Costs? To what Extent?” · 2016. 3. 29. · OECD High Level Risk Forum Walter J. Ammann Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013 CONTACT INFORMATION Global Risk Forum GRF Davos Promenade 35

OECD High Level Risk Forum Walter J. Ammann

Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

www.grforum.org

“Risk Prevention and Mitigation – At what

Costs? To what Extent?”

Walter J. Ammann, Global Risk Forum GRF Davos


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

www.grforum.org

: “Risk Prevention and Mitigation – At what Costs?

To what Extent?”

“Risk Reduction – At what Costs? To what

Extent?”

Walter J. Ammann, Global Risk Forum GRF Davos


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISK REDUCTION ALONG THE WHOLE RISK CYCLE


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Processes

RISK – THE THREAT OR HAZARD SIDE (PROCESSES)


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Values exposed to

hazards

RISKS – THE VALUE AT RISK SIDE

Vulnerabilities


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Processes Values exposed to hazards

RISK

(Damage potential)

RISK – THE POTENTIAL INTERATCTION SIDE


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISK– A HUMAN (SOCIAL) CONSTRUCT

Natural hazards

Ressources (potential)

Hazard space Living space

Damage potential

Spatial use


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISK AND CHANCES – TWINS

Natural hazards

Ressources

(potential)

Hazard space

Living space

Damage potential

Spatial use

1st stage: Vulnerability


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISKS AND CHANCES MANAGEMENT – THE NON-

MONOZYGOTIC TWINS

Natural hazards

Ressources

(potential)

Hazard space

Living space

Damage

potential

Spatial use

2nd stage: Risk management

Residual

Risk

Chances

Creating new risks – new

interdependencies – periodic

assessment: risk controlling


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

DEFINITION OF RISK IN ENGINEERING TERMS

RISK Hazard Values at Risk Vulnerability = x x

Climate Change

will increase the

frequency and

intensity

Humans,

Animals, Assets,

Infrastructures,

Services,

Environment

All values are

vulnerable.

Vulnerability can

be reduced with

measures

Resilience


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013 1ère Partie

1999

2003

2007

Example: Dubai

DEVELOPMENT OF THE „VALUES EXPOSED“


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

What has to be done?

Measures to be taken

What can

happen?

Risk Analysis

What is

acceptable to

happen?

Risk Assessment

Hazard analysis (hazard

intensity and exposure

analysis, vulnerability,

Scenarios important

What is an accepted

safety level?

(Protection goals,

acceptable risk levels)

How safe is safe enough?

IRM – RISK CONCEPT AND KEY QUESTIONS


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

insignificant small perceptible critical catastrophic

IMPACT

Pro

bab

ilit

y

imp

rob

ab

le

ve

ry r

are

ra

re

po

ss

ible

fre

qu

en

t Technical

Other

Natural

RISK MANAGEMENT - RISK MATRIX


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013



What can

happen?

Risk Analysis

What is

acceptable to

happen?

Risk Assessment




Scenarios important

What is an accepted

safety level?

(Protection goals,



IRM – KEY QUESTIONS AND PARADIGM SHIFT


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Avoiding, eliminiating

risk situations

Risk reduction

by preventive

measures

Risk Transfer (Micro-)

Insurance

Self-Responsibility

(Residual Risk)

Tota

l ori

gin

al

risk

lev

el

Emergency

Management

mitigate, adopt, share, suffer,

RISK REDUCTION - WHAT POSSIBILITIES EXIST?


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013



What can

happen?

Risk Analysis

What is

acceptable to

happen?

Risk Assessment




Scenarios important

What is an accepted

safety level?

(Protection goals,



IRM – KEY QUESTIONS AND PARADIGM SHIFT

Hazard approach – reactive

Risk approach – proactive


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013



What can

happen?

Risk Analysis

What is

acceptable to

happen?

Risk Assessment




Scenarios important

What is an accepted

safety level?

