Abstract
Definitions of the concept of enabling environment are numerous, and range from all-encompassing to narrow ones. This chapter intends to highlight the current understandings of how an enabling environment works with and through Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and to pinpoint its components. To this aim, a deductive approach seems to be the most appropriate: the focus on the general concept will be followed by the analysis of specific applications to the DRR case. An enabling environment for DRR entails the action and participation of different actors. A brief review of the existing literature on the topic helps identify the actors most involved in its implementation and define their specific role in the enabling environment formation process. DRR activities serve both to build resilience to hazards and to ensure that development efforts do not increase vulnerability to those hazards. The achievement of such objectives is also linked to a legal follow-up at the international and national level. This chapter intends to identify the international legal basis of the concept and questions whether establishing an enabling environment for DRR is an international obligation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Chap. 1 by de Guttry in this volume.
- 2.
- 3.
Brinkerhoff 2007, 84.
- 4.
UNDP defines capacity as ‘the ability of individuals, institutions, and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner. Capacity development is the “how” of making development work better and is, in essence, about making institutions better able to deliver and promote human development,’ UNDP 2010a, 2. The UNDP includes in its definition the notion that ‘capacity development processes must improve the ability to assess and react to future needs and thus maintain relevance and effectiveness over time.’ Horton et al. 2003, 31.
- 5.
OECD—Development Assistant Committee 2000, 119.
- 6.
Ribot 2002, 3.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
UNDP (Commission on the Private Sector and Development) 2004, 47–48.
- 10.
OECD 2009, 18.
- 11.
Noya and Clarence 2007, 10.
- 12.
UNISDR 2004, 13.
- 13.
Britton 2006, 365.
- 14.
The ‘underlying risk drivers’ are major factors which drive disaster risk and contribute to catastrophe risk, especially in impoverished communities. See UNISDR 2009a, 87 ff.
- 15.
Ibid., 9.
- 16.
Point no. 4 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk, see ibid. 176.
- 17.
ILO/AfDB 2007, 57.
- 18.
UNDP 2010b, 3.
- 19.
Such measure is inferred from the 2009 Global Assessment Report on DRR which outlines different recommendations for action as to DRR and sums them up in the 20-point plan to reduce risk. In particular, see Point no. 5 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk, UNISDR 2009a, 177.
- 20.
Brinkerhoff 2007, 87.
- 21.
WHO-Europe 2010, 5.
- 22.
Ibid. 83.
- 23.
The term resilience refers to ‘the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions’. UNISDR 2009b, 24.
- 24.
Point no. 6 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk. See supra, op. cit. n.19.
- 25.
Brinkerhoff 2007, 87.
- 26.
White 1999, 73.
- 27.
Point no. 9 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk. See supra, op. cit. n.19.
- 28.
‘Mainstreaming of DRR is a governance process enabling the systematic integration of DRR concerns into all relevant development spheres. In other words, responsive, accountable, transparent and efficient governance structures underwrite the environment where DRR can be institutionalized as an underlying principle of sustainable development’. UNDP 2010b, 1.
- 29.
National Platforms are national mechanisms for co-ordination and policy guidance on DRR that are multi sectoral and inter-disciplinary in nature, with public, private, and civil society participation involving all concerned entities within a country. UNISDR 2009b, 20.
- 30.
Point no. 15 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk. See supra, op. cit. n.19.
- 31.
Misuraca 2007, 55 et seq.
- 32.
UNISDR 2011, 177.
- 33.
Point no. 10 of the 20-point plan to reduce risk. See supra, op. cit. n. 19.
- 34.
Hope defines good governance as ‘the existence—within States—of political accountability, bureaucratic transparency, the exercise of legitimate power, […], sound fiscal management and public financial accountability, respect for the rule of law […]’. Hope 2009, 81.
- 35.
UNISDR 2008, 5.
- 36.
See supra Sect. 9.2.1.
- 37.
