Understanding and Integrating Systemic Risk (SR) into Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Risk Informed Development (RID) for Long-Term Resilient Development

Abstract

In the late twentieth century, there was a remarkable paradigm shift from overreliance on disaster response to disaster risk reduction (DRR) (though practically this is not very evident), and from early twenty-first century, the international community made another paradigm shift from single hazard or multiple hazard analysis to evaluating risk from a systematic, cascading, interconnected, and compounding approach. Another pattern is emerging from pure DRR to risk-informed development (RID). RID is supported by many international protocols such as the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015–2030, SDGs or Agenda 2030, Paris Agreement on Climate Change, New Urban Agenda (NUA), Agenda for Humanity, and Addis Ababa Action Agenda. There is increasing evidence that disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity with exponential rise in economic, human, infrastructural, and environmental damages. There is also a growing trend in the dominance of climate-related disasters especially hydrometeorological disasters. Despite many global initiatives, we have also not succeeded in significantly reducing vulnerabilities and exposure of people, their assets, livelihoods, and the environment to growing natural and human-made hazards. Risk to these hazards is therefore growing globally but most especially among the poorest of the poor in developed and developing countries. There is therefore need for innovative approaches to analyzing risks and drafting strategic plans at national and local levels if we hope and intend to build resilient communities and systems. To address the identified lacunas as discussed above, this chapter focuses on expanding the understanding of systematic risks to reveal their interconnectedness and cascading and compounding effects and critically discuss the principles, practice, and relevance of RID alongside the enabling environment of RID in the context of the current and foreseeable changing global environment. Lastly, to use three case studies (Lesotho, Colombia, and Georgia) to highlight the importance of using SR, RID, DRR, and CCA as foundation blocks for resilience and sustainable development. The unique contribution of this chapter is that it integrates SR, RID, DRR, and CCA into resilience building to promote sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Risk-informed development (RID) is an approach to development that takes account of multiple threats and complex risks. RID can be achieved by mainstreaming both disaster and climate change risks and their management into everyday decision-making around development [1, 2, 3]. Risk is a normal and inseparable part of economic activities and development, which therefore entails proper planning and integration.

RID is supported by many international protocols such as the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015–2030, SDGs or Agenda 2030, Paris Agreement on Climate Change, New Urban Agenda (NUA), Agenda for Humanity, Addis Ababa Action agenda, and so forth (Figure 1). Regional frameworks in Africa like New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD), Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) DRR Unit, Africa Strategy for DRR, and so on all support RID [2, 4, 5, 6, 7]. However, disaster risks are often not viewed as systemic with interlinkages, connectivity, and cascading and compounding effects. The local and international communities often turn to rely more on managing disasters instead of managing risks. The principles and practice of RID therefore aims to bridge the gap between managing disasters and managing risks.

Figure 1.

Components of risk-informed sustainable development (Source: FSD & DCF [4]).

It is no hidden secret that disasters are becoming more frequent, intense, and with greater impacts. For example, the decade from 2000 to 2019 recorded 7348 major disaster events that affected 4.2 billion people, claimed 1.23 million lives, and resulted in approximately USD 2.97 trillion in global economic losses [8]. Most of the disasters were climate-related with dire effects on human health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth [8, 9, 10]. Most affected were the world’s poorest, whose vulnerability is rising due to socioeconomic and political factors, including urbanization and competition for scarce resources [2, 5, 8]. Besides climate risks, there are other compounding risks such as those linked to fragility, conflict, climate security, and epidemics/pandemics, like COVID-19. Risks are becoming systemic in nature with interlinkages and cascading and compounding effects [1, 2, 3]. The top three countries with the highest disaster risk worldwide are the Philippines (WRI 46.86), Indonesia (WRI 43.50), and India (WRI 41.52). The continent with the highest disaster risk is the Americas, followed by Asia, then Africa, Oceania, and Europe [7]. Africa has the highest vulnerability, and the top country with the highest risk index in Africa is Mozambique followed by Somalia [7]. The WRI uses 100 indicators from scientifically proven sources that are comparable and reproducible [7]. The indexes are therefore reliable. Risk is normally a product of the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, counteracted by the coping and adaptive capacities of the community or the available quality and quantity of the community’s assets/community capitals.

In order to reduce community vulnerability and exposure to increasing hazards, a more proactive and sustainable approach is to ensure that all development initiatives are risk informed.

Disaster risks are not adequately taken into account in development planning and programming. Besides, the current international risk management approaches do not consider multiple, interconnected, interlined risks with compounding and cascading effects. Though DRR and DRM are globally preached, the reality is that international, regional, and even national agencies still focus and allocate more resources on managing disasters rather than managing risks. For every USD 10 spent on humanitarian aid, only USD 1 is spent on DRR. There is therefore a great need to integrate disaster risk considerations into development policies, planning, and management, including financial instruments. RID therefore aims to bridge the gap between disaster management and risk management in order to build resilience and promote sustainable development or the UN Agenda 2030 [3, 6, 11].

2. Systematic risks: interconnectedness, cascading, and compounding effects

Systemic risk (SR) and system thinking are interlinked and recommended in risk analysis. Disaster risk is a product of hazard (s), vulnerability, and exposure cautioned by the coping capacity of the community or society (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The risk equation (Source: GIZ/GIDRM & RS [12]).