(Protection goals,



IRM – RISK CONCEPT AND KEY QUESTIONS


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

• Individual risks

• Collective risks (whole society risks)

RISK CONCEPT – PROTECTION TARGETS


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISK CONCEPT – INDIVIDUAL RISKS

Individual risk:

Annual mortality probability: 10-5


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

• Individual risks

• Collective risks (whole society risks)

RISK CONCEPT – PROTECTION TARGETS


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Probability (p)

Events per year

Impact (I)

CHF

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010

RISK CONCEPT – COLLECTIVE RISKS

Threshold/ safety

levels no longer

applicable

Minimal

requirements,

building standards?


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

collective

risk (EUR) risk baseline

optimal function of

risk reduction measures Costs for a

measure

maximum

risk-

reduction for a

given

investment

costs for risk reduction

measures (EUR)

MARGINAL COST CONCEPT

Monetarization of risks to

make them comparable

Marginal costs (willingness

to pay per life saved)

Switzerland: 4 – 8 Mio EUR


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

collective

risk (EUR) risk baseline

cost-benefit value of the optimal measures

marginal costs criteria (1 : 1)

Kosten für

Sicherheitsmassnahmen

Cost effective/efficient

1 EUR risk reduction =

1 EUR investment costs



Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

GRF RISK PYRAMID

(DEVEOLPPED FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES)

• Sch

State of the art, norms,

standards

Risk -Approach


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Avoiding, eliminiating

risk situations

Risk reduction

by preventive

measures

Risk Transfer (Micro-)

Insurance

Self-Responsibility

(Residual Risk)

Tota

l ori

gin

al

risk

lev

el

Emergency

Management

Rehabilitation

Insurance

Technical measures

Organisational measures

Education

Training

Recovery

Prevention

Organizational measures

Emergency/ Crisis Management

Intervention

Rehabilitation

Insurance

Technical measures

Organisational measures

Education

Training

Recovery

Prevention

Organizational measures

Emergency/ Crisis Management

Intervention

«The benefits of prevention are

not tangible; they are the

disasters that did not happen» Kofi Annan, former UN SG

mitigate, adopt, share, suffer,

PREVENTION – WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO

IMPLEMENT?


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

WHERE TO ALLOCATE DRR IN INTERNATIONAL

SUPPORT

• DRR is a development issue and not humanitarian aid

• Prevention has to become part of sustainable development

and not of ex-post international humanitarian aid (only

about 5% of international budget allocation is used for

prevention).

• international aid to be re-iterated from being used as a

instrument by foreign politics to sustainable development.

– Response is highly visible in the media – prevention is

not!

– Evidence based assessment of response (and

recovery) is missing to clarify their cost/benefit

performance

– Mistaking preparedness for prevention.


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013


• IRM needs a country specific vision, a clear risk

concept and tools for risk analysis and risk

assessment, protection targets, an

implementation strategy, budgets, responsibility

allocation and coordination.

Necessity of a conceptual and methodological

framework for risk analysis, assessment and

mitigation

Paradigm shift from ex-post, reactive disaster

response and recovery to pro-active integrative

risk management


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

Swiss Re Global Partnerships | August 2012

Financing considerations

Public

sector

Individuals

Corporates

Insurers

Banks

28

WHO TAKES THE LEAD FOR DRR PREVENTION?

A JOINT MULTI-STAKEHOLDER EFFORT

Costs of catastrophes USD bn, 2011 prices

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1981 1991 2001 2011

Source: Swiss Re sigma database

Need for a multi-stakeholder approach and a culture

of trust


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

• Root causes and impact

often differ in space and

time (externalisation of

impacts and

internalisation of

benefits)

• People tend to redirect

and displace rather than

resolve risk dilemmas

THE PROBLEM OF SCALE AND SPACE

global

national

regional

local

Allocate responsibilities and

accountability


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

RISK CULTURE AND RISK GOVERNANCE

• Risk governance structures need to be tailored

according to the main goal of creating a

responsive risk culture

• IRM needs a long-term perspective (decades,

centuries - for risks with low probabilities but high

consequences), which contradicts to the (short-

term) perspective of political bodies and their

accountability

ex-ante responsibilities to stress, (not only

recognize ex-post disaster management

capabilities of politicians).


