International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Volume 15, In Progress (March 2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22124209/15

.
Review Article
Government-sponsored natural disaster insurance pools: A view from down-under
Pages 1-9
John McAneney, Delphine McAneney, Rade Musulin, George Walker, Ryan Crompton
Abstract
In the light of the rising cost of natural disasters we review the provision of catastrophe insurance by the public sector in the US, France, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and its absence in the Netherlands, where flood risk is viewed as a national security concern. We do this in the context of the Australian home insurance market where insurers increasingly employ risk-reflective, multi-peril premiums as new technology allows them to better understand their exposure to risk. Motivations behind government pools vary by country, as do hazard profiles. In the US, for example, pools have usually arisen in the face of market failure of private sector insurance following a significant natural disaster; the initial concern has been the provision of affordable insurance rather than disaster risk reduction. Government pools have certain advantages over the private sector including their ability to raise funds post-event, but face financial unsustainability given political intervention to maintain affordability of cover in high-risk areas. In Australia, it is too early to judge whether risk-based premiums are leading to better land-use planning and increased mitigation spending, but in the case of northern Australia, a region that faces flooding and tropical cyclone risks, rising premiums are causing concern in Government. Nonetheless, the corollary seems self-evident, i.e. in the absence of transparency about the cost of risk, there is no incentive on the part of homeowners, local councils or land developers to improve the ‘riskscape’; insurers are the only actors with immediate financial incentives to acknowledge these risks.

.

A comparison of the governance landscape of earthquake risk reduction in Nepal and the Indian State of Bihar
Original Research Article
Pages 29-42
Samantha Jones, Katie J. Oven, Ben Wisner
Abstract
On 25 April 2015, a Mw 7.8 earthquake struck central Nepal, killing more than 8700 people. An earthquake of this magnitude has long been anticipated in Nepal and the neighbouring northern Indian state of Bihar, which straddle the active Himalayan frontal fault system. Drawing on field research undertaken before the earthquake, this paper traces the progress made in earthquake risk reduction efforts at the national scale in Nepal and at the sub-national scale in Bihar. With their contrasting ‘governance landscapes’, we examine the political and institutional context and power relations among different stakeholder groups, as well as the interests and political will motivating earthquake risk reduction. Nepal is a post-conflict country, with a weak legislative and institutional setting for earthquake risk reduction, and a multitude of different stakeholders (government, multi and bi-lateral donors, UN organisations, and national and international NGOs) engaged in the disaster risk reduction process. Bihar, by comparison, has a strong, hierarchical, sub-national government system with minimal influence of non-government stakeholders in earthquake risk reduction. While Nepal appears to have progressed further in strengthening earthquake resilience, the institutional structures in Bihar are stronger and could potentially support more sustainable resilience building in the long-term. The role of individual ‘champions’ in both instances (in Nepal among a national NGO, donors and multilateral agencies, and in Bihar within the government) has been instrumental in shaping the earthquake risk reduction agenda and initiatives.