United Nations International Law Commission, “Protection of persons in the event of disasters”, Memorandum by the Secretariat, UN doc. A/CN.4/590 (2007), para 33.
- 38.
Pronto 2008–2009, 453.
- 39.
The International Law Commission’s memorandum on ‘the Protection of persons in the event of disasters’ has identified a number of legal instruments on disaster response and disaster management wherein prevention and mitigation feature prominently or which include risk reduction and mitigation activities as components. See United Nations International Law Commission, ‘Protection of persons in the event of disasters’ […], op. cit., para 34.
- 40.
1992 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.
- 41.
Ibid. Article 3 (4).
- 42.
Ibid. Article 6 (1). Other provisions contribute to lay out some of the founding components of an enabling environment such as the adoption of legislative and regulatory measures, the decision making (Article 7), the emergency preparedness (Article 8), the information to and participation of the public (Article 9), response measures in the event of an industrial accident (Article 11), and the exchange of technology (Article 16).
- 43.
Ibid. Annex IV.
- 44.
This was the position hold by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project. The case arose out of the signature, on 16 September 1977, by the Hungarian People’s Republic and the Czechoslovak People’s Republic, of a treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks. The ICJ found that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon, in 1989, its part of the works in the dam project, as laid down in the aforesaid Treaty; it also found that Czechoslovakia was entitled to start, in November 1991, preparation of an alternative provisional solution (called ‘Variant C’), but not to put that solution into operation in October 1992 as a unilateral measure. As to the future conduct of the Parties, the ICJ, inter alia, underlined that two provisions of the aforesaid Treaty—Articles 15 and 19—not only allowed, but even prescribed ‘to evaluate the environmental risks’. Indeed, both provisions provided for the obligation ‘to maintain the quality of the water of the Danube and to protect nature.’ ICJ, Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, 25 September 1997, para 140. See also Chap. 8 by Nicoletti in this volume.
- 45.
1998 Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations.
- 46.
Ibid. Article 3 (1).
- 47.
Ibid. Article 1 (7).
- 48.
Wallström 2009, 154.
- 49.
Ibid. 155.
- 50.
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- 51.
UNFCCC, Article 4 (1), a–j.
- 52.
Commission (EC), ‘Reinforcing the Union’s Disaster Response Capacity’ (Communication) COM (2008) 130 final, 5 March 2008. For a legal perspective on the EU’s disaster response capacity, see Chap. 5 by Gestri in this volume.
- 53.
Commission (EC), ‘A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters’ (Communication) COM (2009) 82 final, 23 February 2009; Commission (EC), ‘EU Strategy for supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in developing countries’ (Communication) COM (2009) 84 final, 23 February 2009.
- 54.
Press Release, Stavros Dimas - Former European commissioner for environment, ReliefWeb ‘Commission focuses on disaster prevention and reduction of risks at home and abroad’, 23 February 2009 http://reliefweb.int/node/298691. Accessed 12 February 2012.
- 55.
Ibid.
- 56.
Commission (EC), ‘A Community approach…’, op. cit. n. 53, 4–6.
- 57.
Ibid. 4.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
Ibid.
- 60.
Commission (EC), ‘EU strategy for supporting…’, op. cit. n. 53, 2–5.
- 61.
Ibid. 6.
- 62.
ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response of 26 July 2005, ASEAN Documents Series 2005.
- 63.
- 64.
ASEAN Agreement, Article 3 (4).
- 65.
Ibid. Article 3, (5–6).
- 66.
Ibid. Article 6 (2) a.
- 67.
The National Focal Point is an entity designated and authorized by each Party to receive and transmit information pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. See ibid. Article 1 (8).
- 68.
Ibid. Article 22 (1).
- 69.
2001 Protocol of Intentions between the Government of the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines Concerning Co-operation and Disaster Prevention and Management.
- 70.
Ibid. Article 1(2).
- 71.
