, geology and geophysics, oceanography and environmental

management, etc.

Subject all public investment to a cost–beneﬁt analysis to enhance its sustainability and cost-

effectiveness, and contribute signiﬁcantly to the reduction of disaster risk.

Encourage national control and audit ofﬁces to undertake periodic reviews of the implementation

of disaster risk reduction policy in order to achieve improvements in accountability, enforcement

and control.

Strengthen the linkages between the organizations that generate warnings and those

responsible for disaster preparedness and response, and between the national and local levels in

order to increase the effectiveness of early warning systems in risk prone communities.

Support the development of insurance markets so that a larger proportion of at-risk households

can have access to risk transfer mechanisms, complemented by other ﬁnancial tools such as

microﬁnance and contingency ﬁnancing.

Invest to reduce risk

Increase the resources available for climate change adaptation in risk prone developing

countries, in order to complement resources pledged to achieve the MDGs and allow such

countries to address the underlying drivers of risk.

Use increased public spending in the context of economic stimulus packages, to invest in risk-

reducing infrastructure and other measures that address the underlying risk drivers.

Ensure that additional investments are made to factor disaster risk reduction considerations into

all new development.

Strengthen the capacities of disaster prone countries to develop the policy and governance

frameworks necessary to organize and manage all the above.

internationally recorded economic losses were
US$ 1,527.6 billion. Just 25 mega-disasters,
representing 0.28% of the events, accounted for
40% of the loss.

However, small island developing states

(SIDS) and other small countries have far higher
levels of relative risk with respect to the size of
their populations and economies. For example,
in the case of tropical cyclones, Vanuatu has the
highest mortality risk per million inhabitants in
the world, with St. Kitts and Nevis in third place.

Risk is unevenly distributed
Disaster risk is not evenly distributed. Developing
countries concentrate a hugely disproportionate
share of the risk. For example, both Japan and

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

the Philippines are exposed to frequent tropical
cyclones. In Japan, approximately 22.5 million
people are exposed annually, compared to 16
million people in the Philippines. However, the
estimated annual death toll from cyclones in the
Philippines is almost 17 times greater than that
of Japan.

This uneven distribution of risk is also true

for groups of countries. For the same number of
people exposed to tropical cyclones, mortality
risk in low-income countries is approximately
200 times higher than in OECD countries.

Poorer countries also experience higher

economic losses in relation to the size of
their economies. OECD countries, including
Australia, Japan and the United States of
America, account for almost 70% of estimated
global annual economic losses to tropical
cyclones – approximately 90 times more than
the losses in exposed countries in sub-Saharan
Africa. However, when looked at in terms of
economic loss relative to exposed GDP, sub-

Absolute and

relative mortality

risk for tropical

cyclones

Note:

Increasing risk class

(1–10) indicates

increasing risk

exposure from very

low to very high

(class 0 represents

unknown exposure).

For a detailed

explanation of

the risk analysis

procedure and the

risk classes and

mortality disaster

index please

refer to Box 2.2 in

the Report.

Modelled fatalities per million per year (relative)

Modelled fatalities per year (absolute)

0.01

0.1

100

0.01

0.1

100

1 000

10 000

Bangladesh

Vanuatu

Myanmar

Haiti

Dominican Rep.

Madagascar

India

St. Kitts and Nevis

New Caledonia

Samoa

Japan

Fiji

Mozambique

Palau

Belize

Solomon Isl.

Tonga

Mauritius

Mexico

Viet Nam

China

Cook Isl.

British Virgin Isl.

Faroe Islands

Barbados

Namibia

New Zealand

Sri Lanka

Guadeloupe

Puerto Rico

Honduras

Korea (Dem. People's Rep. of )

Russian Federation

Pakistan

Korea (Rep. of )

USA

Portugal

Costa Rica

Algeria

Brazil

Venezuela

Thailand

American Samoa

French Polynesia

Martinique

Botswana

Guatemala

Morocco

Taiwan (prov. of China)

Nicaragua

Jamaica

Australia

Lao (P.D.R.)

Cuba

Anguilla

Cayman Isl.

Bermuda

US Virgin Isl.

Marshall Islands

Dominica

Guam

Philippines

Risk classes

Saharan African countries experience almost
three and a half times more economic loss; Latin
America and the Caribbean over six times more;
and in the case of ﬂoods South Asia experiences
approximately 15 times more economic loss than
OECD countries.

These examples show that disaster risk is

not just a consequence of hazard severity and
exposure. Risk is conﬁgured by a range of other
drivers related to a country’s economic and social
development. These include not only income and
economic strength but also governance factors
such as the quality of institutions, transparency
and accountability. Wealthier countries tend
to have better institutions, more eﬀective early
warning, disaster preparedness and response
systems, and more open government that tends
to be more supportive of disaster risk reduction.
Well-governed countries with higher human
development indicators generally have lower levels
of risk than countries with weaker governance.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Risk is increasing
While wealthier countries are usually less risk
prone than poorer countries, economic develop-
ment must be accompanied by the strengthening
of governance capacities if disaster risk is to be
reduced. Rapid economic and urban development
can lead to a growing concentration of people
and economic assets in hazard prone cities, fertile
river valleys and coastal areas. Disaster risk
increases if the exposure of people and assets to
natural hazards increases faster than countries
can strengthen their risk-reducing capacities by
putting policy, institutions, legislation, planning
and regulatory frameworks in place.