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

SUMMARY - RISK CONCEPT AND MARGINAL

COST CONCEPT

• Provide evidence that prevention pays off in

IRM with clearly defined risk reduction targets.

• Collective risk:

– Marginal cost/ willingness to pay- concept leads to

efficient allocation of resources to cover the

collective risks.

– « Affordability to pay per live saved » not only leads

to economic optimisation but is a socio-political

concern to be considered additionally.

• Individual risk:

– Individual risk addressed by probability of loss of

live.


Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013

CONTACT INFORMATION

Global Risk Forum GRF Davos

Promenade 35

CH-7270 Davos

Phone: +41 (0) 81 414 1600

Fax: +41 (0) 81 414 1610

[email protected]

www.grforum.org

FROM THOUGHTS TO ACTION!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

ATTENTION!

[email protected]

Global Risk Forum

GRF Davos

Page 1 / 12.09.2013 / OECD Expert Meeting on Risk Prevention and Mitigation

Governing Disasters: Challenges, Limitations, Lessons learnt.

An Austrian perspective.

Andreas Pichler, BMLFUW, Austria


Structure

Setting the scene about natural hazards in Austria>

>Limitations to risk-governance in Austria>Risk-governance: success factors in Austria

Financing risk prevention and mitigation incl. challenges >Final remarks and recommendations>


Avalanche Disaster 1999:

Tirol (Galtür, Valzur), Vorarlberg


Landslides Spring 1999:

Vorarlberg (Landslide Rindberg)


Rock-fall Disaster Summer 1999:

Eibelschrofen (Schwaz, Tirol)


Flood Disasters 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013


Debris flow disasters 2012

(St. Lorenzen, Styria; Virgen, Eastern Tyrol)


Setting the scene I: Natural Hazards in Austria

Austria in general exposed to floods, heavy

precipitation, thunderstorms, hail and storm; snow

avalanches in winter season; extreme events almost

every year

>

100.000 km of rivers and creeks, 9.000 lakes>

> 67 % of total area part of torrent and avalanche

catchments (about 13.000 torrent catchments and

nearly 6.000 snow avalanche paths)

Nearly half of Austria’s territory is covered by forests,

30,7 % of forests with protective function, main

problem is ageing and lacking regeneration

>

Landslides and rock-fall potential an all steep slopes

only 38% of the land area is available for settlements>

~ 60% of Austria’s territory is mountainous >

>


Setting the scene II: Risk by Natural HazardsIn global comparison: Austria is a relatively safe country concerning natural hazards (e.g. no MR Cat. 6 disaster observed in recent decades)

>

Approx. 400.000 buildings are endangered by natural hazards (incl. floods, avalanches, rockfall)>

Death risk due to natural hazards:>

Biggest natural disaster in terms of fatalities: snow avalanche season 1689, 256 people died

>

Major natural disaster: flood 2002 (2.9 billion EUR losses, 9 fatalities)>

The need of protection from natural hazards of people living in alpine regions is

constantly increasing.

Economic losses due to weather extremes in the last 20 yr ~ 9.5 billion EUR (Munich Re)

>

• Snow avalanches: 2,10 x 10-4 (~ 30 fatalities/yr)

• Lightning: 2,00 x 10-6

• Flooding: 5,00 x 10-7

~ every 3 years happens a natural disaster with losses > 200 Mio EUR (VVO – Austria)>


Governing natural disasters in AT: success factors (1)

Existing national strategy for disaster risk prevention as well as for disaster

management, with focus on limiting existing risks for human health, material

assets, economic activities and the environment to acceptable levels and to

prevent new unacceptable risks by permanent strategy adjustment in order to

maintain flexibility of all parts of society concerned with natural hazards.