1992 Convention between Italy and France in the Area of the Prediction and Prevention of Major Risks and on Mutual Assistance in the Event of Natural or Man-Made Disasters.
- 72.
Ibid. Article 2.
- 73.
1988 Argentina-Spain Agreement on Cooperation on Disaster Preparedness and Prevention, and Mutual Assistance in the Event of Disasters.
- 74.
Ibid. Article IV.
- 75.
Shaw 2003, 111.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
168 UN member States, 78 observer organizations and 161 NGOs participated in the WCDR. See UNISDR (2005a), 96.
- 78.
UNGA Res. "International Strategy for Disaster Reduction", UN doc. A/RES/60/195 (2006), para 2.
- 79.
UNISDR 2005b, para 13 (b), 4. The Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World adopted in 1994, whose gaps have been addressed in the HFA, called for the UN member States, through their respective legislative bodies, to improve their preparedness postures in the face of natural disasters. It also recognized that ‘[…] in the context of increasing global interdependence, concerted international cooperation and an enabling international environment are vital for the success of these national efforts’. See Yokohama Strategy for a safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation Containing the Principles, the Strategy and the Plan of Action, Yokohama, Japan, 23–27 May 1994.
- 80.
UNISDR 2005b, para 16.
- 81.
UNISDR 2007, 7 et seq.
- 82.
UNISDR 2005c, para 4.
- 83.
UNISDR 2005a, 97.
- 84.
- 85.
See supra Sect. 9.3.1.
- 86.
Ibid.
- 87.
UNGA, Res. "International Strategy for Disaster Reduction", UN doc. A/RES/62/192 (2007), para 15.
- 88.
As the primary gathering for the world’s disaster risk community, the Global Platform brings together governments, UN, international regional organizations and institutions, NGOs, scientific/academic institutions and the private sector. See PreventionWeb, ‘Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction,’ http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/GP/. Accessed 12 February 2012.
- 89.
Romania is rated as a ‘medium risk’ country in the Natural Disasters Risk Index (hereafter, NDRI). The NDRI, compiled by the global risk advisory firm, Maplecroft, was developed to enable businesses and insurance companies to identify risk to international assets. Such an index is calculated by measuring the human impact of natural disasters, in terms of deaths per annum and per million of population, plus the frequency of events over the last 30 years. See PreventionWeb, 'Natural Disasters Risk Index 2010',
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/maps/v.php?id=14169. Accessed 12 April 2011.
- 90.
PreventionWeb 2007, Contributions and Statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session.
- 91.
Australia is rated as a ‘medium risk’ country in the NDRI. See supra n. 89. In 2010, eight natural disasters were reported in the country, see PreventionWeb ‘2010 Disasters in number’ released by UNISDR, USAID, and CRED http://www.preventionweb.net/files/17615_confpress2010.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2012.
- 92.
PreventionWeb 2007, Contributions and Statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session.
- 93.
PreventionWeb 2009, Country Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Second Session.
- 94.
Ibid.
- 95.
PreventionWeb 2011, Official Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Third Session.
- 96.
PreventionWeb 2007, Contributions and Statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session. Pakistan is rated as "extreme risk" in the NDRI, see supra n. 89. In 2010, seven natural disasters were reported in the country, see supra n. 91.
- 97.
- 98.
PreventionWeb 2011, Official Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Third Session.
- 99.
India is rated as an ‘extreme risk’ country in the NDRI, see supra n. 89. In 2010, 16 natural disasters were reported in the country, see supra n. 91.
- 100.
PreventionWeb 2007, Contributions and Statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session.
- 101.
Ibid.
- 102.
China is rated as ‘extreme risk’ country in the Natural Disasters Risk Index, see supra n. 89. In 2010, 22 natural disasters were reported in the country, see supra n. 91. On the protection of persons in the event of disasters in China, see Chap. 15 by Creta in this volume.
- 103.