In absolute terms, and assuming constant

hazard levels, global disaster risk increased
between 1990 and 2007. In the case of ﬂoods,
mortality risk increased by 13% from 1990 to
2007. Over the same period ﬂood economic
loss risk increased by 35%. These increases in
disaster risk are primarily driven by the growing
exposure of people and economic assets. The
number of people exposed to ﬂoods increased by
28% over the same period, while exposed GDP

increased by 98%. Most ﬂood risk is concentrated
in Asian countries, such as China and India.
While global GDP increased by 64%, China and
India increased their GDP by 420% and 185%
respectively. Over the same period, vulnerability
declined; in the case of ﬂood mortality risk by
11%, and ﬂood economic loss risk by 32%. But
this reduction in vulnerability was insuﬃcient to
compensate for the increase in exposure.

This suggests that disaster risk is increasing

fastest in low- and lower-middle income countries
with rapidly growing economies. These countries
have rapidly increasing exposure but relatively
weak institutions. While they are making im-
provements in risk-reducing capacities these have
yet to catch up with rising exposure. In contrast,
most high income countries experience more
moderate increases in exposure and have already
reduced a signiﬁcant part of their vulnerability.

Relative to the size of the global popu-

lation and GDP, risk may actually be falling.
For example, when recorded economic losses are
adjusted for inﬂation and expressed as a proportion
of global GDP they are fairly stable.

Mortality risk

for tropical

cyclones in two

countries with

similar exposure:

Japan and the

Philippines

Note:

See note to ﬁgure

on p.7 for

explanation of

risk classes.

e
a

S u

l u S e

i l

i p

p i n

e S e a

S e

250

500

125

Kilometres

Modelled mortality risk

class 1

class 0

class 5

class 4

class 3

class 2

class 6

class 8

class 9

class 10

class 7

250

500

125

Kilometres

140° E

135° E

40° N

35° N

125° E

120° E

15° N

10° N

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

Small and vulnerable economies are
least resilient
Countries with small and vulnerable economies,
such as many SIDS and land-locked developing
countries (LLDCs), have seen their economic
development set back decades by disaster impacts.
The countries with the highest ratio of economic
losses in disasters, with respect to their capital
stock are all SIDS and LLDCs, such as Samoa
and St. Lucia. Madagascar shows a diﬀerent
pattern but a clear impact of disaster loss on
cumulative net capital formation.

In contrast, the impact of major disasters on

high-income countries such as the United States

of America is imperceptible, even though that
country has experienced huge economic losses,
for example the US$ 125 billion associated with
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Similarly, there is
no marked eﬀect in large low-income countries
such as India or middle-income countries such
as Colombia. The implications are that disasters
do not have a signiﬁcant impact on capital
accumulation in countries with large economies,
but a devastating impact on those with small
economies.

The countries with the highest economic

vulnerability are those with the highest ratio of
economic losses to capital stock and the lowest
economic resilience to shocks, indicated by very
low national savings. Many of these countries
also have extreme limitations to their ability to
beneﬁt from international trade, characterized by
a very low participation in world export markets
(less than 0.1%) and low export diversiﬁcation.
SIDS and LLDCs together constitute 60% of the
countries with high, and 67% with very high,
economic vulnerability to disasters, as measured
by the above variables, and comprise about two
thirds of all countries aﬀected by extreme trade
limitations in the same groups.

Inﬂation adjusted

economic losses

as a share of

global GDP

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Economic losses / GDP (1975–2007 avg = 100)

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

Colombia

1970

1980

1990

2000

200 000

400 000

600 000

800 000

1 000 000

1 200 000

1 400 000

1976

1986

1996

India

–400

–200

200

400

600

800

1 000

Samoa

1970

1980

1990

2000

2 000 000

4 000 000

6 000 000

8 000 000

10 000 000

12 000 000

14 000 000

16 000 000

18 000 000

20 000 000

1970

1980

1990

2000

United States of America

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

1970

1980

1990

2000

Madagascar

–1 000

–500

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

1970

1980

1990

2000

St. Lucia

Impact of

economic losses

Cumulative net

capital formation

from 1970 to

2006, in millions

of constant 2000

US$, with (red lines)

and without (blue

lines) the effect of

economic losses in

disasters.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Disaster risk and poverty trends at the local level

Mortality and direct economic loss are
intensively concentrated
Viewed locally, most mortality and direct
economic loss are similarly highly concentrated
in very small areas and in relatively infrequent
events. Disaster loss reports at the local govern-
ment level compiled for a sample of 12 Asian and
Latin American countries for the period 1970
to 2007

show that 84% of the mortality and

75% of the destroyed housing were concentrated
in only 0.7% of the reports. These are the

disasters that make news headlines and capture
the attention of the international community.

Damage is extensively spread
However, there are other risk patterns at the local
level that are essentially invisible when viewed
from a global perspective. Low-intensity damage
to housing, local infrastructure, crops and
livestock, which interrupt and erode livelihoods
is extensively spread within countries and occurs
very frequently.

In the 12 countries sampled there were

126,620 reports of disaster damage at the
municipal level since 1970, implying an average
of 9 disasters per day. More than 82% of the
municipalities reported losses at least once over
this period. Almost half reported losses six times
or more, and over 10% reported losses more than
50 times.

Housing damage is extensively spread over

these reports. In the case of Tamil Nadu, India,
there were more than 900,000 damaged houses
between 1976 and 2007. More than 60% of the
housing damage, representing 550,000 houses,
was spread amongst 12,000 low-intensity loss
reports. Damage to 40 or 50 houses in a localized
storm or ﬂood does not attract international
media attention. But over time such losses add
up to a considerable accumulation of loss and an
erosion of local development.