Systemic risk is the interaction between climate change (CC) and natural hazards with complex, interdependent, and interconnected networks of social, technological, environmental, and economic systems. SR represents a paradigm shift from hazard-to-hazard risk assessment to assessing risk as a complex and interwoven system. The behavior of the network determines exposure and vulnerability at all scales. Systemic risks produce cascading and compounding impacts that spread within and across systems and sectors (e.g., ecosystems, health, and food) [6, 13]. It is therefore imperative to analyze risk not by studying single or multi-hazards but by equally looking at the interconnectedness and compounding and cascading impacts. Some researchers will call this chain impact analysis. For example, a climate risk like reduction in rainfall may end up in violent public protests. Figure 3 below presents an example of cascading risk with chain impacts.

Figure 3.

SR with chain/cascading impacts (Source: GIZ/GIDRM & Resilience Solutions [12]).

In order to fully understand the systemic behaviors of disaster risks with their cascading and interconnected impacts, it is vital that the researcher adopts a system thinking approach. The multidimensional nature of risk necessitates a systems approach that develops shared understanding across traditional boundaries and builds broad-based constituencies and coalitions for joint actions in alternative development pathways [12]. System thinking requires a whole-of-government or whole-of-society approach involving complementary activities across different dimensions of the enabling environment, including multi-level actions that strengthen linkages with local realities, with regional, national, and international frameworks and processes [12].

The current and emerging risk landscape undermining sustainable development is increasingly multidimensional, with high levels of interdependency, feedback loops, and uncertainty. Developing a shared understanding of systemic risk can increase stakeholder awareness of how the “whole” system behaves. This can support the identification of leveraged entry points and opportunities for joint actions that make optimum use of available resources across sectors and stakeholders.

In general, conventional risk assessment tools tend to focus on a single-risk approach, although new methodologies and enhanced tools are increasingly being developed to understand the interlinkages and identify the proximate and underlying causes of multidimensional risk. Understanding the multidimensional and systemic nature of risk is a prerequisite to developing holistic approaches that offer opportunities to both strengthening resilience and building sustainable development.

3. Principles, practice, and relevance of risk-informed development and its enabling environment

Increasingly, interconnected climate and disaster risks are on the rise, undermining progress in sustainable development. Reversing this trend requires enhanced risk-based decision processes to avoid creating risk through poor development choices and ensure that development is sustainable and resilient.

According to the UNDRR Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2022, the frequency, magnitude and impact of disaster and crisis is on the rise, with increasingly complex, interconnected risk cascading across geographies and sectors, pushing some countries toward existential limits (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

UNDRR GAR 2022 Risk Trend (Source: UNDRR [6]).

The UNDRR GAR report [6] opined that by 2030, at the expiration of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction (SFDRR), disasters will increase by 40%; droughts will double; extreme temperature events will triple; 340 million people will need humanitarian assistance, and ending poverty (a strong driver of disaster risk) will be elusive [3, 5, 6, 11, 12].

Despite progress being made, the creation of risk is outstripping disaster risk reduction. The rapid accumulation of risk is not only a threat to development, but the development process itself can be a major driver of risk. Reversing this upward trend requires enhanced risk-informed approaches that are able to understand and manage both “risks to” and “risk from” development [12]. Risk-informed planning and decision-making is fundamental to preventing the creation of risk and a prerequisite for more resilient and sustainable development.

The core rationale for integrating risk reduction into development planning is based on the understanding that risk is a normal and inseparable part of development activity. Risk has both positive and negative connotations: negative risk is understood as the potential for loss and damage; while positive risk is the potential to realize benefits and opportunities caused by changes in the environment.

3.1 Enabling environment for risk-informed development (EE4RID)

The enabling environment for risk-informed development is defined as a complex web of policy, regulatory, organizational, procedural, and cultural conditions that can institutionalize risk within development policy, planning, and budgeting [1].

As a normal part of development activities, risk is determined by society’s perceptions, needs, demands, decisions, behaviors, and practices, including the prevailing political economy, gender relations, and inequalities. In effect, the enabling environment forms the normative framework of an overall “risk governance” system required for the public sector to advance a risk-informed approach [12].

In general, complex societies comprise an intricate web of policy and planning instruments, institutional arrangements, stakeholders, and activities that are interconnected and can be mutually reinforcing, which make it relatively resistant to change. Accordingly, effecting change requires a whole-of-society, whole-of-government approach (from national to local level) whereby changes in institutional policy and legislation have to coevolve with changes in societal norms, values and individual behaviors (Figure 5) [12].

Figure 5.

Map of Lesotho showing the drainage system (Source: Adapted from DMA [14]; GoL [9]; LMS [10]; LVAC [15]).

In the Republic of Colombia, the focus of the RID pilot project was to accompany the orientation process for the application of the “Technical Guidance for Comprehensive Risk Assessment in the Context of Climate Change.” With progress in sustainable development being undermined by increasing disasters, the guidance was developed by UNDRR and GIZ to provide a framework for the comprehensive assessment and management of multidimensional risk [16]. The developed EE4RID is presented in Figure 6 and discussed in detail thereafter.

