R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster Evaluation 2 UN - ECLAC. Evaluation 3. Evaluation 4. TOTAL IMPACT (constant 2004 prices)

Transcription

1 Session 2: Methodology for Damage and Needs Assessments Enhancing Poverty Reduction through Disaster Risk Management: An Overview World Bank Office, Bangkok February 6-8, 26 QUANTIFICATION OF DISASTER IMPACTS 1. Damage costs and estimated losses 2. Dynamic effect on growth and other variables 3. Composition of damage (by sectors and type) 4. Some discussion points Data from ECLAC led disaster assessments Organized by the Hazard Risk Management Team (TUDUR) Evaluation 2 The importance of economic assessment of damage and needs Have a record on damage caused by past events Establish link between level of damage and magnitude or strength of a certain category of event Value losses to quantify needs for rehabilitation and reconstruction Put in evidence the benefits of mitigation and reduction Make information available to potentially affected or exposed communities (stakeholders) IMPACT OF DISASTERS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (based on ECLAC assessments) PERIOD YEARLY AVERAGE (on the basis of ECLAC assessed disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean) AFFECTED POPULATION Deaths 115,176 3,49 Directly affected population 35,463,89 1,74,663 TOTAL IMPACT (CONSTANT 24 VALUE) TOTAL 232, ,38.2 DAMAGE (to assets) 15,335. 4,555.6 LOSSES (in flows) 8, ,437.1 External impact 77,221. 2,34. Evaluation 3 Evaluation 4 DIFFERENT IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT EVENTS (as observed in ECLAC assessments, ) 25) METEOROLOGICAL (CLIMATIC) EVENTS GEOMORPHOLOGICAL (SISMIC, VOLCANIC) EVENTS Droughts TOTAL ASSESSED EVENTS Meteorological as % of total Droughts as % of total total Meteorological or climatic Non-climatic Deaths 115,176 AFFECTED POPULATION 5,424 64, %.7% Directly affected population 24,945,145 1,518,745 2,2, 35,463,89 7% 8.82% TOTAL 118, , ,259.4 Damagecomposition 1,599 TOTAL IMPACT (constant 24 prices) 51% 8.91% DAMAGE (to assets) 73,382 76,953 5,888 15, % 8.2% 64.7% 61.7% 67.9% LOSSES (in flows) 43,34 37,12 4,712 8, % 1.88% 34.6% 36.4% 32.8% External sector impact 35,6 41,621 3,141 77, % 8.82% 33.2% 29.9% 36.7% Why We Need an Assessment To define a plan for reconstruction of assets, including financial requirements, and To formulate a program for economic and social recovery, that includes Lessening the negative impact on personal/family income, livelihood and living conditions Reduce negative impact on production and overall economic growth Droughts 55.5% 44.5% 29.6% Evaluation 5 Evaluation 6 1

