《APEC:2023风险知情决策和中小企业能力建设最佳实践指南(英文版)(57页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《APEC:2023风险知情决策和中小企业能力建设最佳实践指南(英文版)(57页).pdf(57页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、Best Practices Guideline:Risk-informed Decision Making and SMEs Capacity BuildingAPEC Emergency Preparedness Working GroupJuly 2023Best Practices Guideline:Risk-informed Decision Making and SMEs Capacity BuildingAPEC Emergency Preparedness Working Group July 2023 APEC Project:EPWG 06 2021A Produced
2、by National Disaster Reduction Center,Ministry of Emergency Management of China(NDRCC)For Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat 35 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119616 Tel:(65)68919 600 Fax:(65)68919 690 Email:infoapec.org Website:www.apec.org 2023 APEC Secretariat APEC#223-EM-03.1 TABLE O
3、F CONTENTS Introduction .1 Acknowledgement.3 Risk-informed Decision-making Framework for Resilience.4 I.Introduction.4 II.Global Shift in Addressing Disaster and Risk Issues.5 i.Improved Understanding on the Issues of Disasters and Risks.6 ii.Creating an Enabling Environment for Integrating Risk Con
4、cerns into Development.7 iii.Reducing Disaster and Climate Risks for Sustainable Development.8 III.Review of Disaster and Risk Issues in APEC.9 i.Disasters and their Impact on APEC Member Economies.10 ii.APEC Political Will for Disaster and Risk Reduction.10 iii.APEC Frameworks for Action Towards Re
5、silient and Sustainable Economies.12 IV.Risk-informed Decision-making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR).13 i.Goal.14 ii.Specific Objectives.14 iii.Hazards Concerned.14 iv.Targeted Groups.15 v.Definition and Steps for Making Risk-Informed Decisions.15(i)Identify the Needs and Context for a Risk-inform
6、ed Decision.15(ii)Collect and Assess Information for a Risk-informed Decision.16(iii)Analyse Alternative Options for a Risk-Informed Decision.17(iv)Evaluate Evidence for A Risk-Informed Decision.18(v)Taking a Risk-informed Decision.18(vi)Implementing a Risk-informed Decision with Risk Communication
7、and Risk Monitoring.19(vii)Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of a Risk-informed Decision.20(viii)Document the Implementation of Risk-informed Decisions for the Future.20 V.Enabling Environment for Risk-informed Decision-making and Its Implementation.20 i.Public Understanding.21 ii.Public Policy.21
8、 iii.Legislation.22 iv.Risk Governance.22 v.Accountability.22 vi.Stakeholder Engagement.23 vii.Community Participation.23 VI.Summary.23 Capacity Building of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation:Supplay Chain Resilience of SMEs.25 I.Introduction.25 i.Background.25 ii.Scope and Methodology.26 II.Constra
9、ints of SMEs Resilience Building.26 i.Resource.27 ii.Awareness.27 iii.Finance.27 iv.Technology.27 v.Strategy.27 vi.Challenges Presented in the Trend of Globalization.28 III.Framework for SMEs Disaster Resilience Building.28 i.Literature Review on Disaster Resilience Building.28 ii.Why Resilience Cap
10、acity Building for SMEs.29 iii.Framework for SMEs Disaster Resilience Capacity Building.30(i)Strategy Level:Disaster Risk Management.31(ii)Operation Level:Supply Chain End-to-end Operation.31(iii)Enabler Level:All-round Support.32 a.Technology Application.32 b.Financial Investment.32 c.Human Resourc
11、es Development.33 d.Low carbon and Sustainable Development.33 IV.Best Practices Factors and Cases.33 i.Proposed Solutions for SMEs Disaster Resilience Capacity Building.33 ii.Inner Improvement:Build Capacity.33(i)Enhance Risk Awareness and Strengthen Risk Management.33 a.Risk Assessment.34 b.Busines
12、s Impact Analysis.34 c.Continuity Plan Development.34 d.Test and Optimization.35(ii)Optimize Supply Networks and Utilize Innovation.36 a.Planning:Demand Forecasting and Innovation in Product and Marketing 36 b.Procurement:Multi-sourcing and Near-shoring.37 c.Manufacturing:Redundancy and Industrial A
13、lliance.37 d.Delivery:Facilities Allocation and Logistic Networking Planning.38(iii)Emphasis on Green Development and Digital Technology.39 iii.Strengthening Government Role and Public-Private Partnership for Building Resilient Ecosystem.39(i)Improve Disaster Risk Management at Strategic Level.39 a.
14、Optimize Emergency Management Laws and Action Plans.40 b.Encourage Enterprises to Establish Risk Management System.40 c.Raise Risk Awareness and Promote Risk Culture.40(ii)Build a Resilient External Environment by All Stakeholders.41 a.Strengthen Critical Infrastructure.41 b.Promote Emergency Indust
15、ry.42 c.Focus on Early Warning and Disaster Prevention.42 d.Establish a Professional Emergency Rescue System.42(iii)Encourage All-round Capacity Support to SMEs.42 a.Digital Technology Application.43 b.Finance and Investment.43 c.Low-carbon and Sustainable Development.43 V.Conclusion.44 Annex/Append
16、ix .45 Annex A:A Proposed Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR).45 Annex B:Terminology.46 Annex C:References.48 1 INTRODUCTION This document is produced by National Disaster Reduction Center of Ministry of Emergency Management of China(NDRCC)in the context of APEC-funded Pro
17、ject“EPWG 06 2021A-Resilience and Recovery:Risk Smart Business for SMEs in the Post COVID-19”,with an aim to provide guidance and reference on supporting small and medium enterprises(SMEs)resilience building and risk-smart business at government,technical and business community level,especially in t
18、he post-pandemic era.As the backbone of APEC economy,the business community,especially SMEs,contributed enormously to the COVID-19 prevention and control but also suffered from the continued adverse impacts of the pandemic.For SMEs to build resilience against the impacts of such risks as natural haz
19、ards and public health contingency,and achieve sustainability in the post pandemic era,government departments,technical support agencies and SMEs themselves should all make due efforts.With an overarching goal of providing guidance and suggestions for decision makers,practitioners and SMEs in APEC c
20、ommunity about adaptation to post-pandemic landscape,risk-informed decision making,and integrating a risk-smart and climate-resilient philosophy into the post-COVID-19 business models and practices,this document discusses resilience building from the following two levels:First,risk-informed decision
21、 making at government/strategic/decision makers level to support industries including SMEs build resilience against future risks and promote their sustainability in the post-pandemic era.Second,resilience capacity building at SME level to strengthen supply chain,improve risk management,and raise awa
22、reness for risk-smart business.Specifically,in the first part of the document,the study focuses on risk-informed decision making for resilience and answers a few questions around the topic:What?Why?Who?How?The study finally develops a Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR)aim
23、ing to provide reference to a risk-informed and risk-smart policy paradigm/mindset in APEC economies.It is to support the ongoing effort to reduce the risks and impact of disasters on people and economic development in APEC member economies.Its overarching goal is to contribute to the realization of
24、 the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040-“for an open,dynamic,resilient and peaceful Asia-Pacific community by 2040 for the prosperity of all its people and future generations.”The primary target group of this part will be decision makers at strategic level in both the public and private sectors for disaster
25、 management,investment and development projects in the APEC priority areas.The second target group of this part then includes project managers,local practitioners,local government officials and community leaders.The second part,based on the risk-informed decision-making framework and paradigm,also p
26、roposes a framework for SMEs to enhance resilience capacity building especially when facing disasters or future risks in the midst of todays mounting systemic risk.Considering the current situation in most APEC developing economies,it is far from enough for SMEs to build a high level of disaster res
27、ilience on their own.Crafting a resilient ecosystem requires the participation of the government and the civil society.Hence the study puts forward 2 recommendations from both internal and external ecology of enterprises,hoping to,on one hand,provide reference to disaster-related and industry-relate
28、d government departments in APEC member economies on building resilient enterprises with absorptive,adaptive,and restorative capabilities,and on the other hand,provide direction to SMEs themselves on shifting to a risk-smart and climate-resilient business model.The primary target group of this part
29、will be SMEs lack of or working towards more systematic and strategic risk management,those heading towards resilient post-pandemic recovery,and those in the face of adverse impact of natural hazards,climate events or the COVID-19.The second target group includes disaster-related and industry-relate
30、d government departments,development organizations and SMEs stakeholders/counterparts in APEC member economies or beyond.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Dr.Fengmin Kan,Senior Independent Consultant and former Chief of the Asia-Pacific Office of United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNDRR),Mr.Ken Bai,Vi
31、ce President of Lenovo Data Intelligence Business Group,and Dr.Peter Schmiedtchen,Member of the Future Forum of Public Safety,Think Tank of German Federal Parliament and Personal Member of the German Committee for Disaster Reduction prepared this document and made great efforts on analyzing data in
32、a scientific way and developing feasible recommendations.The document has also benefited from discussions with and inputs from a group of Asia-Pacific regional experts and the expertise of NDRCC.Together,this group represented a great deal of knowledge and experience in disaster management,disaster
33、risk reduction,climate change adaption,community risk management,sustainable and resilient development,and policy,programming and decision-making processes.Great appreciation also goes to Mr.Sanny Ramos Jegillos,Senior Advisor at Bangkok Regional Hub of United Nations Development Programme(UNDP),Dr.