>

Source: Rudolf-Miklau 2009)



Established effective organisational / institutional structures and task sharing

(prevention / contingency / emergency mgt), more than 400.000 volunteers for

disaster relief

>



Permanent investment in structural prevention facilities since centuries:

In Austria, approx. 250.000 structural prevention facilities are in place,

representing approx. more than 6 billion EUR (capital stock)

>



Technical and ecological standards on natural hazard protection and

prevention are at the state-of- the-art (or beyond) in Austria: since 2006

“standardisation” of tasks regarding Natural Hazard Management is

considered as an key element, especially

>

Standards exist for torrent, avalanche and rockfall

related tasks

• Definitions, classifications

• Construction rules, materials, life cycle

• Products (certification, type test)

• Design (hydrology, hydraulics, statically, geotechnical)

• Impacts, loads, environmental conditions (in

preparation)

• Safety concept, structural failures

• Maintenance, monitoring and operability of control

structures

��

��

��

>



Information and awareness: High coverage with hazard & risk maps,

easy accessible web-based information & support >



R&D advances and increasing practical experiences: exchange of

knowledge and good co-operation and collaboration on national and

international level

>


Governing natural disasters in AT: limitations

Magnitude of the event>

> Global warming / global changes

Limited usable settlement area cause an upward trend in losses from natural disasters, because economic and population growth in higher-risk areas is still contributing to an increase in associated economic losses (and vulnerability in general)

>

Ageing of structural protection facilities – loosing functionality

>

Low penetration of private natural hazard insurance>

Processes like flash floods, debris flows, snow avalanches etc. are usually fast moving, and difficult to predict - early warning and subsequent actions are limited

>

Limited resources (financial, human, structural)>


Financing risk prevention and mitigation

Federal government spent in excess

of EUR 200 million per year for NHM>

Federal Disaster Fund (1966):

~ ��⁄ directly used for disaster prevention

~ ��⁄ e.g. providing equipment to fire

departments, funding early-warning systems, providing partial indemnities for the costs of natural disasters

Pro: regular and constant availability of budget for natural hazard protection

quick and unbureaucratic support in case of disaster (emergency)

financial support for private damages

Con: no incentives for private insurance system

>

Other: Federal Flood Disaster Act (HWG -2002, 2005, 2012, (2013))

Solidarity Fund of the EU-Commission (2002)>


Financing risk prevention and mitigation - Challenges

Public household: “consolidation” means also balancing more multi-

stakeholder perspectives with less funds available (lacking resources) >

In Austria, approx. 250.000

structural prevention facilities

are in place representing

approx. more than 6 billion

EUR (capital stock): how best

to keep their functionality?

>

Ongoing economic downturn: as the Disaster Fund potential depends on

several taxes (income, wage, tax on capital yields etc.) there is a risk on

future limitations to this instrument

>

Key challenge: Incentives to establish partnerships (public, private) that allow

to share the financial burden/risk of natural hazard prevention (e.g. insurance,

local water boards etc.) along a broader audience

>


Final remarks and recommendations (1)

NHM is no longer a pure technical discipline, nor a concern of “only” experts -

applying risk-cycle and life-cycle based approaches.>

Beside other constraints, a modern NHM strategy has to balance:>technical�economical�ecological�social�legal�political�natural�

standards, interests,

and uncertainties

organisational / institutional�

on a not only local but

even more regional /

trans-national / global

level

NHM has to contribute to avoid increasing depopulation of remote

regions in Austria, BUT: NO PROTECTION AT ALL COSTS.>

Natural hazards are still complex and are phenomena in nature that

cannot be prevented fully, only mitigated.100% safety against natural

hazards is not feasible.