2 ECLAC s ology as a tool What it does How it does it What it provides Past and present experience Contribution to the future Disaster s s impact reduction Social and economical Investment in increased resilience The vision and the mission: economic assessment reduces vulnerability VISION Development is a systemic process, integrated and integrating, sustainable if comprehensive, participative and inclujsive. Basic pillars of ECLAC s vision are: Competitiviness Equity Governance Sustainability(both in the envronmental and economic sense: equilibria of macro variables coupled with growth and appropriate use of natural resources preserving inter- generational equity) Resilience (by facing and reducing vulnerability in socioeconomic, environmental and political terms, providing better response mechanisms in the face of external shocks, physical, economic, internal and external) Resilience MISSION Follow up, analyze and interpret the socioeconomic, environmental and political process in the countries in the region (improve comparative analysis and promote dialogue) Provide technical assistance in policy formulation and contribute to the debate on development paradigms Promote studies that focus on development issues and advance the MDGs Promote diaologue among the different stakeholders in the decision making process (private sector, public officials, academia, NGOs, etc.) Collaborate with other agencies and organizations in the UN family and donor community in common goals and in assistance to countries Promote cooperation and integration initiatives at the national, sub regional and regional levels Evaluation 7 Evaluation 8 ECLAC s experience over 3 years From 1973 in Central America to 24 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and 25 Indian Ocean disaster (Indonesia) What it does: provide a standardized sectoral tool, increasingly internationally accepted valuation of disaster damage (physical, in assets, capital, stock, material goods) and losses (in flows of goods and services, in income, in costs) How it does it: by sector analysis comparing the pre disaster, the non disaster expected outcome and the post-disaster scenario What it provides: a valuation that identifies the gap (delta) to be filled, sector by sector (pointing to priorities of sectors, location and social stratification of damage and losses), and a tool for reconstruction strategic planning (needs assessment beyond emergency and humanitarian assistance) Evaluation 9 The assessment (following the ology) Basic concepts Damage (Stocks) Losses (Flows) Needs. Two types, at different moments: in the emergency (humanitarian, shelter, basic needs) In the reconstruction (based on consensus with affected population on strategy, process and resources, leading to resilience) Global effects or total impact: Macroeconomic Environmental Gender Evaluation 1 What is obtained A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of the disaster (direct & indirect assessment of damages) Implication on diverse indicators of the economic and social conditions in the country or region affected. Evaluation 11 Assessment Methodology Temperature, Sea water level Climate Variability (mean and Extreme values) Thresholds and variation Effects on Assets Changes in Economic Flows Reconstruction Of Assets Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction Investment Portfolio - Changes in Macro- Economic Performance - Welfare impact Evaluation 12 2

3 Decomposition of total damage Direct damage Indirect effects Asset losses Production costs Cost increases Income reduction Public sector Private sector Reconstruction costs Effects on the economy Primary damage Secondary effects Tertiary impact Public investment Projects Private and investment resource fund raising Evaluation 13 SECTOR BY SECTOR VALUATION METHODOLOGY Social Sectors Housing Health Education, culture, sports Infrastructure Transport and communications Energy Water and sewerage Productive sectors Goods: agriculture, industry Services: commerce, tourism, etc. Global impact On the environment Gender perspective Employment and social conditions Macroeconomic assessment Evaluation 14 D D = Va Vb Where Va is the initial condition expected for a variable (sectoral, weighed) and Vb is the discounted effect of the disaster. K = Ka Kb Measures the capital (assets) lost, estimated by compiling direct damages computed sector by sector. DY = Ya Yb Measures the production/income losses The capital/income-production production ratio is generally assumed not to vary substantively as a result of the disaster Evaluation 15 Measuring the cost of impact (and mitigation or adaptation) Historical trend (without climate change) based on past performance of economy Baseline situation (ex ante) Measurement of impacts Direct and indirect Over the preexisting situation (baseline, historical trend, by sector) Carried into the national accounts as effect on value added and estimated for alternative scenarios as the gap between trend and scenario results. Scenarios reflect on the one hand impact cost and on the other mitigation / adaptation investment Cimate change (ex post) To include expected or desired investment Evaluation 16 Main Concepts Damage (Stocks) Impact on assets Infrastructure Capital Stocks Occur immediately during or after the phenomenon that caused the disaster Losses (Flows) Effects on flows Production Reduced income and increased expenses Are perceived after the phenomenon, for a time- period that can last from weeks to months, till recuperation occurs Some things are easier to measure than others IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE The value of lives lost or affected The opportunity cost, cost-benefit or investment / profitability. This is associated with the lack of adequate base lines that assess the level, quality and efficiency / efficacy of health services provided The value and quality of services provided (both curative and preventive) The duration of the transition / emergency phase (when field hospitals and evacuation processes are operational) IT IS EASIER TO DETERMINE The amount of investment required for reinforcement vs. The potential losses in equipment and inventories The cost of reinforcement as compared to the reposition cost of affected infrastructure The alternative cost of providing services when infrastructures collapse Evaluation 17 Evaluation 18 3