Figure 6.

EE for RID (Source: GIZ/GIDRM & RS [12]).

4. Understanding RID, DRR, and CCA nexus

Risk-informed development has its origins in the field of disaster risk reduction, although it remains a relatively new and still emerging concept. Within the UNDRR [17] definition of disaster risk reduction, RID aligns with “prospective” disaster risk reduction practices that seek to minimize the creation of new “negative” risk to a level the society considers acceptable. The primary reason the Sendai Framework will not achieve its expected outcome of a substantial reduction in disaster losses is because it is not effective in preventing or minimizing the creation of new risks. From a development perspective, RID involves understanding and capitalizing on “positive” risk opportunities that can strengthen resilience, improve development performance, and enhance competitive advantage.

DRR is about prevent new risk, reducing existing disaster risk, and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development [6]. DRR and CCA share common characteristics than differences, and both are precursors in building community resilience. DRR and CCA have common concerns in managing climate-related risks; they both share a common goal of reducing vulnerability and achieving sustainable development. They share a common conceptual understanding of the components of risk (product of exposure and vulnerability to hazards) and the processes of building resilience. DRR is often the first line of protection against weather- and climate-related disasters [5, 7, 14].

To build resilience, the RID approach also requires understanding and promoting socio-ecological processes including the use of nature-based solutions (NbS) as heightened in the Lesotho and Columbia case studies. Risk-informed development occurs within a specific landscape forming part of a socio-ecological system. Risk-based approaches should consider the dynamic interaction of development investments with the natural environment, particularly the functioning of ecosystems services that have important provisioning, regulating, and protection benefits that can influence risk factors of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure and build resilience [12, 15, 18].

5. Demonstrating the interconnectedness between SR, RID, DRR, and CCA for resilience and sustainable development using three case studies

A community that is not resilient to its recurrent hazards cannot achieve sustainable development. In the same token, any development projects within the community that are not resilient to recurrent hazards cannot be sustainable. Developing countries especially those in Africa generally have very low resilience to socio-natural disasters. In a study conducted by Khan et al. [19], using the IMF adopted index-based resilience that uses 62 indicators and focusing on the period between 1995 and 2019, the authors selected nine key indicators and examined 91 countries, 24 developed countries and 67 developing countries, to construct a disaster resilience index (DRI). The results showed that developed countries were more resilient to “natural disasters” with Switzerland at the top with a DRI of 0.787, followed by Germany and France with a DRI of 0.777 and 0.751, respectively. On the other hand, at the bottom of the ranking were Cameroon, Haiti, and Democratic Republic of Congo with DRI of 0.257, 0.249, and 0.227, respectively [19]. Though these results may not be conclusive, they however paint a general global picture on the distribution of risks.

The Global Initiative on Disaster Risk Reduction (GIDRM) commissioned Resilience Solutions (RS) to increase understanding and strengthen the enabling environment required for the successful application of risk-informed development (RID) planning and decision-making in different country contexts. The case studies that follow heighten the need to integrate SR, RID, DRR, and CCA in order to build community resilience and promote sustainable development.

5.1 Lesotho: “Creating an Enabling environment for RID to build resilience in the water sector”

5.1.1 Introduction

Lesotho like the rest of Africa is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The hazard profile of Lesotho demonstrates many climate and environmental-related hazards, which then have cascading effect on the water, food, and energy nexus. Lesotho is heavily dependent on water resources, including rain-fed agriculture, and therefore very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Notwithstanding the above, Lesotho is considered as the water tower of southern Africa where 40% of the Orange-Senqu basin water come from the mountain topography of Lesotho. The water, popularly known as the “white/liquid gold” of Lesotho, is then harnessed and sold to neighboring countries particularly South Africa through transboundary water transmission tunnels by the Lesotho Highland Water Project [9, 12, 20, 21]. The Orange-Senqu River basin also supplies water to neighboring countries like Namibia and Botswana.

Table 1 below presents important facts about Lesotho, while Figure 1 shows the drainage system in Lesotho that provides the “white/liquid gold.”

Location	Completely surrounded by South Africa
Area	30,355 km^2
Administration	10 Administrative Districts (Butha-Buthe, Berea, Leribe, Mafeteng, Maseru, Mohale’s Hoek, Mokhotlong, Qacha’s Nek, Quthing, and Thaba Tseka) with Maseru as the capital city
Topography and ecological zones	Mountains (59%), foothills (15%), lowland (17%), and Senqu River Valley (9%)
Climate	Temperate with alpine influence (hot summers and very cold dry winters)
Annual rainfall	Varies (Senqu River valley with 500–1200 mm in north and eastern escarpment)
Annual evaporation rate	1400 mm in highlands to 1600 mm in lowlands
Drainage and water sector	Two main rivers, Senqu and Caledon (see Figure 1). LHDP and MDWSP main water projects
Population	2 million (2016)
Population growth rate	0.67% (2016). Retarded by the impacts of HIV/AIDS
Life expectancy	56 (2016)
Rural population	66% (1.3 million)
Adult literacy rate	86%
Unemployment rate	32.8%
Inflation rate	5.5% (2019)
Average GDP growth rate	1.6% (2018)
HIV/AIDS	23.6%
Major hazards	Drought, flood, extreme cold, snow, HIV/AIDS, COVID-19, climate change, environmental degradation
Main economic activities	Agriculture, textile industry, water sale (40% volume of water in the Orange Senqu Basin)

Table 1.