PreventionWeb 2009, Country Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Second Session.
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Mozambique is rated as an ‘extreme risk’ country in the NDRI, see supra n. 89.
- 106.
PreventionWeb 2007, Contributions and Statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session.
- 107.
PreventionWeb 2009, Country Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Second Session.
- 108.
Ibid.
- 109.
In 2010, 12 natural disasters were reported in the country, see supra n. 91.
- 110.
PreventionWeb 2009, Country Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Second Session.
- 111.
A National Disaster Recovery Framework has been developed along with the recommendation for national climate change adaptation strategies which prioritize the most vulnerable and apply the best-available science. See PreventionWeb 2011, Official Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Third Session. On the US’ Legal Framework Governing Disaster Response, see Chap. 12 by Mancini in this volume.
- 112.
See Chap. 8 by Nicoletti in this volume.
- 113.
ILO 2008, 17.
- 114.
Brinkerhoff 2007, 86.
- 115.
Ibid.
- 116.
Van Dijk and Savenije 2009, 89.
- 117.
UNISDR 2008, 4.
- 118.
Ibid.
- 119.
See supra Sect. 9.3.1.
- 120.
On the programmatic and incremental approach to climate change, see Bodansky 1993.
- 121.
The number of UN member States participating in the Global Platform amounted to 168 at the 3rd session in 2011(121 States participated in the 1st session in 2007 and 140 in the 2nd session).
- 122.
Schachter 1991, 268.
- 123.
Ibid. 267.
- 124.
Ibid. 268.
- 125.
The HFA—Monitor is an online tool which assists the countries to monitor and review their progress and challenges in the implementation of disaster risk reduction and recovery actions undertaken at the national level, in accordance with the HFA's priorities. See PreventionWeb, HFA Monitor 2009–2011, http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring/hfa-monitor/. Accessed 4 February 2012.
- 126.
See supra footnote 29.
- 127.
See supra Sect. 9.3.2.1.
References
Bodansky D (1993) The United Nations framework convention on climate change: a commentary. Yale J Int L 18:451–558
Brinkerhoff DW (2007) The enabling environment for achieving the millennium development goals: government actions to support NGOs. In: Brinkerhoff J et al (eds) NGOs and the millennium development goals: citizen action to reduce poverty, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp 83–101
Britton N R (2006) National planning and response: national systems. In: Rodrìguez H et al (eds) Handbook of disaster research, Springer, New York, pp 347–367
Davis L, North D (1971) Institutional change and American economic growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fulgence K, Mori N (2009) Social entrepreneurship in Tanzania: assessment of enabling environment, 2nd EMES conferences—selected papers series. Available at http://www.emes.net. Accessed 4 Feb 2012
Hope KR (2009) Capacity development for good governance in developing societies: lessons from the field. Dev Pract 19:79–86
Horton D et al (2003) Evaluating capacity development: experiences from research and development organizations around the world, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Netherlands; International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada, ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, The Netherlands
ILO (2007) Conclusions concerning the promotion of sustainable enterprises (International Labour Conference), Geneva
ILO (2008) Freedom of Association in Practice: lessons learned, global report under the follow-up to the ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. ILO, Geneva
ILO/AfDB (2007) Assessing the enabling environment for women in growth enterprises: an AfDB/ILO integrated framework assessment guide, ILO, Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_116163/lang–en/index.htm
Misuraca GC (2007) E-Governance in Africa from theory to action—a handbook on ICTs for local governance, Africa World Press, Inc., International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-113398-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Mortensen JB et al (2003) Foreign aid and private sector development. In: Tarp F (ed) Foreign aid and development: lessons learned and direction for the future, Routledge, London, pp 242–257
Noya A, Clarence E (2007) The social economy: building inclusive economies, OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,3746,en_2649_34417_40127998_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD—Development Assistant Committee (2000) Donor support for institutional capacity development in environment: lessons learned, OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/
OECD (2009) Private sector participation in water infrastructure. Checklist for public action, (e-book), OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3343,en_2649_34893_42362271_1_1_1_1,00.html
Pelling M (2007) Learning from others: scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters 31:373–385