34、Takako Izumi from International Research Institute of Disaster Science of Japan,Ms.Hang Thi Thanh Pham from the Asia-Pacific Regional Office of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO),Mr.Manny M.de Guzman who is former Commissioner for Climate Change of the Philippines,Ms.Ana Ch
35、ristina Thorlund from United Nations Project Office on Governance of United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs(UN DESA),and advisors from Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit(GIZ)for their valuable information and comments.4 Risk-informed Decision Making Framework fo
36、r Resilience I.Introduction The rationale to develop a Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR)is to support the ongoing effort to reduce the risks and impact of disasters on people and economic development in APEC member economies.Its overarching goal is to contribute to reali
37、zation of the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040(PV 2040)-for an open,dynamic,resilient and peaceful Asia-Pacific community by 2040 for the prosperity of all its people and future generations.1 Part One provides a brief overview of global shifts in addressing disaster and risk issues since 1990s.The impleme
38、ntation of the“Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World”(1994-2004),contributed to improved understanding on disaster and risk issues,informing the formulation of the“Hyogo Framework for Action:Building resilience of nations and communities to disasters”(2005-2015).The Hyogo Framework
39、for Action highlighted that disaster risk reduction is a shared responsibility of all stakeholders.Its implementation enabled engagement of those who are not,by profession,disaster managers,including politicians,policy makers,entrepreneurs,educators,developers and community leaders.Such extensive en
40、gagement of stakeholders is accompanied by wide acceptance that,while disaster management is a humanitarian issue,disaster risk reduction is more of a development issue.The progress and challenges in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action informed the formulation of the“Sendai Framewor
41、k for Disaster Risk Reduction”(2015-2030),and made it possible for it to become a comprehensive international accord together with other main elements of the global development agenda 2030,including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda(SDGs),among others.
42、Eight years after the adoption of these global frameworks,disaster and climate risk is unfortunately still on the rise.While the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNDRR)is facilitating the Mid-term Review of the Sendai Framework through multi-level consultations and different studies
43、 in various parts of the world,the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP)in March 2022 released its new publication on“The UNDP Approach to Risk-informed Development,”providing much-needed technical reference for achieving resilient and sustainable development.Part Two is on disaster and risk is
44、sues in APEC.It begins with a brief review of disasters and their impact on APEC member economies and then of APEC leaders political will and desire to steer towards more resilient and sustainable economies.The brief review shows that most APEC economies are very prone to the impact of natural hazar
45、ds,with socio-economic recovery sometimes lasting years in areas hit by disasters.Disasters pose not only a serious threat to the peoples of APEC member economies,but also a great challenge to the achievement of the PV 2040.To address the challenges imposed by disaster risks,APEC 1 APEC Putrajaya Vi
46、sion 2040 provides an inspiring forward-looking policy guidance.The original document can be found on the APEC website.5 leaders have demonstrated consistent political commitment which has enabled development of its strategy,framework and work plan for addressing disaster and climate risks.APEC,as a
47、 dynamic platform for economic development and investment,is shifting towards resilient and sustainable economies.Both the global background and APECs context underline the need for increasing effort to reduce disaster risks and making future development risk-informed,to increase the desired resilie
48、nce and sustainability of its economic development.Part Three presents a Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR),as an alternative approach to decision-making for supporting APEC on-going efforts to achieve its PV 2040,including:goal and objectives,hazards concerned and target
49、ed groups,and steps towards risk-informed decision-making in APEC projects.To make the approach simple and easy for the target group to use,the RIDMFR starts with steps widely used in decision-making processes and then suggests how to integrate steps that have been used in disaster risk management p
50、rocesses,so as to make each step in decision-making risk-informed.The RIDMFR should be considered as a“living approach”-which needs to be reviewed,improved and updated periodically in various development sectors,based on knowledge and experience obtained in its implementation.Therefore,Part Three al
51、so includes implementation,monitoring and evaluation,and documentation.Part Four focuses on the enabling environment for the implementation of the RIDMFR.It describes seven enablers,including public understanding,government policy,legislation,risk governance,accountability,stakeholder engagement and
52、 community participation.These enablers can mutually reinforce each other in the process of change.Together,they can become a powerful force to progressively transform decision makers into a driving force towards achieving the PV 2040.At the end,a summary emphasizes that disasters will continue to b
53、e frequent,posing great threats to sustainable development.The risk of disasters continues to rise in both the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world.It is high time for the APEC member economies to invest more in action on the ground to curb the stubborn uptrend of disasters and risks under
54、the clear guidance of APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040,in which APEC leaders committed to“promote economic policies,cooperation and growth which support global efforts to comprehensively address all environmental challenges,including climate change,extreme weather and natural disasters,for a sustainable p
55、lanet.”While APEC member economies continue to coordinate implementation of the APEC framework and its EPWG strategic planning for disaster risk reduction,decision-makers,in both public and private sectors,should start promoting a shift from“risk-ignored”to“risk-informed”decision-making for socio-ec
56、onomic development projects.Testing,implementing and updating this RIDMFR will be a good start-heading in the right direction-towards the achievement of the PV 2040.II.Global Shift in Addressing Disaster and Risk Issues Since the UN-launched“International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction”in 199
57、0,disaster and risk reduction issues have become a common agenda and shared responsibility of all member states of the United Nations.Since then,members of the international community have adopted and implemented three global strategies/frameworks to guide national and international action to addres
58、s disaster and risk issues:Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World(1994-2004)6 Hyogo Framework for Action:building resilience of nations and communities to disasters(2005-2015)Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction(2015-2030)The above international frameworks have been instrumen
59、tal in guiding and advancing public understanding and commitment to disaster and risk reduction.Collective efforts of the international community have made some progress in various areas and at different levels,and are well-documented by UN agencies as well as research and development institutions.T
60、his document will highlight a few points that were important in pushing disaster and risk reduction process forward.i.Improved Understanding on the Issues of Disasters and Risks The implementation of the“Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World”(1994-2004),enabled disaster and risk iss
61、ues to become a common agenda of the international community,helping to establish institutions,develop policy frameworks,raise awareness and build capacity.All of these inevitably contributed to the decline of death toll caused by disasters,despite the increasing number and scale of disasters trigge
62、red by multi-hazards,based on the information available from United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(UNISDR,known as United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction,UNDRR,since 2015).During this decade,scientific research and studies reached the conclusion that the term“natura
63、l disaster”is not a scientifically correct concept or term.Research proves that earthquakes and floods are natural hazards,but cannot by themselves turn into disasters.A disaster requires the additional combination of three man-made factors:exposure,vulnerability and incapability.The level of exposu
64、re and vulnerability of people and assets to such a natural hazard determines the level of disaster risk.Moreover,human ability or inability to address and mitigate such risks then determines the level of impact of natural hazards.The global review of the implementation of the Yokohama Strategy and
65、Plan of Action for a Safer World,also known as Living with Risk(2004),revealed that there was better understanding about the interrelationship between disasters,risks and development,despite being on a relatively small scale and among professionals and academic circles.The review pointed to the fact
66、 that choices made in development policies,along with other decisions and practices,can either decrease or increase exposure and vulnerability of people and assets to both traditional and emerging disaster risks.In this case,disasters are the undesired by-products caused in risk-insensitive developm
67、ent processes.Thus,disasters are actually more of a development issue than merely a humanitarian concern.According to the improved understanding,small disasters can be prevented and the socio-economic impact of large disasters can be reduced if the exposure and vulnerability of humans and their asse
68、ts to natural hazards can be sufficiently addressed with resilience building.During the preparations for the Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction,UNISDR held different consultations with governments and stakeholders(2002-2004).The thematic and regional consultations made it clear that disas
69、ters continued to erode progress in socio-economic development around the world.Development practices continued to ignore risks and thus accumulate exposure and vulnerability to the potential impact of natural hazards.UNISDR-led extensive consultations revealed that improved understanding,7 knowledg
70、e and technical abilities and methods were largely limited to a relatively small group of professionals,not enough to achieve a paradigm shift on risk reduction in the context of development.Collective action was therefore required to widen the engagement of stakeholders with different professional
71、backgrounds and further increase public and institutional understanding of the roots of disasters and risks.Adequate cognition on the subject would lead to the comprehensive action desired in disaster and risk reduction.In 2004,UNDP,launched its first Global Report on“Reducing Disaster Risk-A Challe