Lesotho overview facts.

The Metolong Dam in the southern Puthasiana Catchment was used as a case study in this project, which was commissioned in 2020 by the GIZ-GIDRM to assess and identify any risk-informed development (RID) and the enabling environment (EE) related to river basin management and infrastructure systems to adapt to climate change and build local resilience [1, 12, 20].

5.1.2 Methodology

Based on existing normative frameworks, methodologies and practical resources developed by UN agencies, government, and nongovernmental organizations to support DRR and CCA mainstreaming, an initial conceptual framework for risk-informed development, were developed by GIDRM and RS [12]. The EE4RID framework was further elaborated and validated through a series of stakeholder consultations and direct experience gained from practical application in the RID pilot countries of Lesotho, Columbia, and Georgia. This initial Framework is flexible and can be expanded and modified (Figure 6).

In order to assess the enabling environment for RID to build resilience in the water sector in Lesotho, the following processes were followed:

• Identification of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) policies, climate change, strategies, and legal frameworks in Lesotho, which incorporate RID their relevance, existing gaps, and constrains in their implementation

• Undertook preliminary risk analysis to understand systemic and interconnected risks impacting Metolong Dam Water Supply Project (MDWSP) like catchment degradation/desertification, soil erosion (reduced surface water infiltration/groundwater recharge), dam reservoir sedimentation, reduced design life and storage, and loss of water supply resilience in extreme weather conditions induced by climate change.

• Conducted hazards and vulnerability assessment to identify key hazards and factors of vulnerability related to water sector in Lesotho.

• The EE baseline assessment involved a desk-based analysis of relevant country and sector policy and program documentation, together with virtual/face-to-face consultations interviews with relevant specialist-stakeholders.

• Identification of relevant stakeholders (Line Ministries, NGOs, and UN Agencies) relevant to water sector were mapped including their mandate, contact details, and identified focal person in that regard. This was done in order to have a database of relevant stakeholders on Water sector and the Metolong Dam [12].

Based on the components of the developed EE framework for RID, a baseline assessment on the status of RID in Lesotho was undertaken, with a particular focus on the water sector and river basin management, that is, MDWSP.

5.1.3 Results and findings

These findings are based on the survey that was conducted by the RID team in Lesotho involving identified stakeholders in the water sector; consultation with some key informants, review of documents including policies and plans, as well as field observation by the RID team.

5.1.3.1 Policy and regulation

• Lack of RID policy imperative and political ownership at strategic and operational levels.

• Strategic and operational plans do not take into account the impact of systemic risk and RID. The National Strategic Development plan II (NSDP II) while trying to map out a growth path for Lesotho and creating job and alleviating poverty, little or no considerations were placed on RID and the systemic/cascading effects of risks.

• Many water-related policies exist some with overlapping mandates. The implementation of these policies is weak, and there is little accountability mechanisms built into these policies.

5.1.3.2 Finance and resources

• Disaster management budgets primary focus on response and recovery, which are post-disaster activities.

• Investment criteria do not take systemic risk into account.

• Lack of coordination of external funding sometimes creates overlaps and gaps in executing RID.

• Lack of systemic risk analytical tools, standards, guidance, and best practices for RID approach.

5.1.3.3 Knowledge and information

• Understanding of systemic risk, RID, and EE was at different levels, and some stakeholders were still not able to link RID and EE in their daily organizational operations. This is an indication that the country needs trainings on systemic risk, RID, and EE as well as practical application of the concepts.

• RID remains a relatively new concept; many respondents were unsure of the differences between DRR activities and RID approaches. Some respondents had strong feelings that effective and efficient coordination of disaster-related activities is the main priority to address systemic risk.

• In general, stakeholders were able to identify specific threats and risks in Lesotho, although these were not seen from a systemic risk lens. Any future capacity-building initiative should fully explain the concepts of RID, EE, and systemic risk, with consideration as to how the RID approach can be incorporated into the NSDP III for a safer, more sustainable development in Lesotho [9, 15].

• Some respondents were able to identify the key actors and some limiting factors in the implementation of RID and how politics inhibits effective implementation of RID. This implies that the training of politicians should be considered for their support and buy-in during the development and implementation of policies and legislations that support RID.

• Limited access to relevant risk information was observed. Information sitting at different departments are not easily disseminated to all the relevant stakeholders. Disaster management plans are not well communicated to all the users especially the most at risk communities.

5.1.3.4 Culture and people

• Lack of inclusion of at-risk people or whole of society approach within the development planning processes was observed. It was not also clear how the youth were engaged in the development planning processes.

• Gender issues still persist with limited empowerment of women in owning assets. Some legislations still consider women, even married women, as minors, and this may limit their ability to acquire assets, for example, obtaining bank loans without the approval of their husband. Also, only boys are given the cultural right to inheritance much to the disadvantage of the girl-child [15].

