Search

This paper investigates the use of early warning tools as part of Ethiopia's Disaster Risk Management framework. Analyzing, in particular, the Livelihoods, Early Assessment and Protection tool, Livelihood Integrated Assessment and Hotspots Assessments, the paper delineates the scope and objectives of existing early warning tools, their commonalities and limitations. From a disaster risk financing and insurance perspective, the paper investigates possible enhancements in the existing early warning framework and its use that could facilitate greater timeliness of drought response. The paper argues that based on the existing early warning instruments and continued improvements to the early warning systems, it is possible to enable early action during the onset of a drought.

The objective of the report is to raise awareness of the fiscal impacts that natural disasters have on the budget of the Government of Sri Lanka. It is envisioned to be used as a planning tool for the potential development of a comprehensive disaster risk financing and insurance strategy that would equip the Ministry of Finance with additional instruments to manage the contingent liability posed by disasters. Its recommendations are a starting point for a collaborative discussion with the government on the potential development of a broad program.

This paper addresses the question whether and how co-benefits, through disaster resilience building, can be further promoted. Co-benefits are defined as positive externalities that arise deliberately as a result of a joint strategy that pursues several objectives synergistically at the same time, such as disaster risk management and development goals, or disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. Of particular interest is the question of how the economic and broader benefits of disaster risk management can be recognized and realized by those in charge of fiscal policy decisions. The paper considers the interplay between public disaster risk management investment and fiscal policy, and provides an overview of the current debate as well as assessment methods, tools, and policy options. In fiscal budgeting, it has been standard practice to focus on direct liabilities and recurrent spending. Costs of disasters are often dealt with after the fact only, rather than being considered as contingent liabilities. As a consequence, the full costs of disasters have often not been budgeted for, and, with a price signal missing, there is lack of clear incentives for investing in disaster risk management. Overall, the paper identifies four steps and three dividends to be harnessed: (i) understanding fiscal risk; (ii) protecting public finance through risk financing instruments, the first dividend; (iii) managing disaster risk comprehensively, the second dividend; and (iv) pursuing a synergistic, co-benefits strategy of concurrently managing disaster risks and promoting development, the third dividend.

This disaster risk financing country note for Serbia provides an overview of the way its government currently finances the costs imposed by natural disasters. Meanwhile, poverty deepened after the financial crisis and during the recessions of 2012 and 2014, mainly because of losses in employment and labor income. In an effort to overcome its fiscal challenges, the government of Serbia adopted an ambitious fiscal consolidation and structural reform program to halt the rise in public debt and send it on a downward trajectory by 2017. This program is supported by a three-year stand-by arrangement from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Because of the growing frequency and severity of disasters, the government has faced the rising costs of responding to disasters as well as the challenges of financing emergency response and reconstruction costs. Having sufficient access to financial instruments and resources in order to respond to disasters is crucial for building the financial resilience of the country and minimizing the negative impact of natural disasters on Serbia’s economic growth. In this report, chapter one gives introduction. Chapter two provides the background and country context, including the recent economic impacts of disasters. Chapter three reviews the current institutional and legal framework for disaster risk management and financing. Chapter four is a review of the public financial management of disasters in Serbia, including ex ante and ex post disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI) instruments currently in use for budget mobilization, and it looks at the 2014 floods in more detail. The chapter concludes with a summary of financial resources available and a look at the potential resource gaps.