Such losses, therefore, represent a signiﬁcant

and largely unreported facet of disaster impacts.
Across the 12 countries, 34% of the economic
cost of disasters in the housing sector was
associated with such low-intensity loss reports, as
well as 57% of the damage to schools, 65% of the
damage to hospitals and 89% of the damage to
roads.

Poor communities face the highest risk
Within developing countries, poorer communities
are also more at risk than wealthier communities.
Furthermore, poor households are often less
resilient as they are unable to access or mobilize
the assets necessary to buﬀer disaster losses and are
rarely covered by insurance or social protection
measures.

In Mexico, it was found that between

1980 and 2006, disaster loss aﬀected only 8%

A comparison

of extensive

housing

damage (left)

and intensive

housing

destruction

(right) in Tamil

Nadu, India

(1976–2007)

S R I L A N K A

P O N D I

C H E

R R

P O N D I

C H E

R R

ANDHRA PRADE

K A R N A T A K A

S e a

A r a b i a n

G u l f

o f

M a n n a r

CHENNAI

(MADRAS)

BANGALORE

TRIVANDRUM

80° E

75° E

10° N

1–250

251–1 000

1 001–5 000

5 001–10 000

>10 000

Number of houses

S R I L A N K A

CHENNAI

(MADRAS)

BANGALORE

TRIVANDRUM

K A R N A T A K A

ANDHRA PRADE

P O N D I

C H E

R R

P O N D I

C H E

R R

G u l f

o f

M a n n a r

80° E

10° N

1–1 000

1 001–5 000

5 001–10 000

10 001–50 000

>50 000

Number of houses

100

200

Kilometres

City population

>500 000

STATE CAPITAL

100 000–500 000
50 000–100 000

INDIA

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

of the housing stock in municipalities with low
or very low levels of marginality. In contrast,
in municipalities with high or very high levels
of marginality that proportion was far higher:
in 20% of these municipalities more than 50%
of the housing stock had been damaged or
destroyed. These ﬁndings were mirrored by other
countries. In Sri Lanka more houses are damaged
by ﬂoods in areas with people living below the
poverty line. In Tamil Nadu, disaster mortality
is higher in areas with vulnerable housing, while
housing damage in tropical cyclones is greater in
areas with the lowest literacy.

Poor households are likely to experience

income or consumption shortfalls after disaster
impacts. In El Salvador, for example, the average
income per capita in poor rural households
aﬀected by the 2001 earthquakes was reduced by
approximately one third.

Welfare is also negatively aﬀected at the

local and regional levels. In Mexico, for example,
municipalities that experienced disaster losses
between 2000 and 2005 experienced a 3.5%
growth in the number of households without
enough income to buy a basic food basket. In
Iran, the provinces that experienced the largest
number of deaths and destroyed houses in
earthquakes also experienced the greatest drop in
household expenditure.

The poorest households also tend to lose

a higher proportion of their assets and income.
In Peru, for example, in 2006, rural households
that had experienced disasters between 2000
and 2005 had a reduced per capita consumption.
However, consumption dropped by 3.85% in
the poorest quarter of households, as opposed to
1.2% in the wealthiest quarter.

Disaster impacts produce other poverty

outcomes as well. The empirical evidence shows
that school enrolment tends to fall and children
may grow at a slower rate due to nutritional
shortfalls following disasters. For example,
children that were in the womb to 36 months
of age and living in villages aﬀected by the 1984
drought and famine in Ethiopia were almost 3cm
shorter ten years after the disaster than their non-
aﬀected counterparts

. In countries where women

have a low social and economic status they may
be particularly aﬀected.

These outcomes may be short-term, if

targeted and appropriate assistance is provided
to poor families, but in its absence, poverty
outcomes may be long-term and recovery slow
or diﬃcult. In Ethiopia, poor rural households
most aﬀected by the droughts and famines of
the mid-1980s were still experiencing 4–16 %
lower growth in household income in the mid-
1990s, a period of substantial recovery of food
consumption and nutrition. Rural households
aﬀected by repeated disasters often never recover
fully before being hit by another shock.

The rapid expansion of weather-related
disaster risk
The number of local-level disaster loss reports in
the 12 countries sampled has more than doubled
since 1980, and housing damage has quintupled.
While the sample is not globally representative,
there is no reason to believe that these countries
are exceptions to a global trend. More than
96% of these disaster reports were associated
with weather-related hazards, including periodic
tropical cyclones and major ﬂoods but also large
numbers of small-scale ﬂoods, landslides, storms,
mudslides and other highly localized weather-
related events. This indicates that more hazard
events are occurring and that, at the same time,
there is increasing exposure to those events.

Weather-related disaster risk is also aﬀecting

an ever-growing area and some regions are
being aﬀected more often. The number of local
government areas reporting losses one to nine
times a year has doubled since 1980. The number
of municipalities reporting losses between 10
and 49 times has quintupled. Importantly, the
number of loss reports associated with ﬂooding
and heavy rains is increasing faster than all other
hazard types. In Costa Rica, for example, these
have at least quintupled since 1990.