5.1.3.5 Partnership and collaboration

• Limited coordination and collaboration with other external development partners in Lesotho was identified. Most investments are tailored to address the current needs of the country without internalizing the possible negative impacts of any development that is not risk informed.

• GIZ has many good projects in Lesotho. It is still not clear whether these projects are integrating the principles and practice of RID in their activities. Another finding is that enough synergy is not built among these projects; there is still evidence of silo operations. For example, it was not clear how the RID team, the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) team, and Renoka project complement each other in the country [12].

5.1.3.6 Organizational arrangements

• There was lack of clarity on which government departments should lead the RID and EE approach. Though the Disaster management Authority (DMA) already has a legislative mandate without much authority to coordinate other departments during emergencies, other structures like the National Task Force for drought relief exist above the authority of the DMA. Besides, the DMA has limited capacity to monitor the implementation of RID in Lesotho.

• The need for coordination or working together beyond traditional boundaries was strongly emphasized for effective application of RID and EE in Lesotho. During PIEVC workshop, the stakeholders reiterated that collaboration and partnerships in risk assessments are key in combating the effects of climate change on the water sector. The ongoing activities supported by GIZ through Renoka and Integrated Catchment Management can be used as an entry point to advocate for the inclusion of RID and its enabling environment.

Based on the tasks and objectives for the RID project in Lesotho, which was executed by RS, the following were observed:

• RID project highlighted the relevance of an RID approach in Lesotho.

• Preliminary “national-level” risk assessment focused on water sector identified interconnected nature of risk, cascading across social, economic, and environmental capacities—informed by Lesotho disaster losses data—although Lesotho has no comprehensive disaster loss and damage database, but some relevant data is available

• Metolong Dam and Water Supply system is a Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) asset in Lesotho. However, the full risk and impact of climate change on the Metolong Dam and Water Supply Project (MDWSP) is not fully known.

• The understanding of systemic risks was used to undertake a risk analysis of Lesotho National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) II (2018–2022). Although a new NSDP III plan is due for drafting, the current 2018–2022 plan has been extended for the next 5 years because the plan was not fully implemented due to COVID-19. The analysis emphasized the adverse impact of systemic risks manifested at operational/sectoral level as well as at the national/strategic level. Unless addressed, increasing systemic risk will pose an existential threat to the achievement of Lesotho’s socioeconomic and development objectives, as currently defined within the NSDP II.

• Minimizing the creation of systemic risk will require coherent actions at both the strategic (NSDP) and operational (sectoral) levels where the ICM could provide a good entry point for risk-informed development [10, 12, 14, 20].

5.2 Colombia: “Technical Guidance for Comprehensive Risk Assessment in the Context of Climate Change”

5.2.1 Introduction

Although risk can be considered a normal and inseparable part of economic activities and development, the rapid accumulation of disaster and climate risk (and associated loss and damages) is largely rooted in inappropriate or “flawed” development. To reduce risk to an acceptable level, there is a growing need to better understand and address risk drivers within development planning, plans, and decision-making processes. This will require strengthening risk governance capabilities to address both “risks to” and “risks from” development. In the Republic of Colombia, the focus of the pilot project was to accompany the orientation process for the application of the “Technical Guidance for Comprehensive Risk Assessment in the Context of Climate Change.” The framework below was used (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Comprehensive risk assessment framework [12].

5.2.2 Methodology

The RID process methodology consisted of several core steps as indicated below (Figure 8):

Figure 8.

The RID process methodology [12].

In the Colombia context, four main tools were selected for consideration for the RID:

1. National Development Plan 2018–2022;

2. National Plan Climate Change Adaptation;

3. National Plan Disaster Risk Management;

4. A series of regional workshops organized by GIZ-Fondo Accion centered on “Tools and Challenges for Comprehensive Risk Management and Planning in a Changing Climate” [12, 22].

The main identified hazards in Columbia are indicated below (Table 2).

1. Hydro-meteorological; Floods Storms Strong winds	5. Biological; Coronavirus Dengue/Zika/Chikunguna Yellow fiver Animal diseases and pest
2. Climatological; Wildfires Droughts Climate change—Extreme weather	6. Environmental; Deforestation/ecosystem degradation Biodiversity loss Desertification/soil erosion Invasive species
3. Geohazard; Mass movements—Landslides/mud flows Earthquake Volcanic	7. Chemical; Industrial spillage Pollution
4. Technological; Fire Industrial accidents Transport incidents Cyberattack/data breach	8. Conflict and instability; Armed conflict/insecurity Involuntary/forced displacement Terrorist attacks Organized crime—Illicit drug trafficking

Table 2.

Columbia risk profile.

Colombia Hazard/Threat Profile—Main Recurrent Hazards in Red.

It is also worth noting that Colombia ranks among the top 10 countries with the highest number of forced displacement due to armed conflict.

5.2.3 Findings

The adoption of a risk-informed development approach has not been achieved to date in Columbia.

5.2.3.1 Policies and regulation

The strategic development paradigm in Columbia is still primarily driven by short-term need to promote rapid economic growth that places excessive strain on ecosystem protection and its regulating services. This exacerbates social inequalities, particularly for indigenous and agrarian-based people who are dependent on the declining natural resources.