Disasters resulting from natural hazards represent an important challenge for Colombia’s fiscal sustainability and stability. Colombia is one of the countries with the highest recurrence rate of disasters caused by natural hazards in Latin America (see the Annex)1. As the country’s population and economy continue to grow, so will the economic losses resulting from such events, an average of 600 disaster events of which is reported per year2. Colombia’s rate of economic growth is increasing the base of assets exposed to disaster risks, which may lead to significant increases in losses, particularly if investments in new assets are not accompanied by plans for mitigating disaster risk. The Government of Colombia (GoC) recognizes the importance of mitigating these events and has taken several steps to mainstream disaster risk management into its policy and programs, as evinced by the National Development Plan ‘2014-2018’, ‘all for a New Country’. The MHCP is committed to developing strategies for reducing its contingent liabilities in relation to disasters and to managing the fiscal risk resulting from these events. This document presents the priority policy objectives that have been established to assess, reduce, and manage fiscal risk due to natural disasters. It also describes the MHCP’s efforts to progress its policy objectives in the long term. These policy objectives represent the MHCP’s ex ante policy framework regarding management of financial and fiscal disaster risk. The MHCP identifies three priority policy objectives in order to strengthen management of the Government’s contingent liabilities and thus support the goal of achieving macroeconomic stability and fiscal balance. The policy objectives are: (i) identification and understanding of fiscal risk due to disasters; (ii) financial management of natural disaster risk, including the implementation of innovative financial instruments; and (iii) catastrophe risk insurance for public assets.

This paper presents an overview of the structure of probabilistic catastrophe risk models, discusses their importance for appraising sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance instruments and strategy, and puts forward a model and a process for improving decision making on the linked disaster risk management strategy and sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance strategy. The paper discusses governments use of probabilistic catastrophe models to inform sovereign disaster risk financing decision making and describes the ex ante and ex post financing instruments available for responding to extreme natural events. It also discusses the challenge of appraising sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance instruments, including a review of the multiple dimensions of disaster risks and the value that probabilistic catastrophe risk models provide. The decision making framework for sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance put forward by the paper includes the use of a decision model (an influence diagram) as a rigorous representation of the relationships between the decisions, uncertain events, and consequences relevant to sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance decision making. The framework also includes a process for generating high-quality customized components for the decision model, and a tool for designing coherent sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance strategies. The paper ends with suggestions for improving catastrophe risk models to facilitate sovereign disaster risk financing and insurance decision making.

This note aims to build understanding of the existing disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI) tools in use in The Marshall Islands and to identify gaps where potential engagement could further develop financial resilience. The likelihood that a hazardous event will have a significant impact on the Marshall Islands has risen with the increasing levels of population and assets in the urban areas of Majuro and Ebeye. The low-lying atolls are at risk of damage to both assets and people as a result of storm surges and tsunamis. The Marshall Islands is expected to incur, on average over the long term, annual losses of US$3 million due to earthquakes and tropical cyclones. In the next 50 years, the Marshall Islands has a 50 percent chance of experiencing a loss exceeding US$53 million. The government takes an ex-ante approach to financing the cost of disasters, but the resources available are limited. The Marshall Islands has a maximum amount of US$15.6 million potentially available in ex-ante instruments to facilitate disaster response. The government s post-disaster budget execution process relies on a variety of financial tools, but the size of the economy limits access to immediate post-disaster cash resources. A number of options for improving disaster risk financing and insurance are presented here for consideration: (a) develop an integrated disaster risk financing and insurance strategy; (b) assess the domestic insurance market for both public and private assets to establish what products are currently offered and to determine their level of uptake; (c) carry out a quantitative analysis to determine whether contingent credit could be an effective tool to access additional liquidity post-disaster; and (d) investigate the possibility of establishing policies for financial assistance to disaster victims in remote communities.

This note aims to build understanding of the existing disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI) tools in use in Fiji and to identify gaps where potential engagement could further develop financial resilience. In addition the note aims to encourage peer exchange of regional knowledge, specifically by encouraging dialogue on past experiences, lessons learned, optimal use of these financial tools, and the effect they may have on the execution of post-disaster funds. In 2012 alone Fiji experienced three major events with estimated total damage of F$146 million (US$78 million). Fiji is expected to incur, on average over the long term, annual losses of F$158 million (US$85 million) due to earthquakes and tropical cyclones. In the next 50 years Fiji has a 50 percent chance of experiencing a loss exceeding F$1,500 million (US$806 million). The country has a taken a proactive approach to DRFI and developed a finance manual for post-disaster budget execution. The government now has F$3 million (US$1.6 million) available in DRFI instruments to facilitate disaster response and also implemented tax concessions to encourage donations in the wake of tropical cyclone Evan. A number of options to support ongoing DRFI improvements in Fiji are presented for consideration: (a) the finance manual developed by the Ministry of Finance for post-disaster procedures should be finalized, and cabinet approval should be sought; (b) an overarching disaster risk financing and insurance strategy should be developed that includes options for risk transfer; and (c) assets should be identified in order to develop an insurance program for critical public assets.