It is likely that improved disaster report-

ing at least partly explains this increase. Since the
introduction of the Internet in the early 1990s,
many more disasters are being reported, particu-
larly from remoter, rural areas. However, improved
reporting is insuﬃcient to explain the geographic
expansion of risk. In addition ﬂood related hazard
is also increasing in major cities, where disaster
losses have always been historically reported.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Case study evidence from Africa, Asia and

Latin America documented in the Report shows
that the expansion of weather-related disaster risk
closely mirrors development-related processes
such as the growth of cities and the expansion of
the agricultural frontier into previously sparsely
populated areas. These processes simultaneously
increase the number of people exposed to hazards
and also generate new hazard patterns. In coun-
tries with weaker risk-reducing capacities, it is
underlying risk drivers such as poor urban gover-
nance, vulnerable rural livelihoods and ecosystem
decline that underpin the expansion of risk.

Extensive ﬂood

and rain loss

reports in Costa

Rica (1990–2007)

Number of flood, rain and flash flood events

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

1990

1995

2000

2005

The underlying risk drivers

Poor urban governance
By 2008, over half the world’s population was
living in urban areas and by 2010 it is projected
that 73% of the world’s urban population and
most of its largest cities will be in developing
countries.

Many city governments have been incapable

of ensuring that there is safe land for housing,
adequate infrastructure and services, and a
planning and regulatory framework to manage
the associated environmental and other risks. This
has led to urban growth in developing countries
being absorbed through the creation of informal
settlements. Approximately one billion people
worldwide live in these settlements and numbers
are growing by approximately 25 million per year.

Poor people in informal urban settlements

typically have higher levels of everyday risk,
even without considering the impact of natural
hazards. For example, cities in high-income
countries typically have under-ﬁve mortality rates
of less than 10 per 1000 live births. In contrast
many cities in developing countries have far
higher rates. In Nairobi, for example, under-ﬁve
mortality rates were 61.5 per 1,000 live births for
the city as a whole in 2002, but approximately
150 per 1,000 in informal settlements.

Evidence from cities in Africa, Asia and

Latin America, shows that the expansion of
informal settlements is closely associated with the

rapid increase in weather-related disaster reports
in urban areas. Flood loss reports in the city of
Cali, Colombia are shown in the map for each
decade since the 1950s. The centrifugal expansion
of reported ﬂoods has mirrored the expansion of
informal settlements in the city.

Urbanization per se tends to increase the

intensity of run-oﬀ during storms and heavy
rains. Instead of being absorbed into the ground,
greater volumes of rainwater are channelled into
drains, culverts and streams. Informal settlements
typically occupy land deemed unsuitable for
residential or commercial use, located in low
lying ﬂood prone areas, on landslide prone
hillsides or in ravines, exposing people to hazard.
Houses are built and modiﬁed without reference
to hazard resistant building standards. In many
cities there has been an underinvestment in
building drains and in maintaining those that
exist, particularly in informal settlements. Many
ﬂoods are caused as much by deﬁcient or non-
existent drainage as by the intensity of rainfall.

Vulnerable rural livelihoods
Livelihood vulnerability is an underlying driver
of disaster risk and poverty in many areas.
Approximately 75% of the people living below
the international poverty line (US$ 1.25 per
day) live and work in rural areas

: 268 million

in sub-Saharan Africa; 223 million in East Asia

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

and the Paciﬁc and 394 million in South Asia.
Even in countries experiencing rapid economic
development, such as China, there are 175 million
rural dwellers below this poverty line. Disaster
losses aﬀect huge numbers in poor rural areas.
In sub-Saharan Africa, during the 2001–2003
drought, an estimated 206 million people, or
32% of the region’s population, were under-
nourished, a number only slightly less than the
total 268 million rural poor

Many rural livelihoods still depend heavily

on agriculture and other natural resource
sectors. Rural farm-based livelihoods are
generally characterized by low input and low
output agriculture due to constrained access to
productive assets such as land, labour, fertilizers,
irrigation facilities, infrastructure and ﬁnancial
services. For example, average maize yields in
Malawi are only one tenth of yields in the United
States of America

. Opportunities for processing

and adding value to agricultural production are
also often limited due to asset constraints, trade
barriers and lack of access to markets.

Historical patterns of land distribution

and tenure tend to discriminate against the
poor, who may only have access to marginal
and unproductive land including areas prone to
ﬂooding, erratic or minimum rainfall, or with
poor soil. Poor households usually do not have
access to improved seeds, irrigation technology
and other inputs that can reduce the vulnerability
of crops to drought. They are dependent on
rain-fed agriculture, which is far more sensitive
to small seasonal ﬂuctuations in rainfall,
temperature and other weather variables than

Extensive ﬂood

reports in

Cali, Colombia

(1950–2000)

2–3

4–6

1950–1959

1990–2000

1980–1989

1970–1979

1960–1969

Number of flood events

irrigated agriculture. Household dependence
on a single main harvest for most annual
requirements of food and income further
increases vulnerability. Livelihoods in rural
areas are also limited by a lack of economic
diversiﬁcation, thin markets, weak and costly
mechanisms of exchange and trade barriers.

Poor and indebted households thus have

little or no surplus capacity to absorb crop or
livestock income losses and to recover. A small
loss in income may be devastating and set oﬀ a
ratchet eﬀect that feeds back into further poverty
and future vulnerability, due to a lack of asset
reserves, the absence of other income earning
opportunities and the non-existence of economic
and social safety-nets. Resilience is further
undermined by the impacts of other hazards such
as conﬂict and HIV/AIDS.