72、nge for Development.”The report further clarified the inter-relationship between development and disaster risks.It pointed out that“Natural disaster risk is intimately connected to processes of human development.Disasters put development at risk.At the same time,the development choices made by indiv
73、iduals,communities and economies can generate new disaster risk.But this need not be the case.Human development can also contribute to a serious reduction in disaster risk.”The Report also underlined the point that disaster risk is not inevitable,by sharing good practices about how disaster risk red
74、uction can be built into ongoing development planning policy.The two UN publications,Living with Risk,published by UNISDR and Reducing Disaster Risk-A Challenge for Development by UNDP,provide much-needed understanding and knowledge in disaster and risk reduction in addition to other relevant public
75、ations by academic researchers.Together,they played a significant role in informing the global agenda on disaster risk reduction before and after the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2005.ii.Creating an Enabling Environment for Integrating Risk Concerns into Development The above-mentioned
76、cognitive breakthrough provided the much-needed foundation and guidance for further addressing disaster and risk issues.In 2005,the Hyogo Framework for Action(HFA),was officially adopted by the international community,based on the progress made and challenges encountered in the implementation of the
77、 Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World(1994-2004).The HFA set out five priority areas with the overarching goal to build resilience to disasters:Governance:organizational,legal and policy frameworks(policy process);Risk identification,assessment,monitoring and early warning(technica
78、l process);Knowledge management and education(social process);Reducing underlying risk factors(development process);and Preparedness for effective response and recovery(humanitarian process).As indicated above,the five priority areas corresponded well to policy,technical,social,economic,and humanita
79、rian processes at different levels,making it clear that reducing disaster and risks is a complex process with multiple dimensions in human development.Implementing the HFA needed going beyond the traditional approach in disaster management,taking instead an integrated approach:policy makers,legislat
80、ors,physical and social scientists,development practitioners and disaster managers are all required to play important and complementary roles in disaster and risk reduction.Jointly,they can help shift the paradigm from managing disasters to managing risks,through a blend of policy,technical,social a
81、nd economic development actions.Effective partnership with key stakeholders can make a difference in reducing risk and building resilience,directly or indirectly.In addition,8 UNISDR developed 22 core indicators2 for voluntary reporting on-line of progress in disaster risk reduction,every two years,
82、to facilitate and monitor HFA implementation.At that time,according to UNISDR,progress in disaster risk reduction had been made in each of the five priority areas,but the achievements were moderate,insufficient to curb the upward trend in disaster risk.However,the implementation of the HFA not only
83、deepened public and institutional awareness that reducing disaster risk is more of a development issue,but also secured wider public understanding on-and commitment to-disaster risk reduction.This has inspired a good deal of action,especially at local level,to pilot the integration of disaster risk
84、concerns into projects related to the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs).Good practices were well documented and published by UNISDR and other multilateral organizations.Further-improved understanding on disaster and risk issues and effective engagement of a wider range of stakeholders through polic
85、y,technical,social,developmental and humanitarian processes contributed to creating an enabling environment for linking the new global framework for disaster risk reduction with other global instruments for climate change and sustainable development beyond 2015.iii.Reducing Disaster Risks for Sustai
86、nable Development The year 2015 was a unique year when several global policy documents were discussed and adopted to guide action to achieve the sustainable development goals.They included the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction(2015-2030),Paris Agreement on Climate Change,and Transforming
87、Our World:The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,the Financing for Development Agenda for Humanity and the New Urban Agenda.These documents greatly complement each other and together set out a comprehensive and ambitious blueprint for the world to achieve inclusive,resilient and sustainable dev
88、elopment by 2030.The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction(SFDRR),as the first global instrument agreed by international community,aims to further increase disaster risk understanding,prevent new disaster risks,reduce existing disaster risks and continue to increase preparedness for response
89、and recovery,thus strengthening resilience.The SFDRR made a further shift in focus from disasters to disaster risks,which requires cooperation and partnership with a wide range of stakeholders in society.In a nutshell,the SFDRR called for integration of disaster risk prevention and reduction into de
90、velopment processes,creating a coherent approach among climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts,and risk reduction and sustainable development work in order to achieve the resilience and sustainability of economies and communities.Encouragingly,reducing risk and enhancing resilience became a
91、 shared concern that was highlighted in the major global development agendas for 2030.The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development set 17 ambitious goals and 169 targets to be achieved by 2030.It highlighted that by 2030 it should substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adop
92、ting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters,using resources efficiently and inclusively.This is closely in line with the Sendai Framework.2 For the details of the 22 indicators for the HFA implementation,check UN
93、DRRs website.9 The Paris Agreement on Climate Change emphasized the intrinsic relationship that climate change actions,responses and impacts have with equitable access to sustainable development and the eradication of poverty.Article 8 mentioned that comprehensive risk assessment and management,risk
94、 insurance facilities,climate risk-pooling and other insurance solutions are needed to achieve greater community resilience,and protect livelihoods and ecosystems.These global development agendas mutually reinforce and depend on each other for achieving their goals set for 2030.Undoubtably,successfu
95、l implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will advance progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and vice versa.They have also provided comprehensive policy and action guidance for international community to invest in
96、 more risk-informed development paths,to achieve disaster resilient and thus sustainable development.Since the adoption of the Sendai Framework in 2015,governments and stakeholders have taken action to honor their commitment to implementation of the Sendai Framework,pushing forward and adding to the
97、 momentum gathered at Sendai,in line with the set of 38 indicators3 which was recommended by an Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group,to track progress in implementing the seven targets of the Sendai Framework as well as its related dimensions reflected in Sustainable Development Goals 1
98、,11 and 13.The indicators help measure progress in achieving the global targets of the Sendai Framework and determine global trends in the reduction of risk and losses due to disasters.Seven years after the implementation of the Sendai Framework,UN global and regional reports in 2021 and 2022 reveal
99、ed that disasters,especially those related to climate change,had become more frequent with more severe impacts.The efforts made by the international community have not yet reversed the uptrend in disaster and climate risk,thus posing a great challenge to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Go
100、als.The UN General Assembly decided to hold a midterm review of the implementation of the Sendai Framework in 2023 to“assess progress on integrating disaster risk reduction into policies,programmes and investments at all levels,identify good practices,gaps,and challenges and accelerate the path to a
101、chieving the goal of the Sendai Framework and its seven global targets by 2030”.UNDP released its new publication,“The UNDP Approach to Risk-informed Development”in March 2022,highlighting that“the development process itself can be a major driver of risk.The relationship between risk and development
102、 works in both ways and forms the core rationale for integrating risk reduction into development policy,planning and budgeting.Decisions on development trajectories and investment can contribute to the creation of risks”.It concluded that“risk is a normal and inseparable part of economic activities
103、and development”.UNDPs Approach to Risk-Informed Development provides fresh guidance and an environment for the international community,governments in particular,to pursue risk-informed decision-making for resilient and sustainable development.III.Review of Disaster and Risk Issues in APEC APEC was
104、transformed into a permanent organization in 1992,after a decade of informal discussions and consultations.Since then,APEC has primarily focused on promoting cooperation and collaboration in economic development,trade and investment in both the 3 Details for the 38 indicators are available on UNDRR
105、website.10public and private sectors.Its governing body has been well-supported by its Secretariat and 10 thematic working groups listed as development areas of priority.At this point of time,disaster and risk reduction was not yet one of the thematic working groups and was therefore not yet on the
106、official agenda.However,there has been great concern about the impact of disasters among APEC member economies.Both political and professional interest in addressing disaster and risk issues have been growing steadily stronger,especially after the unprecedented disaster caused by the Indian Ocean Ts
107、unami in December 2004.The tsunamis devastating impact,together with the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in January 2005,highlighted the importance of disaster risk reduction and resilience building in the APEC economies.i.Disasters and Their
108、Impact on APEC Member Economies The Asia Pacific region is prone to disasters caused by multiple hazards.According to the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2021 by United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific(UNESCAP),“disaster impacts are likely to intensify because variability
109、 and the increase in extreme temperature fluctuations can affect the frequency and intensity of disasters and make certain places and population groups more vulnerable.Climate change is thus not only a hazard,but also exacerbates interactions between biological and other natural hazards,which in tur