5.2.3.2 Finance and resources

There were limited financial resources for disaster risk management, particularly at the local government level. Available funding is primarily focused on response and recovery triggered by high-severity events, although the cumulative impact of smaller scale events is bigger than that of larger, less frequent events, with greater relative impact on low-income households.

5.2.3.3 Organizational arrangements

There were fragmented and outdated sectoral and territorial policies and plans that are onerous to implement, siloed in disciplines and sectors, with a lack of coherent working relationship among disaster risk reduction, climate change, and development actors.

5.2.3.4 Knowledge and information

Another identified gap was that there was limited understanding outside of disaster management actors, of the relationship between development, disasters and risk, and the need for risk-informed approaches.

5.2.3.5 People, culture, and environment

There are underlying issues of poverty, gender and social inequalities, as well as exclusion, that marginalize at-risk people and result in grievances and conflict.

5.2.3.6 Partnership and collaboration

Though there are many role players identified for DRR and CCA, they work in silos. International donors and development agencies have also not fully embraced the concept and application of RID in their projects and activities.

Informed by discussions with relevant stakeholders, a broad range of entry points were identified across all six dimensions of the enabling environment that could support the integration of risk considerations into territorial and sectoral development planning processes. It was apparent the orientation process for the comprehensive risk assessment provided a strategic opportunity to increase understanding of the multidimensional risk and its relationship with development. The guidance applies a conventional risk assessment methodology with its main phases of risk identification, analysis, and evaluation. Results of the assessment are subsequently used for risk-informed decision-making and development planning, with a focus on integrating risk reduction measures.

Colombia is the second most biodiverse country in the world, hosting 10% of the planet’s biodiversity. In line with principles of nature-based solutions and putting risk to human and ecological systems at the center, the strengthening of Colombia’s rich and complex ecosystems could contribute to net biodiversity gains and support climate mitigation and adaptation, reduce the impacts of climate extreme events while contributing to the country’s overall competitive advantage and transitioning to a greener more resilient economy [22].

Accordingly, a risk-informed development approach framed within socio-ecological systems could consider risk not only to avoid adverse consequences, but also as an potential to bring benefits and opportunities created by external changes. An understanding of negative and positive risk can support multidisciplinary efforts to strengthen resilience and address both “risk to” and “risk from” development with multiple co-benefits.

The EE4RID tool can be locally contextualized to a range of development planning process and applications [12]. This includes mapping the current and future status of risk governance and identifying gaps and constraints and potential entry points to accelerate the adoption of a risk-informed approach. In doing so, the process highlighted aspects of the EE4RID dimensions “sub-categories” that needed to be strengthened, particularly in relation to the natural environment, local knowledge, and a whole-of-society approach [12].

The final stage of a comprehensive risk assessment is the integration of risk information drawn from the assessment into existing or new planning instruments.

However, RID is less about assessing risk to protect development but more about understanding how development choices can create risks that compound and cascade across geographies and sectors.

Given the high degree of complexity and uncertainty in assessing multidimensional risks, an alternative or complementary approach would be to develop an operational framework for strengthening resilience to sustain the functionality and/or critical services of a system or entity in the contexts of multiple (foreseen and unforeseen) risks and threats. The major variable in this approach is the critical functioning of the system.

The starting point would be to identify the existing capabilities, functionalities, operating parameters, and sources of resilience that are already present and influence the ability of the system to absorb, recover, and adapt to shocks and stresses.

Observing how systems perform when subjected to extreme conditions can reveal relative strengths and weaknesses, underlying risk drivers, critical interdependencies, and limits and boundaries that not readily apparent in “normal” operating conditions. Informed by these insights, the aim would be to build on existing capacities and improve the performance of the system and desired functions to minimize the creation of negative risk and capitalize on positive risk, including making optimal use of opportunities created by changes in the environment [12].

One of the key characteristics of a complex system is that the ability to perform one function is closely related to its ability to perform another.

As risk creation continues to outstrip progress in risk reduction, the development process itself can be a major driver of risk, whether through locating people and assets in exposed areas, rapid and unplanned urbanization, overexploitation of natural resources and ecosystems, social inequalities, poor governance, ignorance, greed, or misunderstanding.

From an RID perspective, the comprehensive risk assessment methodology as reviewed in the Colombian context puts development at the end rather than center stage of the risk process and underplays the importance of existing capacities and sources of resilience as the starting point to make development more sustainable. Transitioning to a more resilient risk-informed development pathway will require technical guidance for “next generation” assessment tools that considers risk as endogenous to development processes, requiring a stronger focus on analyzing and preventing “risk from” rather than “risk to” development [12].

5.3 Georgia: “Development of landslide monitoring systems (piloted in selected communities), in partnership with the national environment agency and academia”

5.3.1 Introduction

Despite an increasing understanding of the complexity of risks, these are not always adequately considered in development planning and programming, in regions and countries or by international donors. Against this background, the third phase of GIDRM was introduced toward strengthening RID, that is, an understanding of development that takes into account multifaceted, dynamic, interdependent, transnational, simultaneous, and systemic risks. GIZ Georgia program joined GIDRM Project at Stage III, with the technical support of Resilience Solutions. The aim was to better understand the enabling environment required for successful application of RID approaches. The specific project and sectoral focus for Georgia was the “Development of landslide monitoring systems (piloted in selected communities), in partnership with the national environment agency and academia” [12].