The high structural vulnerability of

housing, schools, infrastructure and other assets
in poor rural areas exposed to ﬂoods, tropical
cyclones and earthquakes also leads to major
mortality in disasters. Rural housing is usually
built with local materials and labour and without
hazard resistant building techniques. The collapse
of heavy earth walls led to the destruction of
329,579 houses in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake.
The lack of protection oﬀered by wattle and
daub, and thatch houses in Myanmar contributed
to the deaths of 140,000 people in the 2008
cyclone. The isolation of many poor rural areas,
combined with under-investment by government
in infrastructure and in disaster preparedness and
response capacities, further increases asset and
mortality risk.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Declining ecosystems
People receive substantial beneﬁts or services
from ecosystems. These include provisioning
services which provide energy, water, food and
ﬁbre for both urban and rural households, as well
as regulating services, such as the mitigation of
ﬂoods and storm surges. Most ecosystems have
been intentionally or unintentionally modiﬁed to
increase the supply of certain categories of services
and institutions have been developed to govern
access and use of these services. However, because
ecosystems produce many services simultaneously,
an increase in the supply of one service, such as
food, can frequently lead to declines in other
services, such as ﬂood regulation.

The Millennium Assessment found that the

supply of approximately 60% of the ecosystem
services evaluated (15 of 24) were in decline
(see table)

. At the same time, consumption of

more than 80% of the services was found to
be increasing. In other words, the ﬂow of most
ecosystem services is increasing at the same time
as the total stock is decreasing. In particular, the
Millennium Assessment identiﬁed that while
people have modiﬁed ecosystems to increase
provisioning services, these modiﬁcations
have led to the decline of regulating ecosystem
services, including those responsible for
mitigating hazards, such as ﬁres and ﬂoods.

An increase in landslide hazard on slopes
deforested for agricultural use and in storm surges
in areas where mangroves have been destroyed
to create shrimp ponds are examples of how an
increase in provisioning ecosystem services may
decrease regulating ecosystem services. While
such changes in the distribution of ecosystem
services often beneﬁt speciﬁc economic interests,
the costs are frequently borne by poor urban and
rural households.

Changes in the supply of ecosystem services

may also increase livelihood vulnerability,
particularly when livelihoods depend on common
pool resources. For example, the destruction
of mangroves for shrimp cultivation not only
reduces protection against coastal erosion and
storm surges but also negatively aﬀects artisanal
coastal ﬁsheries and the communities that depend
on them.

In Peru, the opening of new roads down the

eastern slopes of the Andes and into the central
jungle in order to extend the agricultural frontier
has led to a notable increase in the number of
reported landslide disasters in that region since
the 1980s, easily visible in dark brown on the
map. Deforestation may increase the supply of
provisioning services such as crops and livestock
but reduces the supply of regulating services such
as erosion control and landslide regulation.

Use and supply

of assessed

ecosystem

services

Source: Adapted

from the Millennium

Ecosystem

Assessment (2005)

Ecosystems and

Well-Being: Current

State and Trends:

Findings of the

Condition and

Trends Working

Group. Washington

DC. Island Press.

Provisioning ES

Regulating ES

Cultural ES

Crops

Air quality control

Spiritual and religious values

Livestock

Global climate regulation

Aesthetic values

Capture fisheries

–

Local climate regulation

Recreation and ecotourism

Aquaculture

Water flow regulation

Wild foods

–

Erosion control

Timber

Water quality regulation

Cotton

+/–

Disease control

Wood fuel

+/–

Pest control

Genetic resources

Pollination

Biochemicals

Natural hazard regulation

Freshwater

ES = ecosystem service. Numeric sign shows change in use. Colour shows change in supply: green= increasing supply, red =

decreasing supply, yellow = supply more or less stable

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

Global climate change

example, decreases in agricultural productivity,
water and energy stress, and increasing disease
vectors. This combination of increasing hazard
and decreasing resilience makes climate change a
global driver of disaster risk that will increase the
impact of disasters on the poor.

There is already evidence that some kinds

of weather-related hazard are increasing. The
table shows that the average annual number of
cyclones has been fairly stable, (between 54.9
and 58.1 per year) since 1976, regardless of sea
surface temperature (SST). However, in warmer
years there are more Category 3 and 4 (i.e. more
intense) cyclones and fewer in Categories 1 and
2. In particular, compared to the period between
1976 and 1984, when there were no data on SST,
there are now signiﬁcantly more category 4 and
5 cyclones. This is in line with the ﬁndings of
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and recent
research that has estimated that a 1°C increase in
SST would lead to a 31% increase in the global
frequency of Category 4 and 5 cyclones per year.

Climate change magniﬁes the uneven
distribution of disaster risk
By increasing hazard at the same time as it erodes
resilience, climate change has a magnifying eﬀect
on disaster risk. In particular, climate change
will magnify the uneven distribution of risk,
skewing disaster impacts even further towards
poor communities in developing countries.

Changes in means and extremes lead
to increasing hazard and declining
resilience
Climate change is probably the greatest global
outcome of environmental inequity. It is driven
by greenhouse gas emissions that have brought
beneﬁts to aﬄuent societies and individuals, yet
most of the burdens fall on developing countries
and their poorest citizens.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
has emphasized that if the planet’s surface
temperature increases by 2°C above pre-industrial
levels, the catastrophic collapse of ecosystems
becomes possible with unforeseen, non-linear
impacts on poverty and disaster risk

The IPCC has also conﬁrmed that the

geographic distribution, frequency and intensity
of weather-related hazards are already being
altered signiﬁcantly by climate change

. Changes

are already occurring in the amount, intensity,
frequency and type of precipitation. This is
associated with an increase in the area aﬀected
by drought, in the numbers of heavy daily
precipitation events that lead to ﬂooding, and
in the intensity and duration of certain kinds of
tropical storms.