110、n affects the underlying risk drivers of poverty and inequality,in a vicious circle.”Although it included more than just APEC member economies,its analysis also reflected the situation encountered by APEC members.According to the public information available,most APEC member economies experienced th
111、e devastating impact of disasters triggered by earthquakes,floods,cyclones and wildfires.In addition,half of its member economies were listed among the worlds top ten disaster-prone economies,including China,the United States,Japan,the Philippines,Indonesia,Mexico and Thailand.Past experience has sh
112、own that the threat of disasters to APECs economic development and investment is real and large.The unprecedented Indian Ocean Tsunami affected eleven APEC member economies,who bore the great majority of deaths and economic losses.The Tsunami served as a devastating wake-up call that a single powerf
113、ul disaster can take lives and destroy livelihoods on a huge scale,washing away accumulated development gains in minutes,yet,taking many years to recover.In recent years,disaster profiles of APEC member economies underline the fact that most APEC members are highly prone to the impact of multiple ha
114、zards.Multiple hazards have been frequent,and their impact is on the rise,not only undermining economic development and investment,but also interrupting its process towards the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040.ii.APEC Political Will for Disaster and Risk Reduction APEC leaders have played a significant ro
115、le in creating an enabling policy environment to curb the uptrend of disaster risks and impacts.As early as 1997,APEC leaders acknowledged the high impact of disasters on APEC economies,realizing that a disaster which strikes one APEC economy also affects the rest.Since then,political commitment on
116、the issue among APEC leaders has been growing steadily,especially in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004.APEC leaders:Committed in 2005 to protecting our economies by taking action to lessen the impact of future disasters and improve our collective response capability.11 Urged in 2006
117、that member economies further intensify cooperation,including with the private sector,to maximize regional available resources to better prepare the region for disasters and post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction.Reiterated in 2007 their recognition of the regions vulnerability to disasters
118、 by highlighting the nexus among economic growth,energy security and climate change.Articulated in 2008 the importance of promoting disaster risk reduction through the adoption of the APEC Principles on Disaster Response and Cooperation.Reaffirmed in 2009 the importance of enhancing human security a
119、nd reducing the threat of disruptions to business and trade in the Asia-Pacific region.Bolstered investors confidence by reiterating after 2010 their commitment to take strong and action-oriented measures to address the threat of global climate change and commitment to developing practical disaster
120、risk management mechanisms,as well as increasing preparedness and strengthening the ability of APEC economies to manage emergencies.Pledged in 2011 to involve the private sector and civil society in APEC emergency preparedness efforts.Expressed in 2012 support for further steps such as facilitating
121、business continuity and resilience planning,especially among small and medium enterprises,establishing common standards for emergency early-warning systems in cross-border transportation,and for promoting the integration of disaster-risk financing.Articulated in 2013 the need to undertake urgent act
122、ion to prevent the grave economic consequences of natural and human-induced disasters.Agreed in 2015 to encourage further enhancement of cooperation on such issues,including more robust networking among disaster management agencies,improving supply chain resilience,reducing barriers to the movement
123、of emergency responders and humanitarian relief across borders,increasing data sharing and better applying science and technology to the challenges.Remained committed in 2016 to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as it represents a balanced and comprehensive multilater
124、al framework for international cooperation,as well as welcoming the recent entry into force of the Paris Agreement,committing to its transparent and effective implementation to transition to a low carbon,climate-resilient economy.Committed in 2017 to strengthen cooperation,including with the private
125、 sector,to enhance resilience to disasters through effective mitigation,preparedness,disaster risk reduction,response and recovery efforts,and underlined the importance of financial instruments and policies against disaster risks.Promoted in 2020 economic policies,cooperation and growth which suppor
126、t global efforts to comprehensively address all environmental challenges,including climate change,extreme weather and natural disasters,for a sustainable planet.Clearly,APEC leaders are well informed on the impact of disasters and the risks they are facing related to multi-hazards.Their political co
127、mmitment to address disaster and risk issues 12has been consistent and sustainable since 2005.It has steadily moved from general recognition to concrete policy guidance on issues related to disasters,hazards,vulnerability,risks and integrating risk concerns into APEC development,investment and econo
128、mic growth.The challenge is how to continue to transform the political commitment into practical action on the ground to make its development,investment and trade resilient to natural hazards.iii.APEC Frameworks for Action Towards Resilient and Sustainable Economies To translate political will into
129、practical action,APEC established its Task Force for Emergency Preparedness(TFEP)in 2005.APEC member economies,with their Task Force,were active to address disaster issues in their respective economy and beyond.The TFEP,with support and in consultation with experts from APEC member economies,develop
130、ed its Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness and Response(2009-2015),providing needed guidance for cooperation and collaboration among APEC members to curve the upward trend of disasters and risks in the Asia Pacific region.The Strategy helped to increase understanding of d
131、isaster and risk issues among different stakeholders in APEC economies.Subsequently,the TFEPs work was further recognized and appreciated,and it was,therefore,elevated to become Emergency Preparedness Working Group(EPWG)in 2010-a new and cross-cutting thematic sub-fora of APEC.It was given the clear
132、 goal of promoting and enhancing preparedness for response and recovery,as well as the resilience of economies and societies in the Asia Pacific region.It was also encouraged to foster cooperation among APEC member economies and fora/sub-fora to strengthen capacity-building for a proactive approach
133、on disaster risk reduction and resilience-building.The TFEP attaches great importance to reducing new and existing disaster risks in order to enhance APECs social and economic resilience to disasters,while also strengthening priorities consistent with the Sendai Framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sus
134、tainable Development.Issues on disasters and risks have been on the APEC agenda with a different focus each year,as demonstrated in the APEC Leaders Declarations(listed above).The EPWG,in close cooperation with technical experts,developed APEC Disaster Risk Reduction Framework in 2015,with four pill
135、ars:1)Prevention and mitigation,2)preparedness,3)response and 4)rehabilitation and building back better.The framework also highlighted the importance of seven elements,including community participation,disaster risk governance,disaster risk financing,science and technology,critical infrastructure re
136、silience,ecological integrity and inclusiveness of women and vulnerable sectors in disaster risk reduction.The framework was officially adopted by APEC leaders with a call to develop an action plan.In 2016,APEC Disaster Risk Reduction Action Plan was developed in line with the four pillars.Its goal
137、is to contribute to adaptive and disaster-resilient economies and support inclusive and sustainable development among APEC member economies.The four pillars of the framework identified areas for cooperation,including disaster vulnerability and risk assessment and the integration of disaster risk red
138、uction concerns in the APEC multi-year infrastructure development plan.This included ecosystem-based activities and improving readiness for response to and recovery from the impact of disasters.The Action Plan provided clear and consistent guidance in terms of areas of collaboration,illustrative act
139、ivities,partners,timeframe and indicators,and this has served as one of the foundations for dynamic and sustainable growth in APEC economies.13Building on progress made and challenges encountered with implementation of the APEC Risk Reduction Action Plan,the EPWG-in consultation with technical exper
140、ts developed a Strategic Plan 2021-2024.The overarching objective is to contribute to achieving APECs Vision 2040,particularly in promoting economic policy cooperation,along with growth that supports global efforts to comprehensively address all environmental challenges,including climate change,extr
141、eme weather and disasters.The Strategic Plan highlighted agreed priorities,objectives and key performance indicators.The Strategic Plan,aims to foster more proactivity,consolidating efforts on disaster preparedness and response.It underlines support for strengthening policy efforts to shift the bala
142、nce to investing in risk prevention and reduction.It also aims to reinforces cross-sectoral collaboration in multi-hazard surveillance,collaboration on community-based disaster risk management.It therefore includes public-private partnerships that are open to flexible and innovative ways of working
143、together to building disaster-resilient business and livelihoods in communities.Attention is also paid to early warning,impact assessments and comprehensive disaster risk reduction,these as performance indicators of the strategic plan.In summary,APEC political will to address disaster and risk issue
144、s has been consistent.An APEC framework to address disaster and risk issues was developed and a strategic work plan then put in place,in line with the strategic focus areas of APEC.To facilitate the process to translate political will,the disaster risk reduction framework and the strategic work plan
145、 into solid action on the ground will now require prioritization of the needed tools and capacity building within APEC.IV.A Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience(RIDMFR)The practice of making risk-informed decisions cannot be considered as a fresh approach.Publications available rev
146、eal that risk-informed planning did already exist in a limited number of sectors due to their high levels of public safety concerns.Designers of hydro dams,for instance,have been trying for decades to estimate the probability that an unusually large earthquake would crack their constructions,causing