This country note is produced is part of The Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment andFinancing Initiative (PCRAFI). The geographic spread of the Cook Islands poses logistical problems for any necessary post-disaster relief and response efforts. The events of 2005 demonstrated that the Cook Islands is extremely vulnerable to the threat of tropical cyclones (TCs): in the two months of February and March 2005, TCs Meena, Nancy, Olaf, Percy, and Rae swept the country. The Cook Islands is expected to incur, on average, about NZ$6 million (US$4.9 million) per year in losses due to tropical cyclones. In the next 50 years, the Cook Islands has a 50 percent chance of experiencing a per-event loss exceeding NZ$97 million (US$79.5 million. The Cook Islands has a proactive approach to disaster risk financing and insurance (DRFI), which is supported by the upper echelons of government. In January 2011, the prime minister in his role as chair of the National Disaster Risk Management Council requested that the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management look at ways to become self-reliant in initial disaster response and generate new income streams for investment in a fund specifically for disaster management response and recovery. The Cook Islands has available a maximum amount of NZ$5.6 million (US$4.6 million) in the form of contingency funds and catastrophe risk insurance to facilitate disaster response. A number of options for further improving the Cook Islands financial protection against disasters are presented for consideration: (a) the development of an integrated DRFI strategy; (b) investigation of using contingent credit to access additional liquidity post-disaster; (c) development of an operations manual for post-disaster budget mobilization and execution; and (d) the identification of assets to be included in an insurance program for critical public assets.

Disasters associated with the impact of natural hazards have had adverse social and fiscal effects on Panama over time, and the Government of Panama (GoP) is therefore committed to strengthening the financial management of disaster risks. Actions taken by the GoP in financial management of disaster risk are consistent with law 34 of June 5, 2008, the law on social fiscal responsibility. This law aims to establish norms, principles, and methodologies for consolidating fiscal discipline in national financial management of the public sector, a necessary condition for continuous and sustainable economic growth. The strategic framework was developed with the support of regional and international entities. The document incorporates a number of important lessons learned from international experience: (i) include disaster risks as part of an integrated framework of fiscal risk management; (ii) ensure that governments have access to immediate funds following a disaster; (iii) consider the creation of a national disaster fund; and (iv) reduce the government's contingent liabilities against disasters associated with the impact of natural hazards by insuring critical public assets and promoting the private insurance market for catastrophic risks and agricultural insurance. The strategic framework has the following five strategic pillars: (i) identification, quantification, and understanding of fiscal risk due to disasters; (ii) incorporation of disaster risk analysis in the planning of public investment; (iii) formulation of components for developing and implementing risk retention and transfer instruments; (iv) development of the domestic insurance market; and (v) strengthening of the state directorate of investment, concessions, and risks (DICRE) so it can fulfill its role in designing and implementing financial protection strategies.

The report presents the results of a detailed vulnerability assessment and summarizes the prioritization methodology developed to guide investment decisions on the strengthening of critical assets in Metropolitan Manila. With support from the World Bank, the engagement on Safe and Resilient Infrastructure has carried out a preliminary structural assessment of over seven hundred public school campuses and twenty hospitals retained by the Department of Health in Metro Manila. The report also highlights the lessons learned from seismic retrofitting programs implemented throughout the world, as showcased during the Forum on Safe and Resilient Infrastructure that took place in Manila, Philippines, in October 2013. This report is divided into three sections. First, it establishes the technical principles of earthquake risk management. Second, it details the experience of the Philippines to date in developing an integrated earthquake risk management program, focusing on the methodology and results of a vulnerability assessment and prioritization conducted under the Safe and Resilient Infrastructure Program. Last, it reviews international experience with earthquake risk management programs of various scales and scopes, through the cases of California, Romania, Turkey, and Indonesia. The key messages of the report are as follows: An integrated approach to earthquake risk management can strengthen key buildings and infrastructure and reduce the damaging effects of future disasters in the Philippines. Earthquake risk management and strengthening programs initiated by both the public and private sectors in many countries often consist of three phases: risk audit, risk assessment, and implementation. Several key technical components must be considered in the design of a phased earthquake risk management program, including a prioritization methodology.