4 The Rock Memorial for Swamy Vivekananda (philosopher, late 19th. Century) and 4 m. high statue of Saint Thiruvalluvar Evaluation 19 Evaluation 2 Artistic heritage Evaluation 21 Evaluation 22 Religious heritage Evaluation 23 Damages to the culture and religious assets Damages Repair or reconstruction costs of sites (archaeological, religious, etc.) Furnishings and cultural assets and educational materials in museums Rehabilitation of historical and cultural heritage Destruction of historical records of cultural value Damage to artistic, artisan assets Losses Changes in culturally relevant practices and in ethnic communities Loss of indigenous clothing and its use, if associated with disasterster Rent of temporary facilities for cultural purposes Repairs to cultural centers, sometimes used as shelters for displaced population during disaster Reduced income from damaged culture and historical centres (museums, etc.) Evaluation 24 4

5 Cultural heritage and sites declared internationally as humanity assets UNESCO has declared a number of sites, cities or locations as heritage to humanity. A fund has been created to preserve them. Countries or locations so designed assume a responsibility as to their preservation. A number of sites have been declared as endangered and have priority access to resources. How are these assets and the investment required for their preservation assessed? What is the technical, social and economic cost of preserving their cultural integrity and identity? EXTRACTIVE (DIRECT) USE VALUE Economic value Labor value Income and revenue USE VALUE CULTURAL ASSET NON-EXTRACTIVE (INDIRECT) USE VALUE Aesthetic value Recreational value NON-USE VALUE Existence value Option value Bequest value Spiritual value Social value Historical value Symbolic value Authenticity value Evaluation 25 TOTAL VALUE Evaluation 26 DERIVED BENEFIT METHOD VALUATION METHODS COST BASED METHODS REVEALED PREFERENCE STATED PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION OR PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF ASSESSMENT EXERCISES Impact studies Replacement cost Restoration cost Substitute cost Preventive expenditure METHODS Hedonic pricing Travel cost Market price QUASI VALUATION METHOD Benefit transfer METHODS Contingent valuation Multi -Attribute valuation s: Contingent ranking; Paired comparison; Contingent rating; Choice experiment Referendum Composition of team: multisectoral, interdisciplinary, interinstitutional Timeliness: within the window of opportunity, not interfering with emergency actions Ensure full coverage and avoid duplication The need for judgment calls or the educated guessing of experts Difference between emergency needs and rapid assessment of need for reconstruction Evaluation 27 Evaluation 28 Item to be assessed for damage and valuation: (housing, other building, roads and bridges, canals, dams, factories, industrial sheds and warehouses, public buildings, schools, hospitals, etc.) Physical assessment (specify unit: number, sq.mt.,., km., m., kg., lts., has., tons., etc.) Unit value (replacement cost, if other used please specify:book (depreciated) value, repair cost, etc.) TOTAL ESTIMATED VALUE OF DAMAGE LEVEL OF DAMAGE (scale) ("triage") Current unit prices How is it obtained? TOTAL DESTRUCTION OR COLLAPSED STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED SEVERE DAMAGE i.e. 1% of construction cost 15% 75% Reconstruction Demolition and reconstruction Major structural and non structural repair f (Physical unit* unit value) Basic table formats for capturing information on damage and losses (as developed for the GSDMA) 4 5 TOTAL DAMAGE (compiled sector by sector) MODERATE DAMAGE LIGHT DAMAGE 3% 1% Mostly non structural repair light repair Sum of total values, of all sectors and all levels of damage or repair or replacement estimated) Evaluation 3 5

