Publication: Toward Integrated Disaster Risk Management in Vietnam: Recommendations Based on the Drought and Saltwater Intrusion Crisis and the Case for Investing in Longer-Term Resilience
Loading...
Published
2017-10-13
ISSN
Date
2017-11-15
Editor(s)
Abstract
Vietnam is one of the most hazard-prone countries in the East Asia and Pacific region, with droughts, severe storms, and flooding causing substantial economic and human losses. Climate change is projected to increase the impact of disasters, especially the timing, frequency, severity, and intensity of hydro-meteorological events. Vietnam’s 2015–2016 drought and associated saltwater intrusion (SWI) offer a preview of what could become the new normal, and make clear the need to take action to ensure the country’s economic and societal well-being. SWI developed into a national crisis, with close to two million people affected due to damaged livelihoods and the country seeking international help. This report takes a deeper look at the drought and SWI crisis faced by Vietnam, identifies the gaps across key sectors, and recommends the principal short and longer-term actions needed for integrated disaster risk management. The recommendations are based on global experiences in good governance with intersectoral coordination in disaster forecast and early warning, and in community empowerment in water resource management and agricultural production.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. 2017. Toward Integrated Disaster Risk Management in Vietnam: Recommendations Based on the Drought and Saltwater Intrusion Crisis and the Case for Investing in Longer-Term Resilience. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/28871 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management in Armenia(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2009-10)This report addresses the fact that natural disasters have caused vast social upheaval and economic damage to Armenia. This ongoing vulnerability to natural disasters has led Armenia to appreciate the advantages of developing a comprehensive strategy to help minimize ensuing fiscal exposure because the national budget will never be adequate to mitigate, respond, and recover from these recurrent but unavoidable crises. Since the Spitak earthquake, Government has reorganized its emergency management system and established many seismic mitigation activities and created a Ministry of Emergency Situations (MoES) and established a cabinet-level Minister responsible for disaster response. Government may wish to build on these achievements. The report is also based on a study carried out in Armenia under the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) project, which analyzed disaster risks, assessed existing systems, mechanisms, and institutional capacities, and made recommendations for developing a comprehensive national disaster reduction and preparedness agenda, which could form the basis for a natural disaster reduction project.Publication Understanding Risk in an Evolving World : Emerging Best Practices in Natural Disaster Risk Assessment(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014-10)The 10-year-long Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) set out to substantially reduce impacts from natural disasters by 2015. Despite efforts toward this goal, economic losses from natural disasters are rising from US$50 billion each year in the 1980s, to just under $200 billion each year in the last decade (World Bank and GFDRR 2013). The economic losses sustained by lower- and middle-income countries alone over the last 30 years represent a full third of all total development assistance in the same time period, offsetting tremendous efforts by governments, multilateral organizations, and other actors. As the HFA period ends against a backdrop of challenging disaster risk trends, and consultations toward a post-2015 framework move forward, it is important to reflect on the role of disaster risk assessments in achieving disaster and climate resilience, and on the contributions risk assessments have made over the last 10 years. Understanding Risk in an Evolving World: Emerging Best Practices in Natural Disaster Risk Assessment, which was developed to inform post-HFA discussions and the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR),1 reports on the current state of the practice of risk assessment and on advances made over the last decade.Publication Fiscal Disaster Risk Assessment Options for Consideration(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-06)Pakistan is vulnerable to a number of adverse natural events and has experienced a wide range of disasters over the past 40 years, including floods, earthquakes, droughts, cyclones, and tsunamis. The World Bank is supporting the Government of Pakistan (GoP) in building capacity in the area of disaster risk management (DRM) in order to build resilience from both humanitarian and fiscal shocks associated with natural disasters. The World Bank is providing technical assistance to the GoP for the development of a national disaster risk financing strategy. This non-lending technical assistance aims to: (i) assess the fiscal exposure of the GoP to natural disasters; (ii) present options for the development of a national strategy to improve financial response capacity for natural disasters; and (iii) promote property catastrophe risk insurance for both public and private dwellings. Disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI) is one of the five pillars in the proactive and strategic framework for DRM promoted by the World Bank. The World Bank has been promoting a proactive and strategic framework for DRM based on five pillars: (i) risk identification; (ii) risk reduction; (iii) preparedness; (iv) financial protection; and (v) resilient recovery. Chapter one is introduction. Chapter two presents an overview of the budget processes for the financing of natural disaster losses during each of the three post-disaster phases. Chapter three provides a preliminary financial disaster risk assessment for Pakistan, focusing particularly on the fiscal impact of natural disasters. Chapter four presents an overview of the private catastrophe insurance market; and chapter five reviews the options for future financing of natural disaster recovery and reconstruction expenditures.Publication Disaster Risk Management Programs for Priority Countries(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2009)In GFDRR ’s track two, mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in development, this lead to a prioritization of operations in 20 core countries, including Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Indonesia, Kyrgyz Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Togo, Vietnam, and Republic of Yemen. The countries were selected due to their high vulnerability to natural hazards and low economic resilience to cope with disaster impacts including anticipated climate change and variability. Two thirds of the countries are least developed countries and twelve are highly indebted poor countries. Nine are from Africa and several others are Small Island States at high risk. These 20 core countries will receive 80 percent of available funds while 20 percent will be made available for flexible, innovative, high impact grants, such as those that catalyze increased investment programs and integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development in any disaster prone country. A multi-stakeholder planning process lays the foundation for the comprehensive national programs for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The process ensures the facilitation of ownership by governments for their risk. The presented programs are indicative and further dialogue with the Governments and other partners will refine the agendas as the detailed planning and implementation phases start. At the sixth meeting of the GFDRR Consultative Group in Geneva, disaster risk management plans are put forward for 25 out of the 31 priority and donor-earmarked countries. The plans for the six remaining countries of Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Senegal, and Timor-Leste will be submitted at the seventh meeting of the GFDRR Consultative Group since consultations in these countries are still ongoing.Publication Understanding Risk in an Evolving World : A Policy Note(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014)The foundation for DRM is understanding the hazards, and the exposure and vulnerability of people and assets to those hazards. By quantifying the risks and anticipating the potential impacts of hazards, governments, communities, and individuals can make informed prevention decisions. Such information can be used to set priorities for development and adaptation strategies, sector plans, programs, projects, and budgets.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Breaking the Conflict Trap : Civil War and Development Policy(Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003)Most wars are now civil wars. Even though international wars attract enormous global attention, they have become infrequent and brief. Civil wars usually attract less attention, but they have become increasingly common and typically go on for years. This report argues that civil war is now an important issue for development. War retards development, but conversely, development retards war. This double causation gives rise to virtuous and vicious circles. Where development succeeds, countries become progressively safer from violent conflict, making subsequent development easier. Where development fails, countries are at high risk of becoming caught in a conflict trap in which war wrecks the economy and increases the risk of further war. The global incidence of civil war is high because the international community has done little to avert it. Inertia is rooted in two beliefs: that we can safely 'let them fight it out among themselves' and that 'nothing can be done' because civil war is driven by ancestral ethnic and religious hatreds. The purpose of this report is to challenge these beliefs.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.