Senegal is implementing a Disaster Risk Management (DRM) framework and has established a public private agriculture insurance company. Rules, responsibilities and operational procedures need clarification, ideally guided by the findings of a fiscal disaster risk assessment. Insurance mechanisms are not considered in (sovereign) catastrophe risk transfer so far. Additional investment in and guidance with data market infrastructure would be necessary for sovereign DRM but would also benefit the spread of catastrophe property insurance for households, businesses and even low income populations who are beginning to see flood micro-insurance. With the public private agriculture insurance company, Senegal has a unique partner for rural outreach that could go beyond agriculture insurance. But the company would require technical support to achieve sustainability and find its role in the social protection framework. There is a unique window of opportunity for micro-insurance in Senegal as specific regulation is being implemented. This has generated momentum that can significantly grow the outreach of insurance but calls for technical and financial support. The most immediate opportunities for promising multi stakeholder interventions in Senegal are in agriculture insurance, where various initiatives have begun specifying the potential. Credit linked property micro-insurance against floods could be explored.

Responding appropriately to the country’s high exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters, and capitalizing on a well-functioning insurance industry, Vietnam has embraced insurance mechanisms in disaster risk management and agriculture more vigorously than most developing countries. But some initiatives like the disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy’s mandate to implement disaster risk insurance are yet to be conceived, while others such as the agriculture insurance scheme have been launched but experienced unsustainable outcomes and need strengthening. Technical assistance to guide this process can have substantial impact, and could include the consolidation of available risk modeling and hazard maps and closing major gaps these may have. Appropriate insurance of public assets will further strengthen the property insurance sector and justify investment in risk models and underwriting expertise that will subsequently be available for businesses and households. A public private partnership pursuing flood insurance for the urban poor in collaboration with existing community-based Disaster Risk Management programs could capitalize on the nascent micro-insurance market and further strengthen inclusive insurance. Vietnam has strong appetite for agriculture and catastrophe property insurance, and the governance structure as well as insurance industry to secure the desired impact of investments. Better incorporating agriculture and catastrophe property insurance principles in social safety net programs could increase the protection of larger populations.

GFDRR was established in September 2006 as a global partnership of the World Bank, UN agencies and bilateral donors, located in World Bank headquarters in Washington, DC. Its missions are (a) to mainstream disaster reduction and climate change adaptation (CCA) in country development strategies, and (b) to foster and strengthen global and regional cooperation among various stakeholders under the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) system. GFDRR supports the implementation of the UN 2005-2015 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). This international agreement in relation to disaster risk reduction (DRR) arose from a 168-nation UN conference held in Kyoto, Japan, in 2005. The key player for coordinating the implementation of HFA is the UNISDR bureau with headquarters in Geneva and eight regional offices worldwide. Another UN agency with operational responsibility for UN disaster related work is the UNDP-BCPR. These two UN agencies and GFDRR have complementary goals, creating potential for collaboration among the three organizations, but also calling for care in monitoring the risk of overlapping work among them and other DRR actors. UNISDR was a founding partner of GFDRR and UNDP-BCPR became a permanent observer to GFDRR in 2008.

The report titled ‘contingent liabilities: the Colombian experience,’ is the first publication on the management of contingent liabilities in Colombia. Published by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (MHCP), the report highlights technical and normative efforts and policy reforms on the management of contingent liabilities implemented by the Colombian Government. Policy reforms disclosed in the report pertain to the management of contingent liabilities borne by the Government from four different sources, namely public credit operations, contractual public-private partnerships on infrastructure development, legal actions against the Colombian Government, and contingencies resulting from natural disasters. Importantly, although natural disasters are the second most important source of contingent liabilities faced by the Colombian Government, most formal policy reforms have been directed to the institutionalization of managing the first three sources of contingencies, while legal reforms for the explicit accounting of natural disasters is an ongoing effort in Colombia.