6 Function Usable Non usable ESTIMATION OF LOSSES Housing Sector Estimated time for function to be restablished Average normal production and / or earnings and costs Business loss, as average sales or production times estimated period Loss Components Months after disaster occurs Total Alternative means and costs to provide function during reconstructio n / rehabilitation Increased costs and decreased production and / or earnings Cost increase (in respect of "normal" operating costs) times estimated period Duration of reconstruction period, months A. Losses of Revenue 1. Number of houses under rental arrangements 2. Value of monthly rental, Rs 3. Losses of rental income, Rs (1 * 2) B. Higher Expenditures 4. Cost of temporary shelter facilities, Rs TOTAL LOSSES (compiled sector by sector) Sum of total values, of all sectors and all levels of damage or repair or replacement estimated) C. Other Losses 5. Cost of demolition and rubble removal, Rs 6. Cost of relocation, land, Rs 7. Cost of relocation, essential services, Rs Evaluation 31 Total losses for Subsector, Rs ( ) Evaluation 32 Loss Components Health Sector Months after disaster occurs 1 Total SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUB-SECTORSECTOR Duration of recovery period, months A. Losses of Revenue 1. Pre-disaster number of patients 2. Post-disaster number of patients 3. Lower number of patients, post disaster (1-2) 4. Average revenue per patient, Rs/patient 5. Loss of revenue, Rs (3 * 4) B. Higher Costs 6. Increased cost of medical treatment of injured during emergency stage, Rs* 7. Transportation cost of injured to available facilities, Rs 8. Increased cost of medical treatment in higher cost, private facilities, Rs 9. Increased cost of disease surveillance after disaster, Rs 1. Increased cost of disease prevention campaigns, Rs 11. Increased cost of vector control campaigns, Rs 12. Cost for long-term medical and psychological treatment, Rs 13. Total increase in costs, Rs ( ) LossComponents Duration of recovery period, months A. Losses of Revenue 1. Solid waste volume collected, pre -disaster, tonnes 2. Solid waste volume collected, post-disaster, tonnes 3. Decrease in solid waste volume collected, tonnes (1-2) 4. Solid waste collection rate, RsRs per tonne 5. Losses in Revenue, RsRs (3 * 4) B. Higher Operational Costs 6. Operational costs, pre-disaster, RsRs 7. Higher transport costs post disaster, Rs 8. Personnel overtime post disaster, Rs 9. Other increased costs post disaster, Rs 1. Operational costs, post -disaster, Rs ( ) 11. Increase in Operational Costs, RsRs (1-6) Months after disaster occurs Total C. Other Losses 14. Cost of demolition and rubble removal, Rs 15. Cost of retrofitting, Rs 16. Cost of relocation, Rs C. Other Losses 12. Cost of demolition and rubble removal, RsRs 13. Cost of retrofitting, RsRs 14. Cost of relocation, Rs Total losses, Rs ( ) Evaluation 33 Total losses for Subsector, RsRs ( ) Evaluation 34 Global dynamic effects Macroeconomic effects Repercussions are felt in the national, local or regional economy as a consequence of the disaster (natural event) It may last for several years after the disaster, depending on the characteristics of the event, its magnitude and the sectors / activities affected Are measurable as Growth rate and level of GDP Performance of the external sector (imports, exports, transfers and investment) Performance of public finances Price variations and inflation Year rate GDP GROWTH RATE ]Before disaster After disaster Evaluation 35 CUMULATIVE IMPACT of successive disasters on gross capital formation GROSS CAPITAL FORMATION * DISASTER * DISASTER POTENTIAL GROWTH PATH ACTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION * * * TIME Evaluation 36 6

7 Sinulation Stock Flow Model (based on Godley and Crips, 1983 and Godley, 1999) Figure 1 Evolution of nominal income Year 1 to Year 9 MAIN PARAMETERS Relationship between value of private assets and private expenditure Relationship of net government income to national income Import Elasticity of income Local Monetary Units Natural Disaster causes a decline in income. Its quantitative estimate is provided by the ECLAC ology on a sectorial basis. We assume here that the effect causes a decline in nominal income for two consecutive years. This is the external shck aspect. In the post disaster scenario it is assumed that the target or objective is to bring back nominal income to its pre-disaster growth path. All the variables in the model are consistent with this objective. Figure 2 as an example is the government spending required to bring the growth path of nominal income to its prevoius level. 1.. Pre-disaster Effect of disaster Post Disaster Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Evaluation 37 Evaluation 38 Figure 2 Government Spending Year 1 to Year 5 HUMAN -Health -Education 1 Local monetary units Natural disaster The initial effect is to diminish the spending capacity of the government. This is the external shock aspect of the disaster. Path of spending policies required to bring the level of nominal income to its pre-disaster level. This is the policy aspect. SOCIAL -Social networks (security and solidarity) -Family ties and extended family -Violence and security NATURAL -Clean water -Clean air -Biodiversity and ecosystem (microclimate) 2 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Evaluation 39 PHYSICAL FINANCIAL -Access to credit -Type and quality of settlement and -Land tenure and ownership housing Evaluation 4 HUMAN 1 Some real examples assessed in the past PHYSICAL 1 1 SOCIAL FINANCIAL NATURAL Past Current Mid-term Long term Evaluation 41 Evaluation 42 7

