Applying Disaster Risk Governance in Dynamic Environments

Abstract

Between 1980 and 2015, around 1.6 billion people were killed in meteorological, geophysical, hydrological or climatological disasters. Future annual losses are estimated to reach US4 billion in the built environment alone. The number of relevant natural loss events worldwide has more than doubled in the last 30 years, causing loss of lives, damage to infrastructure, and a negative impact on the economy. Governmental and non-governmental institutions have started to invest in disaster risk reduction, some of them in line with international frameworks like the Hyogo framework for action (2005–2015), or the Sendai framework (2015–2030). Given the great climatic changes challenging society, together with socio-political changes, disaster risk reduction seems an evident priority for governance, yet this seems to be a subject that is not often mentioned on governmental agendas. While the literature has tended to focus on the substance of disaster risk reduction, little research is available on learning about the design, application, and operationalization of disaster risk governance. Most of the case studies in the literature are in countries of the global north, where systems are well established, information is abundant, and communication networks are strong. Regions with dynamic environments, where socio-political and economic systems are constantly changing and information is not accessible, may require a new approach and specific cases to support changes, adjustments, and additions to existing concepts of disaster risk governance. <br /> But how are existing concepts of disaster risk governance translated into potential and applied ways of dealing with dynamic environments in the context of disaster risk reduction? With the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of disaster risk and the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) framework for risk governance, this study evaluates disaster risk governance with an interdisciplinary approach in a specific case. The core of the case study is Rio de Janeiro State, one of the most dynamic states in Brazil in terms of population and economic growth affected by floods, droughts, and landslides. Through 391 quantitative questionnaires, 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews, 11 focus groups and 3 workshops, plus secondary data and participant observation, it reveals the institutional arrangement of the state, the perception of the population living in the risk areas of Nova Friburgo – one of the most affected municipalities in 2011 – the participatory mechanisms implemented by institutions involved, and the relationship of communication and power between public power and civil society. <br /> The main factors for disaster risk governance according to peer-reviewed literature are explored and prioritized through a quantitative literature review method. These factors added to secondary data and an integrated participatory methodology are the base for the field research in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Local population perceptions in the risk areas of Nova Friburgo municipality and their main influences are revealed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and regression on the survey results. Participation is determined in institutional processes through interviews and by applying Fung’s triangle of participation. The solid outcomes of participatory mapping at different levels are measured and compared to explore applied and potential ways of dealing with disaster risk reduction. Governance, communication, and power connections are finally analyzed through three workshops and all the previously described processes. <br /> In disaster risk governance, public power and civil society have different interests and a complete win-win situation is very unlikely. Decision-making in risk governance processes has to deal with trade-offs that need to be understood and considered by all stakeholders. Factors like lack of trust, miscommunication, and negative perception are especially difficult to address and may not be eliminated completely but can be considerably diminished. State institutions working for disaster risk in a mostly top-down, centralized system that does not enforce participation creates polarization, mistrust, and only few communication and meeting points between the civil society and public power. Abrupt changes to the top-down system do not affect the organized civil society at the same velocity. While consequences of changes are immediate in respect of public power (budget cuts, structural changes, and positions shifting), civil society will only shift in the long term at a slower pace. Even with future changes in the government strongly influencing these processes in other directions, networks should grow stronger and remain dynamic. <br /> The feeling of neglect in these trade-offs in the population living in risk areas requires an understanding of the complexity and the actors involved in order that they feel acknowledged. Clear communication of how the decisions are made, added to an opportunity to take part in those decisions should be a key component and a starting point for better risk governance, followed by continuity of those processes to improve perception and trust. Enabling societies to benefit from constant change while avoiding the negative consequences of the associated risks, as the IGRC affirms, requires cohesion of the different stakeholders. Implementing examples, such as the one presented in the case study, on a bigger scale will require significant effort, time, and resource investment. This specific case can also be used to improve appraisal, communication, and management in surrounding areas and similar cases in peri-urban areas with rapid growth and high dynamism. With greater and stronger changes forecast, continuity (a key factor of all governance processes) is, and will remain, a real challenge in Brazil, requiring physical and temporary space on the agendas of all stakeholders.