Safe Cities 1 Principles and components of urban disaster risk reduction Session 2 World Bank Institute Fouad Bendimerad, Ph.D., P.E

2 Evolution of disaster risk management FROM  ….  Product approach  Exclusive science/ technical approach  Risk assessment equals risk management  Risk as uni-dimensional  Risk as an agency-specific issue  Risk as a sectoral issue ….  TO  Process approach  Inclusive participatory approach  Risk assessment is part of risk management  Risk as multi-dimensional  Risk as a whole-of- government issue  Risk as a whole-of-society issue Safe Cities

3 From response management to risk management  Shifting from response management to risk management requires: An understanding of the risk faced by each community and each segment of society An understanding of the factors of vulnerability of society and the built environment A shift from reactive action to pro-active engagement Cross-organizational and cross-agency communication and coordination Communicating and planning with communities A long term view anchored on sustainability Safe Cities

4 From disaster management to disaster risk reduction  Disaster Risk Management takes place when and if: Integrated within the agenda of each function of the local government Coordinated and supported by the central government and governed by clear policies It incorporates the participation of the active agents of society  Such integrated approach achieves disaster risk reduction through Systematic implementation Sustainability Progressive action Cumulative contribution Safe Cities

5 Cross-organizational integration  Integration of disaster management within each local government function, in coordination with the central authorities and in partnership with the active agents of society. Civil Society Media Business Academia Central Authorities CBO’s NGO’s Urban Planning Building and Construction Public Works Emergency Management Social Services Financial Planning Local Government Public Safety Education & Rec. Safe Cities

6 Cross-organizational integration (cont.)  Each agency of the local government should be trusted with a disaster management obligation as part of its function. For example, Urban Planning – Integration of risk factors in urban plans; long-term risk mitigation planning; Building and Construction – Enforcement of building code; coordination with construction industry; Public Works – Enforcement of building codes; special provisions for lifeline and infrastructure protection; continuity of essential services and post-emergency access Social Services – Community outreach and capacity enhancement; victim needs; problem of the poor and under- privileged; stakeholders’ involvement Safe Cities

7 Cross-organizational integration (cont.)  Coordination of disaster management activities should be centralized within one organization (e.g., civil protection), which will perform: Overall coordination and advocacy functions; Community participation functions; Coordination with central/provincial governments; And performance evaluation.  If such a structure does not exist, it should be created.  A high-level policy coordination committee representing all agencies and other stakeholders should provide oversight and develop a policy framework geared towards mitigation. Safe Cities

8 Integrated risk management components Disaster Risk Assessment Provides the Parameters for… Development of Community Resilience Integrated Disaster Risk Management Preparedness and Awareness Mitigation and Prevention Response and Recovery Institution- Building Safe Cities

9 Integrated DRM components (cont.)  IDRM should be managed as an integrated set of functions related to four basic components: Preparedness and Awareness Raising; Mitigation and Prevention (including financial protection); Response and recovery planning; Institutional building;  The implementation of these components typically resides within multiple agencies of the local government Safe Cities

10 Mechanisms for implementation of IDRM  Two mechanisms are required: Policy-setting by high-level inter-agency coordination committee Coordination and performance evaluation by a single agency (e.g., civil protection)  The design of IDRM action plans should be based on parameters provided by Disaster Risk Assessment. Safe Cities

11 Disaster risk assessment (“DRA”)  DRA consists of the task of quantifying the potential impacts of hazard events on buildings, infrastructure, population, and institutions.  DRA also includes the interpretation of impacts on the community, institutions and organizational processes, and on the available resources. Disaster Risk Assessment (DRA) is the first undertaking and an essential step in the disaster risk management process. Safe Cities

12 DRA – consequence analysis  An inter-disciplinary team representing the key functions of the local government should perform “consequence analysis” of risk analysis results to: Interpret the impact on institutions and customers of key services; To understand capacity and resource gaps; To identify policy implications; To get familiar with risk parameters and constraints.  Consequence analysis should include preparation of a communication strategy with the central government, representatives of civil society and general public. Safe Cities

13 Disaster risk assessment (cont.)  DRA enables government and communities to understand: Potential human and material losses and their spatial and sectoral distributions Impact on critical facilities and functions Needs and gaps Disaster “demand” versus the available “supply”  DRA is also an excellent tool for: Communicating risk parameters to different stakeholders Exchanging data and information Forcing transparency Safe Cities

14 DRA techniques  Scenario (or Deterministic) Analysis: A potential event is defined to have happened today and its impact assessed for a defined spatial area.  Probabilistic Analysis: All potential impacts are integrated and the impact corresponding to a specific return period is assessed (e.g., 1-in-100 years event).  Risk Indexing/Mapping: Key indicators of risk are aggregated in order to set priorities.  Risk Matrix Analysis: Several risks are put in a matrix to obtain a visual two- dimensional display of the “ranking” of the risk for a region. Safe Cities

15 DRA – illustration (earthquake scenario) Estimate Ground Shaking/ Wind speed LATERAL BUILDING DISPLACEMENT STRONGER CONSTRUCTION WEAKER CONSTRUCTION MAJOR SHAKING MODERATE SHAKING MINOR SHAKING LATERAL BUILDING FORCE BUILDING WEIGHT NONESLIGHTMODERATEEXTENSIVE COMPLETE MODULE 3 Physical Damage Loss of Functionality SOURCE SCENARIO MAGNITUDE ATTENUATION LOCAL SITE-SOIL By Geo-Unit MODULE 2 Earthquake Scenario Definition Demographic & Economy MODULE 1 Exposure Database Results Report and Display Ground Motion Ground Failure Safe Cities

16 DRA: scenario analysis The ability to estimate future losses from scenario earthquakes enables communities to anticipate the consequences of future disasters and to develop plans and strategies for reducing risk. Disaster Response Disaster Mitigation Disaster Preparedness Assessment: Scenario Analysis Buildings & Critical Facilities Industrial Facilities Lifelines &Transportation Social Losses Disaster Recovery Risk Transfer Safe Cities

17 DRA: “worst-case” scenario Different scenarios should be “simulated” to develop a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts. Fault Rupture for assumed scenario Istanbul Max Scenario (M7.5) – Mean Damage Ratio by Sub-Province Safe Cities

18 Very High High Medium Low Very Low Low Medium High Very High Floods Forest Fires Technological Earthquakes Epidemics Draughts Severity (Loss) FrequencyFrequency Risk mapping  A risk matrix provides a visual two-dimensional display of the “ranking” of the risk for a region as a function of severity and frequency. qIt is a simple approach for setting priorities. Safe Cities

19 DRA as a communication tool It can be used for:  Educating the community about risks and vulnerabilities.  Engaging stakeholders in rational discussion about risk parameters and options for disaster risk reduction.  Developing institutional knowledge.  Empowering individuals and communities.  Creating ownership mechanisms. Safe Cities