8 El Niño effects in the main economic variables of Andean countries Macroeconomic effect: decreased national growth rates GDP DECREASE IN 1998 Bolivia Colombia -1 % Ecuador -2 % -2 Perú Venezuela -3-4 PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE VS. FISCAL BUDGET IN Bolivia 1 3 Colombia % 5 Ecuador % 2 Perú 1 Venezuela EXPORT DECREASE IN 1998 Bolivia Colombia Ecuador Perú Venezuela ECUADOR ANNUAL INFLATION RATE % GDP decrease in Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Evaluation 43 Evaluation Impact of disasters on GDP growth in Honduras 8. Impact of disasters on Nicaragua s GDP MITCH DROUGHT DROUGHT MITCH Growth without Mitch or drought Growth with Mitch and drought Growth without Mitch or drought Growth with Mitch and drought Evaluation 45 Evaluation Disasters Impact on El Salvador s GDP MITCH Growth without disasters EARTHQUAKE DROUGHT STAN Growth with Mitch, earthquakes, drought and hurricane Stan Evaluation 47 Hurricane Stan in El Salvador: Breakdown of damage and losses Sector and sub sector Social Housing Education Health Productive Agriculture Industry Commerce Tourism Infrastructure Water and sanitation Electricity Transport Environment Emergency and relief TOTAL Damage, Millions US$ Losses, Millions US$ TOTAL Evaluation 48 8

9 Impact of disasters on Guatemala s GDP MITCH Growth without disasters DROUGHT Growth with Mitch and drought STAN Hurricane Stan in Guatemala: Breakdown of damage and losses Sector and sub sector Social Housing Education Health Productive Agriculture Industry Commerce Tourism Infrastructure Water and sanitation Electricity Transport Environment Emergency and relief TOTAL Damage, Millions of Quetzales , , ,2.3 Losses, Millions Quetzales , , , ,31.9 Total,1,17.1 1, , , , ,511.2 Evaluation 49 Evaluation 5 Gujarat (INDIA): Total Damage from disasters and Calamity fund budgeted resources (Crores of Rupees) 25 Impact of disasters on GDP: State of Gujarat, India Total Damage (Crores) Calamity Relief Fund (from Finance Commision, Delhi) Amount spent on calamity relief and rehabilitation buy State Govt SGDP with disasters Potential growth without disastrs Logarítmica (Potential growth without disastrs) Logarítmica (SGDP with disasters) Evaluation 51 Evaluation 52 Summary of 24 Indian Ocean tsunami, by country Breakdown of 24 Tsunami impact Country India Indonesia Damage 575 2,92 Losses 649 1,531 Total Impact 1,224 4,451 Magnitude, Impact/GDP.2 2. Infrastructure 18% Social 29% Maldives Sri Lanka Thailand 1, ,69 1,454 2, Productive 53% Total Region 5,597 4,367 9, Evaluation 53 Evaluation 54 9