>


>

Capacity building, awareness raising, interdisciplinary

communication and co-operation are as key factors of integral

natural hazard management

>

Investing in concepts that support people in a more ownership of risks

(natural hazard proofing, insurance opportunities etc.) is a step towards

balancing public and individual demands and interests

>

Fostering community-based public education initiatives>

Strengthening the principle of cross-border solidarity demonstrated in joint

assistance and relief operations among EU Member States>


Emphasising transnational cooperation by exchanging and sharing evidence,

experiences, knowledge and methods between administration, technical

authorities and academics

>

Harmonising/developing technical standards and codes



In Austria, natural hazard management is considered as part of the

state’s responsibilities “public safety” and “public precautions for existence”

>

The government’s role in disaster risk prevention and mitigation is

mainly to provide the framework for effective and efficient

• Legislation

• Horizontal and vertical co-ordination and harmonisation in planning

and strategy of natural hazard management

• Resource mobilisation

• Support in implementation

• Encouraging the access, and sharing of information and collaboration among all sectors, disciplines and societal groups

>


Thank you for yourattention!

[email protected]

© The Treasury

Post-disaster changes to risk prevention

and mitigation in New Zealand

Dr. Lindy Fursman

Principal Advisor

New Zealand Treasury

© The Treasury

Outline of presentation

Role of NZ government in risk prevention and mitigation

Structure of disaster risk management (including risk prevention and

mitigation arrangements) in NZ

Changes post- the Canterbury

Earthquakes

• Building standards

• Resource management

• Earthquake Commission

• Red Zoned land purchases

Challenges going forward

© The Treasury

Role of NZ government in prevention and mitigation

Central government creates the

legislative framework under which

risk prevention and mitigation

activities take place

Framework predicated on

assumption that local authorities are

best placed to manage risk

Settings aim to incentivise local

authorities to identify and manage

risk appropriately

Context of very high insurance

penetration

© The Treasury

Key legislative levers

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002

(CDEM Act)

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

Building Act 2004

Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (EQC Act)

Private property Central government

assets

Local government

assets

Identify

Articulation of

responsibilities

Information on state

of land

Avoid

Regulate land use

Reduce

Building standards

Transfer

Insurance

Cost-sharing

Legislative framework: RMA and CDEM Act

Central government as service provider (GNS, Terralink, LINZ, NIWA)

Hazard mapping: local authorities identify and map

Legislative framework: RMA

Specific decisions devolved to local authorities

Legislative framework: Building Act

Central govt establishes legal minimums; local authorities implement according to specific regional

hazards

Specified cost sharing

arrangements under CDEM

Plan for the disaster response

and restoration of essential

infrastructure

Ad hoc transfers post-

disaster

Govt provision of disaster

insurance (EQC)

Private insurance: 95%+

penetration

No explicit disaster risk

management focus, but part

of broader fiscal strategy

(buffers)

Local government insurance

pool

Structure of management of disaster risk: legislation and

regulation

Legislative framework:

EQC Act

Legislative framework:

CDEM Act

© The Treasury

Responsibilities of local government

Resource management

Enforcement of building code

Enforcement of public health legislation

River management

Coordination of lifeline utility resilience

CDEM Groups:

• A consortium of local authorities in a region who

identify and understand hazards and risks

• Prepare CDEM Group plans and manage

hazards and risks in accordance with the 4Rs

(reduction, readiness, response and recovery)

Responsible for 40% of costs of restoring

essential infrastructure post-event

© The Treasury

Unintended consequences in complex systems...

• Assumption that local government has

the same incentives as central

government

• Devolved system – creates unexpected

contingent liability for central

government?

• NZ system performed well, but we

didn’t fully understand how settings

would play out

– EQC cover

– Private insurance

– Local government

• Are we designing systems to manage

liability or manage recovery? Or both?

