Gamper_IDRC-Davos revised
0 likes299 views
The document discusses the importance of boosting resilience through innovative risk governance due to significant economic losses from disasters, highlighting gaps in infrastructure and regulatory reforms. It emphasizes the necessity for improved disaster risk management frameworks and the need to address governance shortcomings to enhance resilience measures. The OECD plans a comparative study to assess countries' progress in disaster risk reduction strategies and inform institutional improvements.
Gamper_IDRC-Davos revised
- 1. BOOSTING RESILIENCE THROUGH INNOVATIVE RISK GOVERNANCE OECD High Level Risk Forum Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate Catherine Gamper, IDRC Davos, August 27 2014
- 2. Resilience is… … the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. Source: OECD (2014). Boosting Resilience through Innovative Risk Governance. OECD Publishing, Paris.
- 3. Why boosting resilience matters • Past decade: USD 1.5 trillion in economic damages from man-made disasters (industrial accidents, terrorist attacks) and natural disasters (primarily storms and floods) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Economic losses due to disasters in OECD and BRIC countries, 1980-2012 (USD Billion) 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Annual economic losses in USD billion Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, www.emdat.be (accessed 14 November 2013).
- 4. Why boosting resilience matters • Driven by significant increase in intensity and complexity: o Increased concentration of populations , especially elderly, more vulnerable groups, and economic assets in risk prone areas o Accelerated urbanisation o Increased global economic integration, facilitated by transport mobility and communication o Deteriorating environmental conditions coupled with climatic changes 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Total % of population aged 65 and over 2009 2050 Source: OECD (2009), OECD Factbook 2009: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Luxembourg Korea Czech Rep. Slovak Rep. Ireland Belgium Netherlands Hungary Finland Austria Sweden Estonia Norway Slovenia Switzerland Chile Portugal Denmark Israel Germany Poland Japan France Australia Greece United Kingdom Mexico Spain Italy United States Turkey Canada New Zealand Global value chain participation index Source: Mirdoudot, S. and K. De Backer (2012), “Mapping Global Value Chains”.
- 5. Why boosting resilience matters • Some disasters caused economic losses in excess of 20% of GDP (Chile, NZ), with local economies especially affected 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% • Shocks propagate across economic sectors and geographic boundaries through interconnected economies • Considerable uncertainty challenges good policy making for resilience 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Regional GDP growth to previous year The impact of disasters on local economies Abruzzo Queensland New York 9/11 Attacks L‘Aquila Earthquake 6/4/2009 Queensland Flooding 2010/11 Source: OECD (2012), Large regions, TL2: Demographic statistics, OECD Regional Statistics (database), accessed on 14 November 2013, doi: 10.1787/data-00520-en
- 6. OECD countries have made substantial progress in achieving resilience… • Improved disaster risk management framework conditions: o General level of social and economic welfare o Facilitating institutional environment • Concrete and successful disaster risk management measures: o Increased understanding of risks o Central government leadership o Mainstreaming of disaster risk management across public policy areas o High level of risk awareness and information sharing
- 7. High income countries are still exposed to considerable economic damages Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.emdat.be - Université catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium; OECD (2013), “Gross domestic product (GDP) MetaData : GDP per capita, US$, constant prices, reference year 2005”, National Accounts OECD Statistics Database, accessed on 14 November 2013, http://stats.oecd.org/
- 8. Significant gaps are made apparent during disasters… Storm Surge, Norfolk, United Kingdom, December 2013
- 9. Revealing resilience shortcomings … … In protective infrastructure and its maintenance (e.g. dam breaks during floods in 2002/13 in Europe; great infrastructure destruction during Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011) … Lagging regulatory reforms (e.g. building codes that are not adapted to new housing design - in Italy L’Aquila 2009; rigidity in air safety regulations during volcanic eruption in Iceland 2010) … Lagging enforcement of regulations (e.g. significant increase in population around the Vesuvius despite known hazard exposure; informal construction of houses in Mexico in risk-prone areas)
- 10. Also among non-governmental stakeholders … Private sector–gaps in business continuity planning (e.g. large bankruptcy rate during Great East Japan Earthquake 2011; UK floods 2007 – average of 9 days of interruption); … Individual households do not invest sufficiently in self-protection (e.g. 84% of population affected by UK floods 2007 believe nothing they can do to protect better; only a fifth of population of Istanbul took protective action after the Marmara EQ in 1999; in Germany only 25% of HH insured against flood risk) … Low levels of international collaboration (e.g. lack of incentives to share information; lack of appreciation of benefits of joint investments; diverging capacity levels across borders)
- 11. … undermining trust in public institutions Trust in government put to particular test during disasters: o previous neglects in resilience measures have had disproportionately negative effects on trust in government o Governments and companies have to react with drastic measures to restore trust (e.g. resignation of government officials in charge) o and implement expensive spending measures, clean-up costs and compensation funds (e.g. Deepwater Horizon) Source: BP (2014), "BP ADS Share Price History", British Petroleum, http://ir2.flife.de/data/bp/hpl_us.php (accessed 8 April 2014); McDermott, M. (15 November 2012), “BP will pay biggest criminal fine in US history for Gulf oil spill”, Treehugger, www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/bp-will-pay-biggest-criminal-fine-u-s- history-gulf-oil-spill.html.
- 12. Why do resilience gaps persist? • Constrained resources • Lack of awareness (households, private sector etc.) • Limited knowledge of resilience measures among stakeholders • BUT shortcomings in risk governance may be an important and often overlooked aspect
- 13. Why do resilience gaps persist? → Risk governance mechanisms determine whether an actor participates in putting resilience measures in place; for example: o Households may decide not to self-protect in expectation of governments doing so for them o Local governments may not build protective measures as result of other jurisdictions benefiting but not contributing to the costs o Central government actors reluctant to invest in resilience – ex-ante investments not visible and levels of rewards low o Countries may not collaborate because of disincentives for data-sharing o …
- 14. How to address governance gaps? • How to identify governance shortcomings and addressing them? → Employ diagnostic framework that can identify institutional barriers and help realign incentives
- 16. How does this play out in practice ? Towards an OECD comparative study • Assess progress, achievements and existing challenges across OECD countries in designing and implementing DRR strategies to close resilience gaps • Concretely inform the improvement of institutional frameworks by analysing different country contexts • Study will be conducted by looking at: – Concrete resilience case studies adopting a bottom up approach – Core institutional frameworks – Prioritisation and financing of disaster risk prevention – The role of non-governmental actors – The role of international collaboration
- 17. For further information please contact: catherine.gamper@oecd.org