147、 sudden,huge and deadly floods downstream.Such“safety-concerned”or“risk-informed”thinking is however limited to what are considered such“obvious”risks and far too little-often nothing-is done to extend such thinking to general public infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.Ironically hospitals,
148、which are key installations in a public emergency caused by disasters,are often among those facilities most vulnerable to a hazard and are thus flooded,destroyed or crippled just when they are needed most.The good news is that recent years has seen some encouraging efforts to further integrate risk
149、concerns into the project planning in more development sectors,especially in health,critical infrastructure,agriculture,finance and space technology.Good practices available point to the fact that reflecting disaster risk concerns in decisions on development or investment projects enables decision-m
150、akers to proactively reduce risk,prevent disasters and build resilience.More importantly,it is an investment in sustainable development in the long-term.This initiative to develop a RIDMFR represents the continuation of APECs efforts in disaster risk prevention and reduction,consolidating progress t
151、o date.The RIDMFR will be one of the approaches to facilitate efforts in transforming political will into practical actions on the 14ground and among the communities.The RIDMFR,as an approach to risk reduction and resilience building,can be used to support APECs ongoing resilient,inclusive and susta
152、inable development processes because it goes beyond the disaster management sector and can be used in various other development sectors for achieving resilience to disasters.Moreover,it can also support investments in economic recovery,embedding risk concerns into planning and capacity building,and
153、curbing growth in disaster risks.i.Goal The overarching goal of the RIDMFR is to contribute to the realization of the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040-for an open,dynamic,resilient and peaceful Asia-Pacific community by 2040 for the prosperity of all its people and future generations.ii.Specific Objective
154、s Support implementation of the APEC Disaster Risk Reduction Framework,Aotearoa Action Plan and EPWG 2021-2024 Strategic Plan Towards Adaptive and Disaster-resilient APEC Economies;Promote risk-informed decision-making in development planning,project design and implementation,starting with pilot pro
155、jects related to the areas of priority in APEC such as agriculture,health,finance,energy,infrastructure and ecology.iii.Hazards Concerned Being aware of international promotion of multi-hazards,and multi-dimensional and systemic approaches to disaster risk reduction,this RIDMFR will focus,as a start
156、ing point,on risks triggered by natural hazards such as earthquakes,floods,drought,cyclones,volcanic eruptions and tsunamis,in line with the current mandate of the EPWG of the APEC.Decision-making,by definition,is the selection of a course of action among a set of alternatives in order to best achie
157、ve goals set.Traditionally,decision-makers responsible for development work started with identifying the needs or issues of concern,followed by clarification of the objective,nature,conditions and even variables relating to the needs or issue of concern.Once the key elements for a decision are clari
158、fied,the focus then will likely be on cost,time frame and expected results,which also reflected the case in post disaster recovery.Decision makers responsible for disaster recovery may as well overlook risk issues.A good way to clarify a wider set of parameters for decision-making,from the outset,is
159、 to brainstorm with a range of stakeholders and partners who may be involved or affected,early in the decision-making process.Decisions on development projects can either increase or decrease the level of risk to people and assets,even to the very investment being made in the decision.However,the ri
160、sk of disaster is not necessarily always considered to be an issue of concern in decision-making and continues to be marginalized in decision-making processes.This may explain why some bridges,roads,railways,schools,hospitals and residential houses are completely or partially destroyed during disast
161、ers,sometime even with big loss of life and livelihoods.Moreover,if a school is destroyed in an earthquake,then the school was located in an earthquake prone area.The decision,design and construction to build the school there failed to adequately consider the exposure and vulnerability of the studen
162、ts,teachers and investment itself to reduce that seismic risk.The overlooking or ignorance of seismic risk in making a decision might also contribute to the failure to put in place the measures necessary 15for seismic risk reduction afterwards,resulting in severely damaged or collapsed buildings and
163、 possibly loss of life.There is a popular saying:“Earthquakes dont kill people;un-safe buildings kill people.”The financial resources needed to replace such destroyed or damaged schools are usually far greater than what preventive measures would have cost.In this context,risk-informed decision-makin
164、g is of great importance to start with.iv.Targeted Groups The primary target group will be decision makers at strategic level in both the public and private sectors for disaster management,investment and development projects in the APEC priority areas.The second target group includes project manager
165、s,local practitioners,local government officials and community leaders.v.Definition and Steps for Making Risk-Informed Decisions Making risk-informed decisions is an investment in resilience-building and sustainable development,especially for high-value decisions with the greatest impact.In this doc
166、ument,risk-informed decision-making is defined as a decision made based on comprehensive understanding of disaster risks as well as their potential impacts.It requires decision-makers to integrate risk management into their decision-making,step by step,so that disaster risks are systematically ident
167、ified,assessed,analyzed and considered,together with other competing factors in an integrated manner.In doing so,decision makers will be able to play an important role in building resilience to disaster risks.(i)Identify the Needs and Context for A Risk-Informed Decision A risk-informed decision req
168、uires decision makers-whenever they begin to identify an issue for making a decision on-to consider disaster risk factors together with their other traditional factors that they are used to considering,so that they can obtain good knowledge of the impacts of past disasters,existing hazards and poten
169、tial risks.For example,when decision makers begin identifying factors that address the public needs for a new hospital,they will naturally go through issues including population dynamics,existing hospitals and their major capacities and deficits.Once the public need for a new hospital has been confi
170、rmed,decision makers may look into the possible size and capacity of the new hospital needed,together with such issues that include possible locations,budget needed and funding,and the timeframe for completion.To make this decision risk-informed,decision makers need to consider risk and resilience f
171、actors throughout,so that the new hospital once opened will be able to function in spite of natural hazards such as earthquakes,floods or cyclones.To this end,decision makers need to establish the risk context at an early stage and look into external human and natural factors that may have an impact
172、 on objectives they set out,and the results they want.This may include the values and perceptions of external stakeholders and needs to define potential hazards,threats and vulnerabilities and likelihood of damage in a disaster.Information on the frequency and impact of past disasters is critically
173、valuable,but is not always a complete indication of future risks.For example,flood risk in many economies might be found to be greater than in the past due to climate change or erosion.Seismic risk cannot be estimated from only recent history,but must take into account a long timeframe as well as ac
174、cumulated geological data.Therefore,it is important to apply a multi-hazard approach to identify all natural hazards that exist in a location and its surroundings where the decision will 16have an impact.To do so will help establish the overall risk context,which in turn helps decide on an action pl
175、an on how to analyse and address the risks.Therefore,decision makers can identify needs for decision-making and establish the disaster risk context simultaneously,making needs identification risk-informed.(ii)Collect and Assess Information for A Risk-Informed Decision Unlike development policies,dec
176、isions for socio-economic development are likely to be concrete and specific in nature.Normally,decision makers focus on information collection after identifying the needs or issues of concern,objectives and expected results.Information collection is an important part of the decision-making process
177、because the level,source,quality and quantity of information will directly affect the quality and accuracy of the decision.Therefore,decision makers need to reach out to stakeholders or partners related to the decision,both inside and outside their own departments or organization,for information-gat
178、hering.If the location for the project decision,for example,is in a disaster-prone area,resilience to natural hazards should be a major concern.Information related to past disaster impacts and existing disaster risks should be collected.This includes types of natural hazards,the frequency of disaste
179、rs,level of risk management competence and their impact on people and assets,as well as direct and indirect economic losses.Normally,such information can be obtained from the department or organization responsible for disaster issues.If not due to lack of capacity in data management,governments then
180、 need to take action and enhance their capacity to consolidate data collection,and process data to make them available for risk-informed decisions on development.Risk assessment is not only a process in which potential risks can be identified,but,more importantly,a useful tool to guide decisions on
181、resource allocation for resilience and sustainability.Information gathered may be processed,based on the decisions needs,through one of the established risk assessment approaches such as a risk management approach,a resilience approach,a risk-based approach,a deterministic risk approach or a probabi
182、listic risk assessment approach.The risk management approach refers to a systematic application of management policies,procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying,analyzing,evaluating,treating and monitoring risk.A resilience approach emphasizes addressing underlying risk drivers and streng
183、thening the capacities and resources of a system to cope with risks,stresses and shocks.The risk-based approach is to identify and assess risks and then prioritize action to address risks,from high-level to low-level risks.A deterministic risk approach is used to assess disaster impacts of a given h
184、azard scenario,to consider the impact of a single risk scenario.A probabilistic risk assessment approach refers to systematic and comprehensive assessment of all possible scenarios,their likelihood and associated impacts of an event to obtain more refined estimates of hazard frequencies and damages.