© The Treasury

Changes post-quakes: Building standards

Earthquake prone buildings = those below

33% of Building Code

May 2011: strengthened standards for

residential properties in Canterbury (from

0.22 to 0.3)

August 2013:

• All buildings to be assessed within 5 years

• EQ prone buildings to be identified on a

public register

• 15 years from assessment for building to be

strengthened or demolished (ie 20 years

total, including assessment time)

© The Treasury

Changes post-quakes: Resource management

Resource Management Act:

• Principal statute for managing the use of natural and physical resources (including

the use of land) in New Zealand

• Combines environmental protection and planning law

Has been under review since 2008 – two phases of reform, currently in the

2nd

2 key legislative changes:

• “The management of significant risks from natural hazards” has been added to the

Purposes section of the Act - a significant ‘top down’ lever on local government

planning; and

• A specific requirement for local authorities to have regard to the risks of natural

hazards when granting consents for subdivision (the primary form of ‘land use’

consent under the RMA)

© The Treasury

Changes post-quakes: Review of Earthquake

Commission (EQC)

Research To understand and

reduce vulnerability to geological hazard

Education Encourage steps to reduce the effects

of geological disasters

Natural Disaster Insurance

Mitigate the financial impact of geological disasters

on home owners

Government goals

Minimise unacceptable social distress &

loss

Minimise fiscal risk

Efficiently manage disaster risk &

recovery

Support economic growth opportunities

Review

Coverage and caps – how much cover,

and at what layer of loss?

Pricing – should EQC risk-price for

cover?

Role – should EQC handle claims and

play a role in recovery efforts? If not,

who will?

Institutional arrangements – how much

Ministerial control?

© The Treasury

Changes post-quakes: Red Zone purchases

7860 properties that had suffered major

liquefaction and lateral spread

Homeowners offered two options:

• Option One – Purchase land and buildings at

current property tax valuation. Government

settles insurance claims

• Option Two – Purchase of land and buildings

at land only property tax valuation.

Homeowner settles insurance claims

Rationale?

Remediation of land possible – but with

timelines 5 -7 years.

• Social and safety issues for government

• Certainty sooner to insured home owners

• De-risking Canterbury for insurance markets

© The Treasury

Some challenges for Government

Most recent disaster is the one we focus on

Political economy vs cost benefit analysis

Capability

Unintended consequences of system

components

© The Treasury

Future work...

• Review of overall risk framework

• Calculating the Crown’s contingent liability

• Review of disaster recovery arrangements

• Focus on system level risk through the lens of

Living Standards

© The Treasury

Post-disaster changes to risk prevention

and mitigation in New Zealand

Dr. Lindy Fursman

Principal Advisor

New Zealand Treasury

JICA’s Cooperation for DRR&

Linking DRR to Sustainable Development by DR2AD Model

Sep 2013

TAKEYA KimioVisiting Senior Advisor of Japan International Cooperation Agency

[email protected]

Why Japan can dedicates on DRR

•Japan is the most natural hazardous country in the world.

•In the same time, one of the most technology oriented developed country.

•How Japan coexists with Disaster & Development

1

How Japan conquered disaster

2

Disaster

DisasterDisaster

Time

Development

Development were Obstructed by

Disasters,

Normal Development

Recovery & Development

At least, Build-back-better

Up to 15th Century, Tone River crossed the Kanto Plain from north to south and flew into Tokyo Bay

From 1594 to 1654, Tone River was connected to Pacific Ocean by eastward channel

・After the flood in 1910, flood control measures in upper and middle reaches has changed from “flood control allowing inundation” to “sequential levees confinement”

・After this change, the maximum discharge in the Tone River Channel has increased, which became the main challenge of flood control in Tone River Basin

Tone River

Kinu River

Watarase River

Kokai River

Tone River

Kinu RiverWatarase River

Kokai River

History of flood control in Tone River basin (400years ago)

Source: Water and Disaster Management Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan

Source: Water Disaster Statistics, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure Transport and Tourism

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

01962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Area inundated (ha)

Number of fatalities and inundation area have dramatically been reduced in Japandue to continuous investment in and efforts for flood mitigation.