5.3.2 Methodology

An action research methodology using an innovative accompanying process evaluation approach was used. This involved Resilience Solutions consultants accompanying GIZ/GIDRM project staff and partners responsible for the planning and implementation of GIZ-supported projects. The project process included (Table 3):

• Engagement with Stakeholders

• Conducting Desk Research/Documentation review

• Conducting multi-stakeholder workshops and trainings

• Raising Awareness/sensitization of national, regional, local stakeholders

• Participating at various events for knowledge sharing

• Producing/documenting assignment process for knowledge sharing

Risk informed development context (landslide)-relevant policies
Concept for National Security	-Georgia Atlas on Natural Hazards and Risk
National Strategy for disaster Risk Reduction 2017–2020	-National Climate Action Plan 2021–2030
National Plan of Action for Capacity Development in DRR	-Low Emission Development Strategy
Law on Protecting the Population and Territory from Natural and Man-made emergency Situations (2007)	-Sustainable Energy Action Plan
Agriculture and Rural Development plan 2012–2027	-Forest Code
Fourth National Communication on Climate Change	-Spatial Development and Construction Code
Regional Development plans/Program 2018–2021	-Socio-economic Development Strategy 2020
National Environmental Action Programme	-UN Development Assistance Framework
Building Codes and Construction Permits-Technical and Construction Supervision Agency Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development	-Civic Safety Law 2014; -National Biodiversity and Action Plan 2020

Table 3.

List of documents studied.

Furthermore, 20+ stakeholders were identified, and some of them consulted during the landslide RID baseline development (Table 4) [12].

Risk-informed development context (landslides)—Key stakeholders
1. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (MEPA); Environment and Climate Department	11. Water Management Institute
2. Environmental Information and Education Centre	12. Ministry of Finance and Planning
3. National Environmental Agency	13. National Forestry Agency
4. Ministry of Regional Development & Infrastructure, including State Registry/Cadastre	14. National Statistics of Georgia (GEOSTAT)
5. State Security and Crisis Management Council	15. Disaster Prevention and Planning Division (EMA)
6. Emergency Management Agency (EMA)	16. Local/Municipal Government
7. Natural Disaster Prevention and Rapid Response Unit	17. Secretariat-Expert Advisory Council (EMA)
8. Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development	18. Rural Development for Future Georgia (RDFG)
9. Department of Hydrometeorology	19. Geogia Red Cross Society
10. Department of Geology	20. Disaster Management Team—UN Inter agency

Table 4.

List of stakeholders.

5.3.3 Georgia country-specific findings

Below are the main type of hazards identified in Georgia (Table 5).

Main types of hazards/threats in the region
1. Weather/climate-related; Flooding Droughts Strong winds Rain/snow/hail storms and avalanches Extreme hot/cold temperatures	2. Geophysical; Earthquakes (Seismic active region) Landslides Mudflows/Debris flows Rockslides
3. Violent conflict; Insecurity Forced displacements	4. Environmental; Ecosystem collapse Desertification/deforestation
5. Technological hazards; Industrial accidents Dam/infrastructure failures Cyberattacks	6. Biological; Endemic diseases

Table 5.

Georgia hazard profile.

These findings are based on the desk research and stakeholder’s consultation that was conducted by the RID team in Georgia involving consultation with some key informants; review of official documents which included policies and strategic plans. The assessment is based on the EE framework developed GIDRM & RS [12].

5.3.3.1 Policy and regulation

Policy architecture is fragmented; it is mostly focused on preparedness and response; compliance is week; mandate for RID approaches is weak.

DRR-related policies are missing the element of RID and still do not perceive risk through the lens of systemic risk. Several bylaws/enforcement mechanisms are still in preparation; building codes, regulations, and standards were updated, but enforcement is weak. Strategic and operational plans do not consider systemic risks.

5.3.3.2 Finance and resources

Government budgets and incentives are limited and insufficient. The central budget is mostly spent on response and recovery. Technical/human resources and implementation mechanisms are inadequate. Public procurement and tenders are not risk informed.

Investment criteria do not take systemic risk into account, and there is lack of systemic risk analytical tools, standards, guidance, and best practices for RID approach.

5.3.3.3 Knowledge and information

There is limited understanding and training on RID concepts. RID remains a relatively new concept; many respondents were unsure of the differences between DRR, CCA activities, and RID approaches. Some respondents had strong feelings that effective and efficient coordination of disaster-related activities is the main priority to address systemic risk.

A National Risk atlas providing risk information has been produced although the atlas underutilized.

In general, there is lack of risk analysis tools and lack of good practice examples.

5.3.3.4 Organizational arrangements

According to National Response Plan of Georgia [23], EMS is responsible for DRR. Though the EMS already has a legislative mandate, it has limited authority and capacity to coordinate other ministries during emergencies. Other structures like the National Security Council exist, which are above the authority of the EMS.

