Abstract

Good governance is a prerequisite for efficient and effective Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM). This refers to the way in which the government and non-government entities, private sector, media, and civil society coordinate at the community, provincial/regional, and national levels to manage and reduce disaster risks. Disaster governance is highly influenced by overarching public governance systems which need to overcome poor governance and budgetary constraints. It is further aggravated by social, economic, and geographical disparities. There is a strong correlation between State-civil society relationships, economy, and target groups. The poor coordination and discourse among these have implications for disaster governance. In this way, Disaster Risk Governance comprises many actors, but as the authority holder, the State must take care of the underlying problems.

Keywords:Disaster governance; Mechanisms; Postindustrial society; Catastrophes

Introduction

Governance is defined by the UNDP as: The exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Governance encompasses, but also transcends, government. It encompasses all relevant groups, including the private sector and civil society organizations [1].

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) defines it as - The governance arrangements adopted by many countries, relying heavily on specialized emergency management organizations, are not always appropriate to address disaster risk. The governance approach based on the disaster management cycle and represented by a specialized disaster risk management sector may have reached its limit, while at the same time a new governance paradigm has yet to emerge [2].

Disaster risk governance can be defined as an emergent version of integrated risk management that is tailored or directed to enhancing coping capacity under the high complexity and uncertainty conditions of postindustrial society [3].

A multitude of collaborations, interactions or decision-making actions are carried out by a wide range of stakeholder participants (national/local governments, local communities, residents groups, business groups, and NPOs). These interactions operate through various types of multifaceted networks and organizations with which most of the stakeholders are vertically or horizontally associated. These networks and organizations do not necessarily engage in formal or institutional coordination. Rather they work mostly as informal or non-institutional interactions in both vertical and horizontal ways, while each maintains its independence and uniqueness [4].

Challenges in Disaster Governance

In the past 45 years, natural disasters have become three times as frequent, according to the data compiled by the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). In all most all countries of the world, terrible damages by disasters have overshadowed development works in the event of catastrophes. Also, terrorism, conflicts, political instability, poor governance, corruption, lack of efficient service delivery, and poverty has already exacerbated human development. As a matter of fact, poverty is not based solely on a lack of income, but also on a lack of capacities, opportunities, and good governance. Regrettably, disasters are leveling off the meager gains accumulated over the decades which have mostly affected the marginalized and poor people living in vulnerable areas. Still, in many countries particularly in developing countries, less priority and attention has been given to good governance and DRRM. The quality of governance at all phases of disasters is another big challenge for disaster governance.

Prospects in Disaster Risk Governance

Keeping in view the above situation, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030 has called on all countries to give priority to strengthening disaster risk governance to cope with disaster risks because it is very important at the national, regional, and global levels for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It is also highly necessary to foster collaboration and partnership to cover a range of DRR-related governance reforms, structural and non-structural mitigation measures, significant enhancement in preparedness and response capacities across government and international humanitarian actors for a major disaster, and enhancement of response and early warning capacities at the community level.

To attain the above goals, each country must have a national institutional mechanism to trigger and support the process of DRRM, decentralize the responsibility, involve and engage all stakeholders and coordinate the actions nationally at all levels - from the community to the national level. At the same time, the organization must have the authority as well as the capacity to integrate DRRM into the national governance and development efforts and facilitate program-level synergy and coordination. The coordination is not restricted to the government units; it has also a significant implication for non-government organizations and other concerned agencies. A total coordination center needs to be set up at the provincial level, which should be linked to the central coordination center at the upper level, and the municipal coordination point, as the lower governance structure. The one-point coordination is of utmost importance to avoid misunderstanding. On the other hand, a sector-based approach is preferred based on past experiences, such as shelter, health, education, livelihood, etc. In this way, working in close cooperation, coordination, and collaboration among the concerned stakeholders covers a range of DRRM-related governance reforms, structural and nonstructural mitigation measures, significant enhancement in preparedness and response capacities across government and international humanitarian actors for major disasters, and enhancement of response and early warning systems at the community level.

Way Forward

Profound scientific knowledge is required in risk governance, especially about dealing with complexity. This knowledge must be assessed and collected by scientists and DRRM professionals who are recognized as competent authorities in the particular area. The systematic search for the ‘‘state of the art’’ in risk assessment leads to a knowledge base that provides the data for deliberation. At the same time, the style of deliberation also should transform the scientific discourse and lead the discussion toward classifying knowledge claims, characterizing uncertainties, exploring the range of alternative explanations, and acknowledging the limits of systematic knowledge in vulnerable areas. This can be done in any country, independent of political system, or governmental structure. Stakeholder involvement and public participation have been used and successfully implemented in many developing countries and threshold countries such as China [5] (Tang et al. 2005). Stakeholder involvement has been a major requirement for effective, efficient, and fair risk governance. Since risk management includes uncertain outcomes that affect different parts of the population to different degrees it is essential to integrate the knowledge, values, and interests of stakeholders into the risk policy making process [6].

Conclusion

It is high time to realize that governance is difficult due to many actors who have different mandates and authorities. Coordination, collaboration, and good harmony among them are also hard nuts to crack. However, if we will be able to establish good governance, it leads to efficient and effective management and problem-solving in every field including disaster risk reduction and management [7-10]. This includes understanding proper laws, regulations, designated responsibilities, cooperation, and reviewing existing measures in terms of DRRM.

References

1. (2010) UN Development Program/Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery’s study.
2. UNISDR (2015) Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), pp. 128.
3. Ikeda S, Nagasaka T (2011) An Emergent Framework of Disaster Risk Governance towards Innovating Coping Capability for Reducing Disaster Risks in Local Communities. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2(2): 1-9.
4. Nagasaka T, Ikeda S (2008) Strategy and Methodology for Disaster Risk Governance. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis 173: 13-23.
5. Grimble R, Chan MK (1995) Stakeholder analysis for natural resources management in developing countries. Some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective. Natural Resources Forum 19(2): 113-124.
6. Renn O (2015) Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance.
7. Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT).
8. (2015) Nepal Disaster Report. MoHA, DPNet-Nepal.
9. Poudyal C (2001) A Practitioner’s View of Disaster Management in Nepal: Organization, System, Problems and Prospects. Risk Management: An International Journal, Perpetuity Press Ltd., Leicester, UK, 3(4): 63-72.
10. Various government websites of Nepal: www.moha.gov.np; www.neoc.gov.np; drrportal.gov.np.