Search

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.

Social protection can help build people’s social and economic resilience against disasters in Myanmar. Regular cash transfers, including public works programs, can help smooth consumption,build and maintain assets, and develop human capital to better cope with natural hazards. Disaster risk management (DRM) systems can be linked to social protection programs to trigger a safetynet response in times of emergencies. Community-driven development (CDD) programs could provide a useful platform for social protection programming to respond to disasters and build long termresilience in Myanmar.

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.