Generally, there is limited local coordination, implementation, capacities and competencies, accountability, and enforcement on risk management within the different organizations; a lack of RID standards/guidance and tools for systemic risk assessments is common.

The institution/agency/department to lead/coordinate and advance on RID is unclear.

5.3.3.5 People and culture

There is little public awareness and little inclusion of risk bearers (at-risk people) in development planning. Participation of the local population/community members and inclusion in the RID planning process does not happen or is very weak with no public demand for more risk-informed approaches. There is no risk awareness campaign for the population living in the risk zones or on inappropriate livelihood/agricultural practices. Disasters magnify existing social inequalities and further disadvantage those who are already more vulnerable.

5.3.3.6 Partnership and collaboration

A lack of coordination of external development cooperation funding creates overlaps and gaps and missing opportunities for collaboration in executing RID approaches.

Fragmentation across disciplines and sectors needs interdisciplinary cross-sector collaboration.

5.4 Recommendations

Most of the recommendation discussed here also applies to Lesotho and Columbia. They are discussed under the Georgia case study to avoid duplication.

5.4.1 Policy and regulation

Institutional and policy architecture in Georgia is complex, even when focused on a particular typology of hazards (i.e., landslides). Therefore, the solutions must be holistic, collaborative across traditional boundaries.

Relevant policy and regulatory frameworks should be strengthened to explicitly support a risk-informed approach to development, including defining the roles and responsibilities of lead organizations at national/local levels. Finally, strategies should be based on long-term visions with realistic timeframes for meaningful change in development planning.

5.4.2 Finance and resources

National government needs to provide incentive structures to national and local actors to integrate consideration of systemic risks within investment decision-making/development planning processes.

Development cooperation and international financial mechanisms have an important role of model risk-informed approaches in high-risk sectors/locations, that is, exemplar of RID good practices.

More effort should be placed into engagement with private sector actors supported by greater risk analysis of development and investment decisions.

5.4.3 Knowledge and information

Key entry point for advancing RID is raising awareness of RID and EE concepts and understanding of systemic risk among relevant stakeholders. Training/technical guidance is needed on risk assessments, including the application of the existing risk maps/atlases at regional/local levels.

The role of higher education/research institutions could be better utilized to develop RID tool, standards, and knowledge products and support education and knowledge management to share risk information and understanding of RID approaches. There is a need to engage young people in order to build knowledge and skills.

5.4.4 Organizational arrangement

There is a need to strengthen the risk governance and RID implementation capabilities within Georgia. Greater clarity of lead agency roles and responsibilities is required, including cross-sector planning, coordination, and the application of procedures and tools in support of more integrated risk-informed development program. Going forward, mechanisms for monitoring and accountability for risk-informed development will need to be developed.

5.4.5 People and culture

A lack of inclusion of at-risk people or whole-of-society approach within the development planning processes was heightened. In general, an enabling environment requires a combination of top-down actions that provide political commitment and guidance for a risk-informed approach, which goes together with bottom-up actions that harness local knowledge and increase risk-understanding and risk governance capabilities of relevant actors and risk bearers at the national/regional/local levels, that is, closest to the point of implementation of territorial and/or sector-based development interventions [11, 12]. This will require participatory planning processes that are inclusive of at-risk people, particularly the most vulnerable groups to ensure no one is left behind [12, 13].

5.4.6 Partnership and collaboration

GIZ and other international donors/investors can model risk-informed projects in high-risk areas that will help to build the evidence base to inform policy changes and strengthening RID mandate. Working collaboratively with other RID allies and development partners can be an effective way to share knowledge and good practices.

There is a need to look more at systems, not individual hazards, and to work across disciplines and sectors not in silos [12, 13].

6. General conclusions on the chapter

Disasters and development are two faces of the same coin. Development can either increase community vulnerability and exposure to disasters or reduce them. On the other hand, disasters can set back hard-earned development gains or provide windows of opportunity for development, hence the emphasis to build back better in disaster recovery. We need to reduce risk both to development and from development through risk-informed development (RID). For RID to hold water, it needs a well-oiled enabling environment. Six of those broad entry points were discussed in this chapter. While DRR is acknowledged as a good practice, this chapter lays more emphasis on building community resilience to multiple hazards, which then will support sustainable development. This chapter also brings to the fore that risks are complex, interconnected with compounding and cascading impacts. It then recommends a holistic risk assessment that not only looks at multi-hazards but assesses risk from a system-thinking lenses in DRM and RID strategic planning processes. The chapter presents three case studies to elucidate the importance of RID and its enabling environment supported by SR thinking to build resilience and support sustainable development. The approach sounds complex, but it is achievable and the way forward in building community resilience and ensuring sustainable development. The unique contribution of this chapter is the fact that it integrated SR, RID, DRR, CCA into a holistic framework to build resilience and promote sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the GIZ-GIDRM who commissioned the project on RID and developing an enabling environment for RID in three different countries to the Resilience Solution team and for granting permission to the authors to publish the results of the project. In the same vein, the authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the local experts in the three countries of Lesotho, Columbia, and Georgia.