185、All of these approaches to risk assessment and analysis are used to inform decision makers about the potential level of risks related to the decision and alternatives,based on users needs,capacity,resources and choices in different areas.Publications on disaster risk assessment and different approac
186、hes are available and accessible,together with examples and successful causes in on-line literature related to the topic,in addition to UNDRR and UNDP publications.17Whatever the approach,risk assessment invariably begins with identification and mapping of natural hazards.Normally,agencies or depart
187、ments responsible for disaster management should have this information and decision makers for development projects just need to reach out to them to obtain it.It is surprising how often this doesnt happen,even for very major and critical projects.Once the hazards are identified and mapped,the next
188、step is to determine who and what are exposed,including who is especially vulnerable,to the potential risks and what is the likelihood and likely severity if these risks lead to disasters?Risk assessment may follow this recognized formula or another formula which takes coping capacity into considera
189、tion:Hazards+Exposure+Vulnerability=Risk or Hazards+Exposure+Vulnerability Coping Capacity=Risk Although risk assessment provides the foundation of risk analysis,risk analysis needs to look into additional internal and external factors related to the risks assessed.For example,the level of risk gove
190、rnance can make the difference between disaster and resilience.Risk assessment professionals or experts may be needed to elaborate the potential impact of disaster risks on the decision,through quantitative and qualitative analysis if possible and if time and budgets permit.In this way,potential ris
191、ks can be better analyzed and options better identified.It is important to remember that,historically,decision makers of development projects have inadequately taken risk into account,thus risk and vulnerabilities are being accumulated to an alarming level.The challenge today is to face up better to
192、 any“uncomfortable facts”that may undermine a given project,or even destroy it.(iii)Analyse Alternative Options for a Risk-Informed Decision At this stage,the information gathered should be sufficient for decision makers to come up with a set of alternative options for a project decision.If the proj
193、ect,for example,is to build a modern public hospital to improve peoples access to medical care in a mega city,it may need to consider the possible risks triggered by floods,earthquake,and other related risks in order to keep it functional and resilient to disasters.In this case,a choice of different
194、 locations may vary the vulnerability to a given hazard,along with varying land prices and other costs.Decisions will have different implications in terms of costs and benefits,time frames,risks and resilience,and short-term and long-term gains.It is advisable to make further elaboration on the pros
195、 and cons for each alternative option for the decision,ideally together with representatives of those concerned,to eliminate alternatives which may cost more or unwisely increase risks.Participation and communication will help minimize resistance,reduce negativity and enlist support for doing what i
196、s necessary.Risk analysis is crucial for risk-informed decisions.This may sound obvious but often information about risks is insufficiently analyzed before a decision is taken.In-depth risk analysis may well be the stage that determines whether the project will be a success or failure,and whether th
197、e decisions taken are seen in retrospect to have been good ones.Analysis can be very complex,seeking to identify measures,and mitigate exposures to various risks or natural hazards.To illustrate,the fact that there has been no earthquake in seismic prone areas for a while is not necessarily a good s
198、ign and it may in fact make a big one more likely.The size of a potential earthquake disaster is also greatly affected by its depth,direction and 18distance and these are tricky to predict,even speaking in general time frames such as fifty years.A good risk analysis goes deeper and involves quite de
199、tailed consideration of risk sources,likelihoods,sensitivities,consequences,contributing factors and the existing capacity for and effectiveness of risk governance.For example,a probabilistic analysis may estimate the probability of an earthquake of-say-7.5 or more on the Richter scale in the next 5
200、0 years.However,for many decision makers this is still far from adequate analysis to estimate the amount of damage that would be done,or what counter-measures would be sufficient.Good practices available show that in-depth risk analysis is an effective tool to determine the level of tolerance to a g
201、iven risk of disaster.Quantitative and qualitative methods can then be applied to reduce risk and prevent disasters from eroding development gains.(iv)Evaluate Evidence for A Risk-Informed Decision After the in-depth elaboration of the alternative options for a risk-informed decision,decision-makers
202、 then need to deploy some of the decision-making tools available to support their evaluation of the remaining alternative options,to sort out the best option possible.Again,this may sound obvious but choosing the best option and justifying why it is the best is no easy challenge when complex trade-o
203、ffs are involved.Decision-making tools familiar to professional decision-makers include decision trees,matrices,spreadsheets and database analyses.These can help further evaluate and predict the best possible solution to the primary issue of concern and the likely outcome of each alternative decisio
204、n.Some argue that risk also comes with investment opportunities.For instance,risk evaluation may help balance between taking manageable risks and reducing them.Evaluation criteria may include implementation adroitness,the risk level for population and assets,the level of return on the investment,the
205、 cost in terms of both human and financial resources,and the degree of resilience and sustainability.Such evaluation criteria enable decision-makers to arrive at possible cost-effective alternatives,with an acceptable level of resilience.(v)Taking a Risk-Informed Decision Once decision makers are we
206、ll-informed of potential disaster risks,their complexity,costs and potential consequences-and are in a position to determine the best option-they also need to consider the importance of communication about the forthcoming decision.No decision can be made in isolation from others made earlier which m
207、ight be affected by the new decision.The announcement of the new project should also communicate the potential risks involved,how they were considered in deciding on the project,and how it is planned to address the risks during implementation.Openness with all concerned stakeholders,however drawn ou
208、t and exhausting the process may feel,is usually the best course.It is highly advisable to organize a final consultative meeting before taking the final decisions,to validate the selected final option and evaluate support received and minimize remaining opposition.The final validation should focus o
209、n key aspects related to the decision which includes the original objectives,budget and cost,opportunity cost and investment return of risk-informed decision,and the balance between risk tolerance and risk taking for the decision.A draft statement can even be gently tested at such a meeting,for inst
210、ance by stating in the presentation that the project will include strengthening against a given hazard at an additional cost of x%that is expected to save xxx amount in a given period by protecting the 19original investment to xx%probability over xx years.If studies were done by reputable institutio
211、ns on hazards involved,reference to them would be a welcome inclusion.A spokesperson of the responsible institution might even make a presentation,conveying the scientific basis and objectivity of the analysis that decision-makers are relying upon.Such multi-stakeholder“cross evaluation”can be a bit
212、 energy and time consuming,but it helps decision makers arrive at the best possible decision,addressing the issue of primary concern while also minimising risk due to vulnerability to natural hazards.Make sure that both potential benefits and drawbacks of each option are well considered before makin
213、g a final choice.Dont be shy about delaying the final decision to seek further information if the best option does not seem easy to choose,or if a group of decision-makers remain divided.Once the best available option has been selected,managers are then ready to make plans to cope with the requireme
214、nts and problems that may be encountered in putting it into effect.(vi)Implementing a Risk-Informed Decision Once a decision is taken,implementation then becomes the top priority and centre of attention.It is implementation that determines if the decision actually leads to achievement of the desired
215、 results,especially the resilience and sustainability aimed for.Traditionally,implementors or project managers will automatically look into human resources,budget,work plan and even a monitoring mechanism.The work plan thus developed allows to organize budgets and human resources needed,define the e
216、xpected results and a mechanism that can serve as a monitoring tool,ensuring operations stay on schedule and to standards.Implementation of a risk-informed decision needs a good level of risk communication to all involved.It requires additional attention to understanding the exact decisions taken on
217、 disaster risks and what was decided to be the risk tolerance level.If the decision taken was to tolerate a certain degree of risk,then implementors need to set up a risk monitoring and reviewing mechanism throughout the implementation period and enable corrective actions to be taken when risk is ab
218、ove level of tolerance.If the decision was mostly to reduce disaster risks,it is necessary to clarify the measures and determine if they prove adequate during implementation,or if additional measures,budget and capacities are proving required to achieve the expected reduction.It may in fact be very
219、challenging to get development project managers or implementors to manage risks and risk reduction measures during the project,as this may not have been their previous practice.They may see this as“not our job-we just build according to the schematics”.In such circumstances,decision makers may want
220、to deploy a disaster risk management expert during implementation-someone using risk management approaches to help the project manager track the risk situation.Construction itself often reveals unknown or unexpected conditions or risk factors.The expert can also support communication with decision m
221、akers on potential or upcoming risks,balancing resilience,cost and timeframe.(vii)Monitor and Evaluate Implementation of a Risk-Informed Decision Monitoring is widely used as a tool to continuously assess project implementation,based on set targets and planned activities.Evaluation,on the other hand
222、,provides a periodic in-depth and time-bound analysis that rigorously assesses the relevance,performance,impact and success of the project,as well as the level of risks to natural hazards and level of resilience to 20disasters.Evaluation raises any problems that may have a negative impact on expecte
223、d results.Therefore,it is not enough for decision makers and implementors to incorporate risk information into their work;only when it is also fully incorporated into implementation,monitoring and evaluation as well,will a project succeed in taking risks and their reduction fully into account.There
224、is in fact an alarming tendency to forget possible risks once a decision is made or once a thing is built.Managers should not underestimate the potential negative consequences for risks to be ignored in implementation,even completely ignored.To reduce extra expenditure on risk management is also a v
