Accepting that risk is an integral part of  life means to acknowledge its potential impact  — whether minor or profound.  In the development space, risks are inevitable and must be proactively addressed. 

Development gains are vulnerable to risks. The good news, however, is that sustainable development is achievable – the difference precisely lies in whether our actions/inactions are risk-informed.  

Ethiopia is exposed to a wide range of hazards such as floods, droughts, landslides, volcanoes, earthquakes, desert locust – in many cases, further compounded by inter-communal conflicts, forced displacement, and economic stress among others. A dominantly rain-fed agriculture; a fast-paced population growth; low economic development; and dwindling natural resources base are among those key factors driving vulnerability.  

Sustaining development gains takes not only keeping the momentum in investment, but also, a proactive stance in offsetting the bottlenecks to resilience – by and large, this should be taking a solid understanding and governance of disaster and climate risks.  

Development is creating new risks - It should also be noted that some of our conscious development interventions are, in fact, creating new risks – This is often an overlooked fact in the development discourse. Essentially speaking thus, RID is not only about protecting existing development gains, but also, is about preventing creation of new risks by our legitimate development exercises.  

Investment in disaster risk reduction presents opportunities not only for reducing existing risks, but also for preventing new and emerging risks. Equally important, promoting climate change adaptation practices renders a golden chance for communities and systems to accommodate the ‘new normal’ in the face of changing climate. One key question pertinent to these however, is ‘how can we get the mainstream national and sub-national level development decisions take this into account?  

It all must begin with proper risk knowledge- I think this makes the very reason why Global leaders agreed in March 2015 at Sendai, Japan that ‘Understanding Risk’ is the first key priority in the efforts of disaster risk reduction. It is unrealistic to expect preparedness without first understanding the nature of the imminent threat to development.  

At the center of RID is effective disaster risk governance – RID is shaped by national and sub-national policies, institutions, systems, structures, and strategies. A strong policy coherence and institutional incentives for integrating DRR and CCA into development planning, implementation and budgetary process are necessary.  

Do we have the required capacities to make RID happen?  It might not be possible to interfere with hazards. Reducing vulnerabilities from hazard exposure, however, is a matter of choice. It takes a concerted effort on capacity building on RID to embrace what it takes – we need better capacities not only at national level, but also at sub-national and community levels.  

If not paid for, it is not yet owned – RID must be financed on purpose. Here, I am not typically talking about development assistance or international aid. I am rather making a point that if we are not actually putting in a deliberate monetary investment in DRR and CCA as an integral part of national or local development exercise, we are not moving any further – our policies and strategies, otherwise will only be reduced to a level of ‘good intention’.  

UNDP Ethiopia takes RID as a priority matter *:  

• We are driving a learning process on integrating DRR and CCA into development. Our approach is one of creating a qualified national pool of experts – this ultimately aims to support cascading the mainstreaming process to local levels, where it is most needed. 

• We are dealing with the policy space and Institutional fabric for RID – dedicated assessments are being undertaken on policy and institutional coherence on integrating DRR and CCA into development. We are working on identifying the most important institutional barriers and incentives for climate action in the context of RID. 

• We are not only focusing on actions, but also on alignment of national reporting against key global frameworks – we are assessing the level of alignment of our key national reporting against the Paris Agreement, The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Sustainable Development Goals. The assessment is meant to set a blueprint for capacity building. 

• We continue to support the exercise of risk analysis for community-based resilience building – we have gone beyond ‘Woreda Risk Profiling’ to conduct community-based risk analysis - ultimately aiming to pilot evidence-based initiatives on ‘Community-based Resilience Building’. 

• We are also addressing  the financing side of RID at community level – we are working to develop innovative financing strategies for community-based resilience building, with focus on diversifying funding sources, engaging local government and communities in financing resilience building, and utilizing innovative mechanisms – this aims to build financial resilience against shocks and stresses.  

Now, you see that there is no quick fix to RID, rather it takes a multi-dimensional engagement covering whole range of actions, including risk identification, risk governance, financing, and local capacity building among others. But as I see it, institutionalizing RID is the foremost priority for Ethiopia the Moment.  

You may wonder, what is the most pressing priority action towards institutionalizing RID? I tend to say, at this stage, strong government leadership, advocacy, localization and coordination are the most needed: 

Government ownership is key to success – RID should be a government-led and partners-supported process, not the other way round. This means, it takes a dedicated national and sub-national leadership, with strong engagement of communities, with increasing involvement of the private sector.  

There is a call for strong advocacy – Ethiopia needs real champions of RID. Individuals, subject matter experts, development partners, the academia, and any person/entity from all walks of life can devote themselves to advocate for RID.  

Localizing RID practice is the way ahead – while effective national level commitment and capacity on risk governance is key, the ultimate focus should be fully engaging local actors and communities.  

Institutionalizing risk informed development is not optional – it is urgent. A strong coordinated effort among DRR & CCA actors is necessary – coordination is the fuel to support the journey.  

Coordination in this case is also about getting those Institutions and authorities with DRR and CCA mandates to come together and cohesively work towards risk informed development. 

*Most of these efforts are currently supported by the European Union under the “Strengthening Disaster Risk Governance and Recovery Capacities” Project. The Project is a component of the Intra-ACP Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Programme funded under the 11th European Development Fund (EDF) ACP-EU Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Programme.

**For more information on this issue, contact Teketel.daniel@undp.org