PreventionWeb (2007) Contributions and statements, Global Platform for DRR, First Session, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2007/first-session/gp_1st_statements.html#delegations_w, 5–7 June 2007
PreventionWeb (2009) Country Statements, Global Platform for DRR, Second Session, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/programme/statements/, 16–19 June 2009
PreventionWeb (2010) 2010 Disasters in number’ released by UNISDR, USAID, and CRED. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/17615_confpress2010.pdf
PreventionWeb (2011) Official statements, Global Platform for DRR, Third Session, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2011/programme/statements/, 8–13 May 2011
PreventionWeb ‘Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction’ (2012) http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/GP/
PreventionWeb, ‘Natural Disasters Risk Index 2010’, http://preventionweb.net/go/14169
Pronto A (2008–2009) Consideration of the protection of persons in the event of disasters by the International Law Commission. ILSA J Int Comp Law 15 :449–457
ProVention (2009) ProVention forum 2009—risk and governance: bridging national enabling environments and local action. ProVention Consortium, Geneva
Ribot JC (2002) African decentralization: local actors, powers and accountability, UNRISD/International Development Research Centre Paper no.8. http://www.unrisd.org
Schachter O (1991) Non-conventional concerted acts. In Bedjaoui M (ed) International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO, Parigi; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pp 266–269
Shaw MN (2003) International law, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tripp R (2003) Strengthening the enabling environment for agricultural technology development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper no 212. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1777.pdf
UNDP (2010a) Capacity development. Measuring capacity. UNDP, New York. http://www.beta.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building.html
UNDP (2010b) Disaster risk reduction, governance and mainstreaming. UNDP, New York. http://www.undp.org/cpr/documents/disaster/4Disaster%20Risk%20Reduction%20-%20Governance.pdf
UNISDR (2004) Living with risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives, vol 1. UNISDR, New York and Geneva
UNISDR (2005a) World conference on disaster reduction 18–22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. In: Proceedings of the conference ‘Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters’. http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/thematic-sessions/WCDR-proceedings-of-the-Conference.pdf
UNISDR (2005b) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of Nations and communities to disasters, extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18–22 Jan 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
UNISDR (2005c) Hyogo declaration, extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18–22 Jan 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-declaration-english.pdf
UNISDR (2007) Words into action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo framework, UNISDR, Geneva. http://www.unisdr.org/files/594_10382.pdf
UNISDR (2008) Disaster preparedness for effective response. Guidance and indicator package for implementing priority five of the Hyogo framework, Geneva and New York, UNISDR
UNISDR (2009a) Risk and poverty in a changing climate. 2009 Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction, United Nations, Geneva. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=1130&pid:34&pih:2
UNISDR (2009b) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. UNISDR, Geneva
UNISDR (2011) Revealing risk, redefining development. Global assessment report on DRR 2011, United Nations, Geneva
Van Dijk K, Savenije H (2009) Towards national financing strategies for sustainable forest management in Latin America: overview of the present situation and the experience in selected countries. FAO, Rome
Wallström M (2009) Disaster risk and its reduction: who is responsible? Fletcher Forum World Aff J 33(2):153–158
White S (1999) Create an enabling environment for micro and small enterprise (MSE) development in Thailand, ILO/UNDP working paper 3. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/library/pub10.htm
WHO-Europe (2010) Progress and challenges on water health: the role of the protocol on water health, WHO-Europe, Copenhagen. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/100940/Parma_water_BD3.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
La Vaccara, A. (2012). An Enabling Environment for Disaster Risk Reduction. In: de Guttry, A., Gestri, M., Venturini, G. (eds) International Disaster Response Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-882-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-882-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-881-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-882-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