10 Absolute and relative impact of 24 Indian Ocean tsunami on main affected countries 12, , 7. 8, , 4. 4, , India Indonesia Maldives Sri Lanka Thailand Total Total Impact Magnitude, Impact/GDP Region 24 Tsunami impact in India: Absolute and relative value of damage and losses by affected states 1,2. 1, % 4.5% 4.% 1,. 3.5% % Andhra Pradesh % 2.45% 94. Kerala Tamil Nadu Pondichery US$ million 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5%.% Total damage and losses as percentage of GSDP Evaluation 55 Evaluation 56 Tsunami impact: Gap between forecasted and actual GDP growth in India Indonesia Maldives Sri Lanka Thailand Pre-Disaster forecasted GDP Growth, % Post-disaster estimated GDP growth ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC 24 HURRICANE SEASON Island / State Assessed by ECLAC Bahamas Cayman Islands Dominican Republic Granada Haití Jamaica Florida (a) Cuba (b) Total (including Cuba y Florida) Economic impact Millions of US$ 6, , , 1,5 37,559 Event Ivan, Frances and Jeanne a/ Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne Ivan Tropical storm Jeanne Ivan Jeanne Ivan Jeanne, Charley and Frances Frances Evaluation 57 a) Based on information provided by insurance and reinsurance companies (Munich Re) b) Official estimates from t he Cuban government, R. Zapata may - Focal not include Point on losses Disaster Evaluation Atlantic Hurricanes: Relative and absolute impact of damage and losses by affected country / state US $ millions 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 1.5% 183.% 212.% 8.% 7.3% 1.7% 551 3, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne Hurricane Ivan Bahamas Cayman Islands Tropical Storm Jeanne Dominican Republic Economic Impact, US$ million Hurricane Ivan Hurricane Jeanne Hurricane Ivan Grenada Haiti Jamaica Impact as % of GDP 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% Damage profile in the Caribbean Hurricane 24 season Composition of damage and losses Emergency and relief Productive Sectors.4% 35.2% Environment 1.3% Infrastructure 15.6% Social Sectors 47.5% Evaluation 59 Evaluation 6 1

11 25 Atlantic Hurricane season Deaths Directly affected population Total impact (millions of USD) Damage (to assets) Losse s (in flows) Per capita impact on affected population Date Location Type of event Population Total impact (millions of USD) January October October July-September July-September August Other events a/ TOTAL TOTAL (not including United States) TOTAL (IN CLUDING UNITED STATES) Source: ECLAC estimates Nota: Data for Mexico and United States are partial and reglect preliminary estimates. In the case of Mexico the complete assessment ssment is in process by the official technical entitites. a/ Includes volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and floods in other countries and are an estimate on the basisof partial data. b/ Based on diverse sources, not official estimates. Guyana Guatemal a El Salvador United States b/ Mexico b/ Cuba b/ Emily Dennis Assessed by ECLAC Flood due to intense rainfall in December/January period in coastal floodplains in Georgetown and Albion Torrential rains, tropical storm Stan Torrential rains, tropical storm Stan, and Ilamatepec (Santa Ana) volcano eruption Dennis, Katrina, Rita Emily, Stan, Wilma, etc. 34 1, , ,134 1,69 2,9 4, , ,821 72,141 9, 2,68,571 63,3 2,5, 3,474, ,36 6,2,37 6,92, ,. 2, , ,222 5,559 25, ,. 1, ,358 3,236 68, , , ,174 Evaluation , ,81.4 4, , , , ,781.2 Reference materials: ECLAC handbook for the socioeconomic and environmental impact of disasters ( desastres ) Disasters and development (IADB/ECLAC publication, 2 Disaster assessments: 1973 to 25 ( desastres ) The 24 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean (ECLAC series ( Estudios y perspectivas) no.35 WBI and World Bank s webpages. Thanks for your attention Evaluation 62 Can the ology lead to enhancing poverty reduction through disaster risk management? SEQUENCE OF EFFECTS PHENOMENON: Characteristics (physical description, typology and context: war and insecurity, lack of governance, marginalisation and poverty) LINKAGES Hazard Risk EFFECTS: Direct (physical on economic, social and natural capital) Indirect (on Flows) Vulnerability Impact/Benefit of reconstruction (global, by sector) Reduce vulnerability by building trust and consensus Synergies for reconstruction: appropriation of risk by affected/menaced population (community, social group, sector, country) Evaluation 64 Risk management and adaptation PROCESSES (DRIVERS) VULNERABILITIES (RESPONSES) CLIMATE STRESSORS Damage and costs HAZARDS Baseline modified by variability and change VULNERABILITY Diverse, local Sector specific RISK Multi stresses More severely affected by vulnerability but aggravated by changes in hazards patterns RESILIENCE MANAGEMENT, TRANSFER AND REDUCTION MITIGATION ADAPTATION EVOLUTION COPING CAPACITY SENSITIVITY EXPOSURES Evaluation 65 Evaluation 66 11