Reduction of flood damages in Japan by continuous investment

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

01946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Number of fatalities by flood

5

•Population of damaged area of 3 prefectures,1km from coast is 460,000, 3km 1.0million, 5km 1.5million

•Total causalities were around ≒16,000

•460,000 residents lived in the tsunami affected area so that evacuation ratio can be estimated more than 96 %

•This high evacuation ratio achieved by legend transmission, by Tsunami Early Warning System and by evacuation drill effort

•65% of casualties were aged people, over 65 y.o.

Tsunami Evacuation Situation in general

96%> evacuated !!

For the CBDRM project, this is successful case

6

Successful Evacuation by Students in Kamaishi City

(Source: Research Center for Disaster Prevention in the Extended Tokyo Metropolitan Area, Gunma University)

More than 3,000 students decided to evacuate further to higher ground based on their own decision, as educated.

7

More than 97% evacuated successfully,but local economy was completely destroyed.

Can we say this “resilient”?We need more investment

to prevent disaster

8

JICA’s Support meet to the Priority Action

• The projects related to priority action 4 are increasing rapidly compared to others.

• It entails the best mix of structural and non-structural measures.

0 0 0 0 0 2 292 2 4 6 12

25 32

280

4

96

1525 34

81

4743

68

116

159

206

259

5 1323

4254

30

50

100

150

200

250

300

～1980 1981～1985 1985～1990 1991～1995 1996～2000 2001～2005 2006～2008

Priority 1_Ensure priority of disaster risk reduction

Priority 2_Knowing disaster risk and act

Priority 3_Improve knowledge of disaster risk reduction

Priority 4_Reduce risks

Priority 5_Prepare in advance and be ready to act for emergency

Priority 4

Priority 2

Priority 5

Priority 3

Priority 1

9

Levee

Combination of Structural Measuresand Non-Structural Measures

Investment

Effectiveness

Investment and Effectiveness

Levee

Barrage

Reservoir System

TargetSafety Level

10

Levee


Investment

Effectiveness

Levee

Barrage

Reservoir System

TargetSafety Level

Climate Variability?Climate Change?

How to prepare excess flood?or Project is not completed yet

1111

Target

Safety Level

Investment

Effectiveness

Levee

Levee

Barrage

Reservoir System

Structural Measures(Basic Infrastructures)

Non-Structural Measures

Mitigation Adaptation

Control, Protection

Goal

Safe and/or Resilient


How to invest today?Principle for

low regret investment

How about the magnitude of big earthquake

•C:¥DATA¥DATA¥日本の知見¥耐震実験¥www.bosai.go.jp¥hyogo¥movie.html

12

How about the magnitude of big earthquake?E/Q happens with long return period

Lesson learned of E/Q transferred to next generation?

If no, you can learn from examples

• C:¥DATA¥DATA¥日本の知見¥耐震実験¥www.bosai.go.jp¥hyogo¥movie.html

13

What is the barrier for mainstreaming the DRR

14

Disaster

DisasterDisaster

Time

Development

Obstructed byDisasters,

far away fromMDGs

Normal Development

Recovery & Developmentbut DRR investment is

much cheaper than recovery

At least,“build-back-better”

How to convince & mainstream DRR?

Need to show the evidenceto “political leaders”

15

Post MDG/HFA, 2015

Sustainable Development Goals

Post-2015 Development

Agenda

HFA2

2015

Rio+20(June 2012)

SDGsOpen Working Group

HLP Report(May 2013)

SG Report(Sep

2013)

GA discussion(Sep 2013 -)

GPDRR(May 2013)

Prep-Com

Sustainable Development Goals

Post-2015 Developmen

t Agenda

ＨＦＡ２

DR2AD Model

•Economical Model which can measure

– GDP change

– income differential and Gini coefficient change in Lorenz curve

•With & Without DRR investment

•Philosophy from Japanese experiences “DRR investment Account for Development

18

JICA developed Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model to show the effectiveness of DRR investment