At the same time, changes in the climate

means threaten to undermine the resilience of
poorer countries and their citizens to absorb loss
and recover from disaster impacts, through, for

Redistribution

of extensive

risk in central

Peru between

1970–1985 and

1985–2006

1970–1985

LIMA

1–5

6–10
11–15
>15

City population

>500 000

CAPITAL CITY

100 000–500 000

15 000–100 000

Number of loss reports

100

Kilometres

1986–2006

LIMA

1–5

6–10
11–15
>15

Number of loss reports

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

in climate means may lead to greater water stress
and lower agricultural productivity; increases in
the frequency and intensity of hazards may lead
to greater losses; and resilience may be further
sapped by more widespread disease vectors.

Many urban areas will also experience stress

through water and energy shortages, heat and
cold waves and more prevalent disease vectors.
Climate change will further increase ﬂood
hazard, with particular implications for informal
settlements. Many cities are also at risk from
sea level rise. Currently 10% of the world’s total
population (over 600 million people) and 13%
of its urban population (over 360 million people)
live on the 2% of the world’s land area that is less
than 10 metres above sea level, known as the Low
Elevation Coastal Zone

. There are clear risks

associated with increased ﬂooding and storm
surges, exacerbated by sea level rise, in cities such
as Dhaka, Mumbai and Shanghai, large parts of
which are only 1–5 metres above sea level.

For example, it is estimated that 1.9% of the
GDP of Madagascar is annually at risk from
Category 3 cyclones compared to only 0.09%
of the GDP of Japan. If these cyclones were to
increase to Category 4 storms, 3.2% of the GDP
of Madagascar would be at risk but only 0.16% of
the GDP of Japan.

As highlighted above, 97% of the docu-

mented local-level loss reports are weather-related.
This means that a very signiﬁcant part of emerg-
ing disaster risk in developing countries is highly
sensitive to any increase in hazard intensity and
frequency due to climate change. It is likely that
climate change is already contributing to the
rapid increase in the number of weather-related
loss reports since 1980, although at present it is
not possible to calculate by how much.

Rural livelihoods, which are dependent

on agriculture and other natural resources and
vulnerable to slight variations in weather, are
particularly sensitive to climate change. Changes

Tropical cyclone

intensity and

occurrence

(1977–2006)

grouped by

sea surface

temperature

for 1985–2006

Group by

average

sea surface

temperature

(SST)

Number of

cyclones

for the

period*

Number

of years

Average

number

of events/

year

Number

events

Cat. 1

Number

events

Cat. 2

Number

events

Cat. 3

Number

events

Cat. 4

Number

events

Cat. 5

No data on SST

494

54.9

22.7

12.7

12.9

6.2

0.6

Cold SST

407

58.1

25.4

13.9

10.4

7.1

1.3

Average SST

448

56.0

18.0

13.9

14.0

9.3

1.9

Hot SST

460

57.5

20.4

11.6

16.1

8.1

1.3

*Analysis covers the period 1977–2006; sea surface temperature (SST) data were available from 1985–2006;

cyclones for the period 1977–1984 were grouped as one category (no data on SST).

Progress in addressing disaster risk

The Hyogo Framework for Action
In 2005, 168 countries adopted the Hyogo
Framework of Action (HFA), a comprehensive set
of ﬁve priorities that aim to achieve a substantial
reduction in disaster losses, in terms of lives and
social, economic and environmental assets of
communities and countries by 2015.

A recent review by 62 countries

indicates

that progress towards this objective is still mixed.
In general terms, countries are making signiﬁcant
progress in strengthening capacities, institutional
systems and legislation to address deﬁciencies
in disaster preparedness and response. Good
progress is also being made in other areas, such

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

risk reduction. Unfortunately this has not
been translated into reductions in disaster
risk in the principal development sectors. It
would appear that countries have diﬃculty
addressing underlying risk drivers such as poor
urban and local governance, vulnerable rural
livelihoods and ecosystem decline in a way that
leads to a reduction in the risk of damage and
economic loss. At the same time, the governance
arrangements for disaster risk reduction in many
countries do not facilitate the integration of risk
considerations into development. In general,
the institutional and legislative arrangements
for disaster risk reduction are weakly connected
to development sectors. Mainstreaming is
challenged by a range of factors that include
diﬃculties in compiling comprehensive
information on disaster risks, weak engagement
by the development sectors and major diﬃculties
in ensuring implementation, enforcement and
accountability.

Climate change adaptation
Many countries are also developing plans
and strategies to adapt to climate change,
for example through National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPAs). In principle,
given that increased risk from weather-related
hazards is a manifestation of climate change,
adaptation could and should reinforce disaster
risk reduction eﬀorts. The Report has not
comprehensively reviewed progress in adaptation.
However, there is evidence to show that
progress in implementation is still slow and
adaptation policy and institutional frameworks
are largely disconnected from those created to
reduce disaster risk, at both the national and
international levels. Adaptation faces similar
challenges to disaster risk reduction, in particular
a governance framework that can allow risk in
the development sectors to be addressed.

Poverty reduction
Large numbers of Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers (PRSPs) explicitly recognize the poverty
outcomes associated with disaster impacts
and some include sections on disaster risk
reduction. In principle, poverty reduction
eﬀorts in both rural and urban areas have a

as the enhancement of early warning. As a result,
some lower-income countries, such as Bangladesh
and Cuba, have already made dramatic strides
in reducing mortality risk in the face of hazards
such as tropical cyclones and ﬂoods, which are
sensitive to improvements in early warning,
preparedness and response. For example, despite
being hit by ﬁve successive hurricanes in 2008,
only 7 deaths were reported in Cuba.