12 Macroeconomic c equilibria IMF commitments Policy strategies RESOURCE MOBILIZATION Economic assessment DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT Risk Assessment National planning Poverty reduction The link between disasters, poverty and development Evaluation 67 Millennium Development Goals Future requirements: the road not taken Have a systematic comparable data base over time and geographically comparable Currently different organizations and agencies collect data independently at different periods and at different scales, duplicating efforts and hampering data integration. Little synergy between the data collection efforts during the emergency ergency phase either by UN system, NGOs, IFRC and government agencies, and data collected during IFI assessment missions. Lack of explicit difference between perception of needs: By donors to define humanitarian and recovery interventions By UN agencies to fund projects By IFIS to provide emergency / recovery / regular loans or to reprogramme, reorient existing loans There is an undeniable turf battle over disaster management, response and recovery and not enough concern about mitigation, effective preventgion, and adaptation (a.k.a. reinforcement and resilience) Evaluation 68 Discussion points: Gaps or perceived needs towards a standardized ology Define what is it for Determine differenced between damage /losses assessments from needs assessments See successive assessments as complementary not competitive tools Not to overwhelm governments in time of crisis with repetitive questions and assessment missions Governments give an uneven response to these initiatives and local or national capacities have not been developed in high risk countries. There is a lack of consensus as to how to fill the gap: Within the UN system, or amongst a cadre of experts The questions remains: how to apply such a ology in practicece Need to standardize criteria / definitions Reinforce pre-disaster base line data collection Train relevant national officials / institutions Post-disaster needs in a wider context: Extreme events as a driver for change The financial adaptation: the experience of re-insurers The social adaptation: the tsunami and Katrina syndromes The economic adaptation: move public goods into the market domain Evaluation 69 Evaluation 7 Finally where do we want to be: the road to be taken The Kobe conference: from the Hyogo Declaration to effective action De-tsunamize and De-Katrinize disaster management Act on conviction: risk reduction is a developmental and an economic issue Revert the myth on public goods: internalize damage and externalize benefits/profits Act as a united United Nations Cooperation and sharing vs. turf battling and individual posturing Priority to client needs over supply-driven initiatives (overcome the father knows best syndrome) Recognize diversity and dissension Advance knowledge over advance self-interest Appropriation of risk needed to promote risk reduction: Need for institutional and regulatory changes Use of market to value ( price ) risk Need for social policies for compensation and promotion (provide gender, age, ethnic sensitive instruments) See risk reduction as a business opportunity Imperfect or inactive markets require government action / intervention Evaluation 71 Evaluation 72 12

13 Advocay and popularization is necessary:an audio Soap Opera Disasters may be an incentive for creativity. Art as a training tool The Radio Novela, a success in Latin America capturing large audiences provided a medium to deliver hurricane safety information in the Caribbean. A similar cultural product was developed in Central America: En tiempo de huracanes. Develop cultural goods to change the disaster prevention and risk reduction culture ACS PAHO UN ISDR CDERA IFRC Evaluation 73 What are our collective challenges in an uncertain world? How disaster analysis and poverty reduction requires a strategic analysis on the basis of uncertainty and institutional auditing and validation? Inspired by Eamonn Kelly, Powerful Times. Rising to the challenge of our uncertain world,, Wharton School Publishing, 26 (ISBN ) Evaluation 74 A recent analytical framework from Wharton: 7 dynamic tensions and 3 scenarios Opposing / dichotomic forces The American century Patchwork powers Emergence (of new powers/drivers/forces) Clarity/Craziness Secular/Sacred Power/Vulnerability Technology acceleration/pushbac k Intangible/physical Prospective/Decline People/Planet Reference materials: ECLAC handbook for the socioeconomic and environmental impact of disasters ( desastres ) Disasters and development (IADB/ECLAC publication, 2 Disaster assessments: 1973 to 25 ( desastres ) The 24 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean (ECLAC series ( Estudios y perspectivas) no.35 WBI and World Bank s webpages. Thanks for your attention Evaluation 75 Evaluation 76 13