225、ery common“corner to cut”,perhaps hidden within a structure once completed.Special attention is therefore required to ensure monitoring and evaluation of risk dynamics in project implementation.Monitoring-and especially evaluation-are also key tools for learning and capacity-building,generating exam
226、ples of good practices(and bad!),along with the lessons learned.(viii)Document the Implementation of Risk-Informed Decisions for the Future Risk-informed decision-making has not yet become mainstream in most sectors in development.Path-breaking decision makers who have used risk assessment results t
227、o inform their decisions in a sector,or for a new project,should make a special effort to document the processes they used,so their“wheel”does not have to be re-invented.Documenting the rationale for a decision is key,should the project one day be struck by an unforeseen disaster,helping to both red
228、uce fallout and to provide data for an“autopsy”-to see exactly what went wrong at what point in the process that so better decisions can be made in the future.V.Enabling Environment for Risk-Informed Decision-Making and Its Implementation As mentioned above,risk-informed decision-making is slowly,bu
229、t steadily picking up momentum,especially in sectors whose risk level is of high public concern,along with its potential impact on people.Decisions in these sectors,as dam construction,construction and operation of chemical plants,health,critical infrastructure,space technology and nuclear plants,ar
230、e more likely risk-informed.Because a failure in risk management in these sectors can lead to catastrophic consequences,risk information,assessment and management have become important parts of project planning,decision-making,implementation,monitoring and evaluation,and documentation.The progress m
231、ade by such sectors at risk management is an investment in resilience and sustainability,helping protect socio-economic development gains.However,risk-informed decision-making has not yet become mainstream.To mainstream risk-informed decision in development,an enabling environment needs to be create
232、d for this,wherein risk-informed decision-making and implementation are encouraged,appreciated and promoted in society at large.There are seven main enablers of an enabling environment for risk-informed decision-making,including 1)public understanding,2)government policy,3)legislation,4)risk governa
233、nce,5)accountability,6)stakeholder engagement,and 7)community participation.i.Public Understanding Understanding the terminologies and concepts for disaster and risk issues is an important enabler for disaster risk-informed decision-making.Public action,by public officials and the 21general public,d
234、epends on their level of cognition of disaster risk reduction.Confusion or misunderstanding may delay or interrupt risk-informed decision-making and implementation processes,thus undermining resilient development.Relatively speaking,only a small number of people have become familiar with the essence
235、 of disasters and risks,as laid out in the international frameworks for disaster risk reduction since the 1990s.The majority of government officials and the general public,especially in different development sectors,still consider disasters as natural.They still do not understand that it is developm
236、ent choices that cause the accumulation of exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards,and that this in turn increases the risk people and assets face.Such poor understanding is one of the major obstacles that disaster risk reduction and management faces.The basic concepts have not yet become inte
237、grated into mainstream policy-thinking and decision-making in development.When there is an adequate and meaningful understanding on the part of public officials in various development sectors,in addition to disaster managers,only then will we begin to see risk-informed decision-making and implementa
238、tion become mainstream in both development and disaster management.ii.Public Policy Generally speaking,public policies represent political and executive power to guide the development of a given economy.Governments use policy statements to communicate particular changes required,starting process of
239、change that is determined necessary.Climate change,environment,and new energy development are a few examples of areas where government policies are introducing changes towards sustainable development.Shifting to risk-informed decision-making in more development sectors requires similar changes.Gover
240、nment policy is a powerful enabler for such change.APEC leaders annual declarations have already provided a policy enabler for change,despite how APEC operates as a cooperative,multilateral economic and trade forum without legally binding obligations.Its policy statements now need to be strengthened
241、 and supported by each member economy individually,at home.Policies on risk-informed decision-making can be developed by both the executive and legislative branches of each APEC member economy,to make development planning and practices a new and crucial frontier for preventing new disaster risks,red
242、ucing existing risks and building resilience.Public policies and their implementation are subject to periodic review to adapt to new challenges over time and some governments now need to revisit their policies on disaster management and disaster risk reduction.The need for different policies to enab
243、le adequate human and financial resources as well as expertise to address disaster risks across development sectors,for which disaster management agencies are not equipped.It is high time for each member economy to review their policies and make them true enablers of disaster risk reduction in which
244、 risk-informed decision-making because a standard tool.iii.Legislation Legislation can be a law or a set of laws usually introduced by public authority and made official by their legislature.Once a policy is set for a particular subject,such as disaster risk reduction or climate change,public author
245、ity is likely to go on to develop legislation to enforce the course of action set out in their policies.At the same time,policies can also be implemented as a way to fulfil legislative commitments.Legislation,combined with public policy,is a very powerful enabler of change.Legislation can legalize t
246、he inclusion of 22risk-informed decision-making processes in all sectors,a big step forward in resilience-building.Most legislation remains unchanged for long periods of time.Lets take disaster management law as example:Most such laws were created and passed years ago,with a primary focus on early w
247、arning,relief supply and humanitarian assistance when disasters strike.Although disaster risk reduction may be mentioned in the law,the overall thrust of most such laws fails to recognize that disaster risk and risk reduction are the responsibilities of the development branch.The good news is that l
248、egislation concerning development issues can be amended to better take risks into account.A set of laws to promote risk-informed development-and restrict risk takers-can be of enormous importance in curbing the upward trend of disaster risks.iv.Disaster Risk Governance Disaster risk governance,by de
249、finition,refers to a structure of risk responsibility within public institution or private organizations at all levels,endorsing the core values of good governance,such as rule of law,participation,representation,accountability,sustainability,and even a long-term orientation in the risk management.T
250、his goes beyond traditional risk analysis,which uses a structured approach to identify possible hazards,analyze their causes and consequences,Instead,it involves a wider range of stakeholders,along with consideration for the broader legal,political,economic and social contexts in which a risk is eva
251、luated and managed.Disaster risk governance is seeking risk-balanced results and a culture of disaster risk reduction for resilient development.In this context,institutions,rules,processes and mechanisms can be deployed for effective risk analysis and guidance on how decisions about risks should be
252、taken,implemented and evaluated and about how the management of risk should be governed and overseen.v.Accountability Accountability is a core principle of good governance.Progress in enhancing accountability should involve both individual accountability and public accountability.The former,by defin
253、ition,is the acceptance of responsibility for ones own actions and willingness to be judged and evaluated on performance results.The latter is the obligation to answer publicly to an acceptable standard for the discharge of responsibilities that affect public risk-levels or lead to disastrous conseq
254、uences.Public accountability actually concerns the level of trust and confidence that the public have placed in an administration within the society as a whole.Good governance should contribute to improved accountability.This should push risk-informed decision-making and“cross-cutting”management tha
255、t reconciles competing priorities,such as cost versus risk.Effective,public communication about the risk context is also part of public accountability.vi.Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement is widely used to find solutions to cross-cutting and challenging issues such as disaster risk reduc
256、tion and climate change,which require collaboration in multiple areas,in particular with the science and academic group,who is able to provide scientifically-sound analysis and solutions to the risks concerned,for resilience in decision-making process.Stakeholder engagement helps improve accountabil
257、ity in 23policy-setting,decision-making and implementation.A risk-informed decision can be approached by first starting to engage with stakeholders,elaborating the needs for the decision,understanding various parties views and needs and promoting understanding of the reasons for the project.Successf
258、ul engagement of stakeholders can help build mutual trust and beneficial relations.It can sometimes even create opportunities for pooling human,technical and even financial resources to support the implementation of risk-informed decisions in order to achieve resilience and sustainability in the lon
259、g-term.Stakeholder engagement is so important in risk reduction that it can easily determine the success or failure of a risk-informed decision and its implementation.vii.Community Participation Community participation has been long been promoted for achieving resilient and sustainable development,w
260、orldwide.It reflects the good governance principle of inclusiveness.For decision makers,community participation allows them to have a better understanding of the needs and concerns of the communities that their decision may affect,and to reduce unnecessary misunderstanding or even barriers in the co
261、mmunities concerned.It is also useful to tap into communities knowledge of their surroundings and their existing capacities and cultural insights,all too often are underestimated or overlooked.For communities,their participation enables them to voice their concerns and share their views often contri
262、buting to solutions that result in lower risk and less disasters in their community.Encouraging community participation also encourages community self-development,with a strong sense of ownership,where a community may take on more responsibility in managing disasters and risks that affect them and t
263、heir communities VI.Summary Disasters will continue to be frequent,posing great threats to sustainable development.Risk of disasters continues to rise in both the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world.This reflects the reality that most APEC member economies have experienced in recent years.