In contrast, countries report little progress

in mainstreaming disaster risk reduction
considerations into social, economic, urban,
environmental and infrastructural planning and
development. Early warning and preparedness
can help to evacuate people in the case of a
cyclone. But housing, schools and infrastructure
cannot be evacuated and, if not structurally
resistant, they are damaged or destroyed.

Across all ﬁve HFA Priorities for Action,

high-income countries outperform low- and
middle-income countries. In these high-income
countries, the adoption of hazard resistant
building standards, planning and environmental
regulations as well as a web of institutions and
systems that protect citizens when disasters
occur, have enabled a substantial reduction in
vulnerability. In the case of the least-developed
countries, some lack the basic technical, human,
institutional and ﬁnancial capacities to address
even the most basic aspects of disaster risk
reduction.

Between these two poles, many middle-

and low-income countries have made major
strides towards developing national policies,
institutional systems and legislation for disaster

Hyogo

Framework:

Average progress

by income

classiﬁcation

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Priority 5

High

Medium

Low

e
v
e
l o

f
p

r
o
g

r
e
s
s

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

considerable potential to address the underlying
risk drivers if they are clearly focused. In most
countries, however, poverty reduction has only
weak functional connections to the policy
and institutional frameworks for disaster risk
reduction. Unless disaster risk considerations are
factored into poverty-reducing development, the

result may be increased risk, as the collapse of
schools in earthquakes so poignantly illustrates.
At the same time, the inclusion of disaster risk
reduction in PRSPs is often limited to disaster
preparedness and response aspects. Therefore, the
potential of PRSPs to address the underlying risk
drivers is still not fully exploited.

Conclusions

The imperative for urgent action
Current progress under the HFA and in related
areas of poverty reduction and climate change
adaptation is not leading to a reduction in
disaster risk. The Report highlights that risk is
continuing to increase, even assuming constant
hazard levels, and that any further increase will
disproportionately aﬀect poor communities in
developing countries. Climate change magniﬁes
the uneven distribution of risk, increasing both
disaster risk and poverty outcomes in these
communities. Unless this trend is reversed it will
be impossible to achieve the HFA and progress
towards the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) will be compromised.

The evidence provided in the Report

underlines the urgency of avoiding dangerous
climate change. Greater urgency in eﬀorts to
reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and
reduce energy consumption are required if a
potentially catastrophic increase in disaster risk
is to be avoided, the impacts of which will be
largely concentrated in developing countries.

Action in other policy areas is also required.

The countries with the highest relative risk and
the lowest resilience to disaster impacts are those
with small and vulnerable economies, such as
many SIDS and LLDCs. The low resilience
of these countries is associated with extreme
limitations in their ability to participate in
global trade. Eﬀorts are therefore required to
coordinate policies on trade and productive sector
development in these countries.

Unfortunately, the world is committed to

signiﬁcant climate change, even if rapid progress

is achieved towards a low-carbon economy.
Therefore, disaster prone countries will only be
able to avoid further increases in disaster impacts
and poverty outcomes by taking decisive action to
address the underlying drivers that are responsible
for the concentration and expansion of risk.
The Report highlights the need to strengthen
capacities to address three key drivers: poor
urban governance, vulnerable rural livelihoods
and ecosystem decline. Weak social protection
is a fourth driver, which, while not examined in
depth in the Report, is also important.

A failure to address these drivers will

result in dramatic increases in disaster risk and
associated poverty outcomes. In contrast, if
addressing these drivers is given priority, risk can
be reduced, human development protected and
adaptation to climate change facilitated. Rather
than a cost, this should be seen as an investment
in building a more secure, stable, sustainable
and equitable future. Given the urgency posed
by climate change, decisive action needs to be
taken now.

A policy framework for risk-reducing
development
It is possible to address the underlying drivers
of disaster risk. In all regions of the world,
documented experience in upgrading squatter
settlements, providing access to land and
infrastructure for the urban poor, strengthening
rural livelihoods, protecting ecosystems, and
using microﬁnance, microinsurance and index-
based insurance to strengthen resilience show
that it can be done. The most successful of

Risk and poverty in a changing climate

Summary and Recommendations

these experiences have emerged in the context
of innovative partnerships between national
and local governments and civil society and are
leading to a sustainable reduction in risks.

These experiences demonstrate that the

underlying risk drivers can be addressed, and
that the tools, methods and approaches necessary
to do so already exist. However, they must still
be integrated into the policy mainstream. Most
countries still lack a determined and focused
high-level development policy framework that
addresses these drivers and is supportive of such
innovative approaches. Without such central
support, ongoing eﬀorts in disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation cannot gain
traction.

The need to strengthen capacities to develop

and implement such a policy framework is
particularly urgent in those low- and middle-
income countries where hazard exposure is
growing most rapidly, where risks are concen-
trated, and where the magnifying eﬀects of
climate change will be most felt. Risk-reducing
development is essential if disaster risk reduction
is to be mainstreamed into development and if
development is to be adapted to climate change.

The adoption of such an overarching policy

framework would allow the diﬀerent plans,
programmes and projects in poverty reduction,
climate change adaptation and disaster risk
reduction – as well as in sustainable development
in general – to become better aligned in order to
address the underlying drivers of disaster risk.
These plans and programmes include PRSPs,
NAPAs, United Nations Development Assistance
Frameworks and nationally speciﬁc programming
instruments. To be relevant and successful such
a policy framework must be at the centre of the
political agenda, backed by dedicated resources in
the national budget, and should have leadership
at the highest levels of government.