FONDEN (Natural Disasters Fund), Mexico's fund for natural disasters, was established in the late 1990s as a mechanism to support the rapid rehabilitation of federal and state infrastructure affected by adverse natural events. FONDEN was first created as a budget line in the Federal expenditure budget of 1996, and became operational in 1999. Funds from FONDEN could be used for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of: 1) public infrastructure at the three levels of government (federal, state, and municipal); 2) low-income housing; and 3) certain components of the natural environment. FONDEN consists of two complementary budget accounts, the FONDEN program for reconstruction and FOPREDEN program for prevention, and their respective financial accounts. The FONDEN program for reconstruction is FONDEN's primary budget account. It channels resources from the federal expenditure budget to specific reconstruction programs. The FOPREDEN program for prevention supports disaster prevention by funding activities related to risk assessment, risk reduction, and capacity building on disaster prevention. The FONDEN system is continuously evolving to integrate lessons learned over the course of years of experience.

This report argues that the practice of disaster risk management (DRM) is a defining characteristic of resilient societies, and should therefore be integrated, or 'mainstreamed', into all aspects of development. The report will inform the Development Committee at the annual meetings 2012, and support discussion at the Sendai dialogue, a special event co-organized by the Government of Japan and the World Bank as part of the Annual Meetings program. This event will engage delegates on the importance of mainstreaming DRM, drawing upon the lessons from the great East Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011, and other disasters. This paper includes the following headings: disasters and development: an alarming trend; disaster risk management in action; national policies and planning; International Development Cooperation; disaster risk management at the World Bank; the way forward: priorities and opportunities; and glossary and references.

Bangladesh is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world. Situated in the delta of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna (GBM) rivers, the country is exposed to a range of river and rainwater flood hazards due to climate variability, the timing, location, and extent of which depend on precipitation in the entire GBM basin. The Government of Bangladesh is fully committed to global climate-change advocacy and action, having already invested heavily in adaptation measures and policies. In recent decades, the government has invested more than US$10 billion to protect its population and assets in the floodplains. Given the uncertain magnitude and timing of the added risks from climate change, it is essential to identify the costs of climate proofing Bangladesh's critical infrastructure from intensified monsoon floods and cyclonic storm surges. Previously, few if any detailed studies have been developed on the costs of climate-proofing the country's infrastructure assets from inland monsoon floods and cyclones. Most analytical work to date has been confined to case studies, with relatively limited sets of locations, impacts, and adaptation measures. This study aims to fill that knowledge gap by providing detailed vulnerable population estimates and estimates of the incremental costs of asset adaptation out to the year 2050. It is part of a larger World Bank-supported study, entitled Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC), funded by the governments of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

This study presents options for a national disaster risk financing strategy in Indonesia, drawing heavily on international experience. The study discusses a series of complementary options for a national disaster risk financing strategy, based on a preliminary fiscal risk analysis and a review of the current budget management of natural disasters in Indonesia. It benefits from the international experience of the World Bank, which has assisted several countries in the design and implementation of sovereign catastrophe risk financing strategies. The rehabilitation and reconstruction fund is the main budget instrument for the Government of Indonesia (GoI) to finance public post-disaster expenditures, but it is under-capitalized. This study presents an optimal combination of risk-retention and risk transfer instruments that could help the GoI increase its immediate financial response capacity against natural disasters and better protect its fiscal balance. Building on the three-tier risk layering approach promoted by the World Bank and the preliminary fiscal risk assessment analysis, the following financial strategy could be considered by the GoI. This strategy would provide the GoI with access to immediate liquidity in the aftermath of a disaster at a competitive cost. The strategy would allow the GoI to access up to US$1.8 billion liquidity in the aftermath of a disaster in order to finance immediate post-disaster expenditures, such as grants for livelihood and low income housing reconstruction. Preliminary disaster fiscal risk assessment analysis shows that this would protect the GoI against disasters occurring every 100 years. The implementation of a national disaster risk financing strategy would require significant institutional capacity building.