2013 Global Assessment Report P-87

19

GD

P

By disasters, increasing poverty and continued to be stuck in an increase in poverty, widening inequality, from the trap of poverty

Enlarged view

without disaster Effect of DRR investment

By the conventional benefit evaluation method, benefit of DRR investment is evaluated with collective amount of the society. (GRP and/or GDP)

Indicators to evaluate the entire

benefit (A)Disaster Event

With DRR Investment（with disaster）

Sustainable development

Without DRR Investment（with disaster）

Time

Stop of economic activity by direct damage⇒ Expansion of poverty

Stagnation of economic activity and the recovery delay due to lack of funds→ continuation of poverty trap

Differences with/without DRR investmentto GDP

Differences with/without DRR investment to Lorenz curve

21

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1

0

45度線

Extreme Poor

Most Rich

Poor

Near Poor

Better Off

Incom

e C

um

ula

tive

Rela

tive F

req

uen

cy

Household No Cumulative Relative Frequency

Pakistan case for 2042 GDP will 25% down without DRR investment

22

Without Disaster

With DisasterWith DRR invest

Pakistan case for 2042 :Gini Coefficient proportion with or without DRR

23

Deliver as a Computer Softwarein order everyone can use

24

MDG Targets & Indicators exemplified by DR2AD

25

Targets Indicators Exemplified by DR2AD Model

Target 1.A

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day

1A1 Population below $1/day, %

◎It is possible to calculate the expense of each person except the number ofpeople per household, it is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancyin the “First Edition”.

1A6 Poverty gap ratio at $1/day, %

◎It is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition”by using the rate of poverty or the Gini coefficient.

1A7 Poorest quintile's share in national income or consumption, %

◎It is possible to calculate the expense of each person by income level it ispossible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition”.

Target 1.B

Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

1B1 Growth rate of GDP per worker, %

◎It is possible to calculate the growth rate of GDP, it is possible to calculatethe indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition”.

1B2 Employment-to population ratio, %

○

It is possible to estimate the growth of the population, it is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition” if it is feasible to set up the distribution of employees in the lowest level of income according to the age and the population.

1B5 Proportion of workers living below $1/day, %

○

It is possible to calculate the amount of the expense of each person, it is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition” if it is feasible to set up the distribution of employees living below a dollar a day in the lowest income level.

1B6 Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment

△If the model of the industrial structure is classified in detail, it can be feasible to calculate the indicator of expectancy by improving the model.

Target 1.C

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

1C3,4 Population undernourished,

○It is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition” if the consumption rate of calories is converted to the rate of expense.

Target 2.A

Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling

2A1 Total net enrolment rate in primary education

◎It is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition” because the model is capable of taking account of human capital.

2A10 Literacy rate between 15 and 24 years old, %

○

Although it is hard to correlate the level of age with the , it is possible to calculate the indicator of expectancy in the “First Edition” if it is feasible to set up the distribution of the literacy level according to the social level.

Policy Brochure & Background White Paper

26

27

Proposing tools for Post MDG/HFA

Convince Policy Makerby DR2AD Model

Disaster Risk Assessment to all projects

for Lesson learned from recent mega disastersThree Principles approach for

Low Regret Investment

Future of DR2AD Model

28

JICA developed Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model, how DRR Investment Account for Development as for version 1.0

JICA wants to brush up DR2AD Model together with other agencies, using actual case study data

Collect dataset together and develop version 2.0 or more emphasized version like Static version Simplified capacity building educational version More emphasized to poorest layers

as a DR2AD Family Series

Start discussing UNISDR to apply DR2AD Model for 20 countries

Documents

Costs? To what Extent?” · 2016. 3. 29. · OECD High Level Risk Forum Walter J. Ammann Paris, 12 – 13 Sept. 2013 CONTACT INFORMATION Global Risk Forum GRF Davos Promenade 35