If a policy framework for risk-reducing

development is to be actionable a diﬀerent culture
of implementation will be required, one that
builds on government–civil society partnerships
and cooperation. Such partnerships can
dramatically reduce the costs of risk reduction,
ensure local acceptance, and help to build social
capital, which reduces long-term vulnerability.

Effective risk reduction governance
In addition to a policy framework that prioritizes
risk-reducing development, a set of governance
arrangements is needed for disaster risk reduction,
poverty reduction and climate change adaptation
that is capable of ensuring that risk considerations
are factored into all development investments.
Improvements to risk reduction governance are
critical, in order to provide a vehicle for policy
and a systematic approach to planning, ﬁnancing
and monitoring investment in all sectors.

In particular, the existing institutional

and governance arrangements for disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation need
to be harmonized, building on existing systems
of public administration. The development of a
single governance framework for risk reduction
would seem to oﬀer opportunities for more
eﬀective policy implementation and for avoiding
duplication and lack of coordination. The
harmonization of international frameworks
and requirements for planning and reporting
would be supportive of better integration at the
country level.

The institutional and administrative

responsibility for risk reduction has to be vested
at the highest possible level in government, in
order to have the necessary political authority
and resources to inﬂuence development policy.
If risk reduction can be included explicitly in
national development plans and budgets, all parts
of government are then able to programme risk
reduction actions and investments.

Fortunately, many countries are already

putting into place innovative mechanisms that
enable this mainstreaming and harmonization
to occur. These include factoring disaster risk
reduction into national development plans
and budgets; development of new institutional
structures for hazard monitoring and risk
assessment that integrate existing scientiﬁc
and technical institutions; the inclusion of
cost–beneﬁt analysis into public investment
systems; the involvement of the national audit or
controller’s oﬃce in supporting implementation,
enforcement and accountability in all sectors
and at all levels of government; improvements
in early warning systems; and the application of
innovative mechanisms for risk transfer.

2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Disaster risk reduction is an investment
not a cost
To seriously address the underlying risk factors on
the scale necessary requires major investment. It
is diﬃcult to provide an accurate global estimate
of this cost but the calculations developed by
the Millennium Project serve to give an idea of
the magnitude. These costs can be signiﬁcantly
reduced through adopting participatory
approaches, but it is clear that several hundred
billion dollars are required. This ﬁgure is coherent
with estimates regarding the cost of climate
change adaptation. An increase in the resources
available for climate change adaptation will be
required, as well as those pledged for the MDGs.
In the context of the global economic crisis,
investments in infrastructure and employment
creation can provide opportunities to address
the underlying risk drivers, for example
through investments to improve drainage in
ﬂood prone areas.

Disaster risk reduction is usually

conceptualized as an additional cost. In fact
one of the principal arguments used to justify
a lack of progress in disaster risk reduction is
that developing countries have other priorities,
such as reducing poverty, and cannot aﬀord
the additional costs of disaster risk reduction.
The Report puts forward a contrasting view.
Investment in disaster risk reduction generally
represents a large saving in terms of avoided
losses and reconstruction costs and is thus a
way of lowering the costs of poverty reduction
and of addressing the underlying risk factors.
This means that the real cost of addressing the
underlying risk drivers is actually lower if disaster
risk reduction is included.

In conclusion, the key requirements

are to help countries strengthen governance
arrangements and improve management of
investments for addressing the underlying risk
factors, and to ensure disaster risk reduction is
incorporated into those investments. Without
strengthening these arrangements and capacities,
even large investments in development may have
little tangible eﬀect or be counter-productive. If
governance arrangements and capacities for risk
reduction can be strengthened, small investments
can produce huge beneﬁts. Investing today

to strengthen capacities is essential if future
generations are to enjoy a safer tomorrow.

Endnotes

1 The Ofﬁce for US Foreign Disaster Assistance/Centre

for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (OFDA/

CRED) International Disaster Database: http://www.

emdat.net

2 EMDAT does not register reports of small-scale

disasters below its threshold of 10 deaths, 100 people

affected or a call for international assistance.

3 Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Iran,

India (States of Orissa and Tamil Nadu), Mexico, Nepal,

Peru, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.

4 Porter, C. (2008) The Long Run Impact of Severe

Shocks in Childhood: Evidence from the Ethiopian

Famine of 1984. Oxford. University of Oxford,

Department of Economics.

5 Ravaillon, C. (2008) The Developing World Is Poorer

Than We Thought But No Less Successful in the Fight

Against Poverty. Washington DC. World Bank.

6 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations) (2006) The State of Food Insecurity in the

World. Rome. FAO.

7 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations ) (2008) FAOSTAT Database. Rome. FAO.

http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx

8 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems

and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends:

Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group.

Washington DC. Island Press.

9 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

(2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation

and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group

II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). In: Parry,

M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, P. J. v. d.

and Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Fourth Assessment Report of

the IPCC. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.

10 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

(2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Parry, M. L.,

Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, P. J. v. d. and

Hanson, C. E. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.

11 Satterthwaite, D., Huq, S., Pelling, M., Reid, H. and

Lankao, P. R. (2007) Adapting to Climate Change

in Urban Areas. The Possibilities and Constraints in

Low- and Middle-Income Nations. Human Settlements

Discussion Paper Series. Theme: Climate Change and

Cities No.1. London. IIED (International Institute for

Environment and Development).

12 The number of countries that had prepared interim HFA

progress reports by the end of February, 2009.