Nearly half of East Asia population lives in cities and the region is urbanizing so rapidly that built up areas are projected to increase faster here than in any other region in the next twenty years. Still, more than half of slum dwellers around the world live in East Asia. These are the people most vulnerable to disaster impacts. Given that Asia accounted for more than a third of the number of all reported disasters in 2010, and that natural disasters have quadrupled in the region during the past twenty years the fastest rate of increase of any region in the world managing urban growth for resilience is increasingly important. And yet, many cities do not have master plans to guide their projected growth, let alone tools for risk sensitive land use planning. The impetus for action will come from accessible tools that allow local policymakers to first minimize risk today and then think about addressing future risk. This methodology report describes the underlying risk components, including a description of the models required inputs related to metropolitan elements at risk, hazard sub-indices for thirteen hazard types and thirty parameters of physical, socioeconomic, and institutional vulnerability. In addition to this report, three city reports present results that can be used by a variety of users from those interested in the overall city wide risk from all natural hazards to those interested in more disaggregated information.

This report aims to advance the dialogue on creative, forward-looking solutions for developing countries by presenting recent innovations on disaster risk financing and insurance developed by the private markets as well as the international donor community, from the macro (government) level down to the micro (household) level. It discusses how these innovations can be adapted and implemented in developing countries to better protect efficiently those countries against the financial consequences of natural disasters. Section one provides an introduction to the economic and fiscal impacts of natural disasters on developing countries. Section two examines examples of innovation in the private insurance and capital markets that may have applications in sovereign disaster risk financing for developing countries. Section three examines how innovations coming out of mature property catastrophe risk insurance (PCRI) markets could serve in low and middle-income countries. Section four considers how innovation is taking seed in creative disaster micro insurance programs in low- and middle-income countries. Section five wraps up the report with brief concluding remarks.

This document aims to provide a concise collection of those good practices and challenges that have recently been identified by evaluative work on natural disaster response of the World Bank, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), and other major actors. It is hoped that the lessons identified can be used by World Bank staff engaged in work related to natural disasters, to gain insights into approaches that may promote or hinder effective assistance to partner countries. Although great international attention is focused on the occurrence of disasters and the short term response to them, this phase is only part of the overall disaster management cycle. This cycle includes three main phases pre-disaster, disaster response, and post-disaster each of which has an appropriate range of activities. Evaluations have provided many lessons for this phase. However, these generally also carry over into the post-disaster phase, and even further into the next pre-disaster phase. Some of the lessons may partially contradict each other (for example, the value of local participation may cut across the benefits of speedy action), which means that trade-offs must be developed for each specific situation.

This paper presents the conceptual framework for a training program on integrating disaster risk reduction and climate-change mitigation into Agriculture and Rural Development Department (ARD) programming. Its target audience consists of World Bank task team leaders and their national counterparts and partners working in agriculture and rural settings.

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.

The provention consortium was created in February 2000 as a formal partnership between the World Bank, other International Financial Institutions (IFIs), bilateral donor organizations, the insurance sector, the academic community, and civil society. Designed as a think-tank to commission research and to disseminate risk reduction tools, the provention secretariat was to rotate from one partner organization to another. Thus, after three years at the Bank, the secretariat was transferred to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in Geneva. The overall goal of provention is to reduce the social, economic, and environmental impacts of natural disasters on vulnerable populations in developing countries in order to alleviate poverty and contribute to sustainable development. This is achieved through (a) forging partnerships; (b) promoting policy; (c) improving practice; and (d) sharing knowledge. Under the Washington-based Secretariat, provention supported four types of activities: applied research studies, pilot and demonstration projects, education and training activities, and workshops and conferences. Provention was repeatedly criticized for its weak governance structure. Therefore, the secretariat commissioned a governance review in 2005. The governance review recommended reactivating the presiding council (PC); replacing the Steering Committee (SC) by a forum to discuss the impact of disasters in developing countries; and creating an Advisory Committee as the main governing body.