264、Disasters and their impact in 2022 provided a fresh reminder to APEC member economies that it is high time to take more action on the ground to curb the stubborn uptrend of disasters and risks.Actions by APEC member economies in disaster management and risk reduction are better guided by the APEC Pu
265、trajaya Vision 2040 in which APEC leaders committed to“promote economic policies,cooperation and growth which support global efforts to comprehensively address all environmental challenges,including climate change,extreme weather and natural disasters,for a sustainable planet.”While the APEC member
266、economies continue to coordinate the implementation of relevant APEC framework and planning for disaster risk reduction,decision makers guiding socio-economic development,in both the public and private sectors,should assume their responsibilities to prevent or reduce exposure and vulnerability to na
267、tural hazards,in line with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.To start with,APEC member economies need to create a sound enabling environment to encourage and promote a shift from“risk-ignored”to“risk-informed”decision-making for development project
268、s.There are a great number of good cases in and beyond APEC member economies demonstrating that risk-informed decision-making needs to be guided by adequate risk 24assessment and analysis.It may first sound difficult to make decisions that are risk-informed.To make it easier,Food and Agriculture Org
269、anization of the United Nations(FAO)has come up with four practical questions below.Answering these questions will help decision makers ensure their decisions are risk-informed.Is based on a thorough analysis of whether and how such a decision would increase or ideally decrease risks to people,asset
270、s and systems affected by the decision.This analysis includes,but is not limited to,the frequency and intensity of multiple hazards,level of exposure of people,assets and systems to the hazards,their vulnerability and existing coping capacity(or the lack of it)and how the decision and its implementa
271、tion will affect these factors.Has considered alternatives when the analysis points to potential increase of existing risks and/or creation of new risks to people,assets and systems that they would not be able to prevent,mitigate or manage well.Is made through a transparent and participatory process
272、,inclusive of communities affected by the decision.Monitors implementation to ensure the decisions impacts on risk exposure and resilience of people,assets and systems,and their feedback,are well-documented for timely adjustments,learning and continuous improvement of decision-making.The good news i
273、s that each APEC member economy can find its experts and professionals with adequate understanding,knowledge,expertise and capacity in risk assessment and analysis.Policy makers and decision makers in development sectors may just need to reach out to develop risk-informed decisions,cooperation and c
274、ollaboration,thus creating an enabling environment to pilot and foster risk-informed decision practices in the development process.Testing,implementing and updating this Risk-Informed Decision-Making Framework for Resilience will be a good start-heading in the right direction-towards the achievement
275、 of APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040.25 Capacity Building of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation:Supply Chain Resilience of SMEs I.Introduction i.Background Global climate change is intensifying.Since 2021,extreme weather events rare for thousands of years have occurred in many places around the world.Acco
276、rding to the latest data released by the International Disaster Database,in 2021 alone,there were 432 major disastrous incidents in the world,affecting about 101.8 million people and causing economic losses of about 252 billion US dollars.In the report of Climate Change 2021:Fundamentals of Natural
277、Science by Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report(AR6)released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)on August 9,2021,it was pointed out that many changes in the climate system are directly related to the increasing global warming,including increased frequency and intensity o
278、f extreme high temperature events,marine heatwaves and heavy precipitation.In the next few decades,climate change will intensify in all regions of the world,and extreme high temperature and heavy rainfall events will become more frequent.Figure 1 Climate change aggravates natural hazards.Source:Huff
279、Post UK At the same time,COVID-19 pandemic has gradually spread all over the world since 2019,causing a huge impact on the global economy.Facing the threat of the virus,economies continue to introduce extraordinary economic policies in response.However,the measures taken to prevent and control the p
280、andemic also cause a huge impact on the social operation system,which is quickly transmitted to the real economy,resulting in reduced demand and restricted supply,leading to a sharp decline in gross world product,rising unemployment,significant shrinkage in international trade,and cliff-like drop in
281、 international investment.According to the World Economic Outlook issued by the International Monetary Fund in October 2020,the global economic growth rate is-4.4%in 2020,the largest economic contraction since World War II.Hence,for the APEC economies and even the global economy,to build back better
282、 from disasters,existing hazards and future potential risks is not at all easy.Therefore,capacity building of disaster prevention and mitigation comes with even greater urgency and importance.26ii.Scope and Methodology Focusing on SMEs,this study was conducted over one year,adopting a set of researc
283、h methods including literature review,case studies,expert consultation,questionnaires,field research,among others.Through analyzing the serious damage to production and life caused by common disasters such as floods,droughts,lightning,tropical cyclones and derived infectious diseases,it lays out the
284、 SMEs disaster resilience capability framework and provides recommendations for SMEs disaster resilience building especially in the post COVID-19 Era.Against the backdrop of continuous deterioration of the external environment and the ever-closer division of labor and cooperation among enterprises,t
285、he supply chain is an important foundation for the survival of enterprises.Only when the supply chain is resilient can enterprises ensure to be capable of operation,production and delivery in the crisis.To improve the supply chain resilience,enterprises must proceed from the overall view and long-te
286、rm interests and build capacities at both conceptual and behavioral level.This study focuses on enterprise supply chain resilience building,aiming to help SMEs enhance risk awareness,improve the Enterprise Business Continuity Plan,carry out pre-disaster risk monitoring and emergency preparedness at
287、the conceptual level,and comprehensively improve the SME adaptability and resilience in the face of disasters in terms of end-to-end supply chain operation optimization,digital technology empowerment and sustainable concept implementation at the behavioral level.II.Constraints of Resilience Building
288、 for SMEs Different economies in our world today may have different definitions of SMEs.For example,according to the Cambodian SME Development Policy,micro-enterprises refer to those with less than 10 employees or start-up capital of less than US$50,000;small enterprises refer to those with 11 to 50
289、 employees or start-up capital of US$50,000 to US$250,000;and medium-sized enterprises refer to those with 51 to 100 employees or start-up capital of US$250,000 to US$500,000.In the Lao PDR,according to Decree No.42 of the Policy for Promoting the Development of SMEs,small enterprises mainly refer t
290、o those with an average annual number of employees of no more than 19 or total assets of no more than N250 million and an annual turnover of no more than N400 million;medium-sized enterprises refer to those with an average annual number of employees of no more than 99 or total assets of no more than
291、 N1.2 billion and an annual turnover of no more than N1 billion.In Thailand,according to Ministerial Regulations on Designation of the Characteristics of SME Promotion Act B.E.2562(2019)and Announcement of the Office of SME Promotion Subject Designation of Characteristics of Micro Enterprises,Micro,
292、Small and Medium-sized Enterprises(MSMEs)have been redefined on the basis of annual revenue and employment in order to be able to promote the targeted entrepreneurs effectively according to the current economic situation.For example,small enterprises in manufacturing refers to those with annual reve
293、nue of more than 1.8 million baht but not more than 100 million baht,and with more than 5 employees but not more than 50.While in trade and services sectors,MSMEs are those with more than 1.8-million-baht annual revenue but not more than 50 million baht,and those with more than 5 employees but not m
294、ore than 30 employees.Therefore,the choice of SMEs definition could depend on many factors,such as business culture,population size,industry,and the level of international economic integration(World 27Bank,2010).These make it difficult to adopt a universal SME definition and each economy needs to ta
295、ke into consideration its own situation.However,as the bedrock of global economy and a community with significantly untapped economic potential,SMEs in APEC economies may face common challenges and constraints in resilience building and could explore commonly effective ways to strengthen disaster re
296、silience.SMEs in developing economies could be mainly divided into three sectors:production sector(agricultural processing,manufacturing,and mining),service sector and trade sector(wholesale and retail).Most of them are supported by local investment,driven by domestic demand and domestic market-orie
297、nted family workshops,with limited resources and non-standardized business modes and management tools.They are extremely vulnerable in the face of unforeseen events and huge changes in the external environment,and their disaster resilience needs to be improved.They may face the following six constra
298、ints in disaster resilience building:i.Resource SMEs are prone to face difficulties in disaster prevention due to their own characteristics which can be embodied as:small scale,less resources,unstable market environment and insufficient investment in disaster prevention and mitigation.A UNDRR study
299、shows that lack of capacity and resources is the primary obstacle preventing global SMEs from investing in disaster risk reduction measures.ii.Awareness SMEs lack awareness of risk prevention,lack channels to understand the economic situation and external environmental changes,and pay less attention
300、 to potential risks such as internal working environment safety.Information asymmetry also leads to the lack of understanding of disaster prevention and mitigation measures(tax refund,insurance cost reduction,etc.)provided by central and local governments for most SMEs.iii.Finance SMEs have limited
301、access to financing information,and most banks and financial institutions do not give priority to the business plans of SMEs,therefore there is also a shortage of financial products that meet their needs.In addition,as the cost of processing loan documents for SMEs is still very high,enterprises are
302、 faced with problems such as lack of funds,insufficient liquidity,mismatch between financial products and demand.iv.Technology As SMEs lack the reserve of professionals and the ability to apply emerging technologies,and the cost of using new technologies such as the Internet is high,it is difficult
303、for them to set up early warning and information sharing platforms;at the same time,the technical support provided by the government and the private sectors in disaster early warning and risk monitoring is still in its infancy and needs to be further developed and improved.v.Strategy Most SMEs passi
304、vely respond to the impact of disasters in production and operation.Due to lack of risk awareness,SMEs give inadequate consideration in disaster preparedness and risk prevention in their business strategies and lack emergency plans such as business continuity plans to guide their disaster response a
305、ctions in the event of a disaster.28vi.Challenges Presented by Globalization Climate change and COVID-19 pandemic reveal the unbalanced development of global value chains:large enterprises may ensure normal operation by changing suppliers and storing redundant key materials,while SMEs as suppliers o
306、ften find it difficult to adapt to the changes and challenges of the global market and lack the ability to cope with the fierce market competition and the risk of global supply chain breakage.Therefore,compared with large enterprises,SMEs are often hit harder and suffer longer.III.Framework for SMEs
307、 Disaster Resilience Building i.Literature Review on Disaster Resilience Building Since 1970s,in order to cope with increasingly frequent natural hazards and man-made disasters,study on resilience has gradually deepened.Resilience(capacity for resisting natural calamities)is defined by the United Na
308、tions International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(UNISDR,known as the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction,UNDRR,in 2015)as the capability of a system,community or society exposed to disasters to resist,absorb,adapt to and recover from disasters in a timely and effective manner by pro
309、tecting and restoring important basic structures and functions.In the 1990s,the concept of enterprise resilience was gradually formed.It refers to the capacity of enterprises to survive,adapt,recover and develop under sudden disaster impact or continuous chronic pressure.Figure 2 Definition of enter
310、prise resilience.Source:Ivanov 2021 To build enterprise resilience and achieve more steady and sustainable development,enterprises need all-round capacity reserves such as optimized and improved response mechanism,strong and resilient supply chain,outstanding leadership and coherent strategy,mindset
311、 shift and raised awareness of employees,as well as innovative application of emergency technologies.In 2021,in a guidance outline on enterprise disaster resilience building capability(Chinas self-funded APEC project under EPWG-EPWG 01 2021S:Regional Economic Integration through the Lens of Disaster
312、 Resilience),enterprise resilience is analyzed in six dimensions:supply chain,market demand,investment and financing,technology,enterprise organization and culture.According to Hosseini et al.(2019),supply chain resilience is the key to maintain a companys normal operation in a fragile environment a
313、nd ensure the uninterrupted supply of products and services to the market.Since the global spread of COVID-19 in 2020,the operation mode of many enterprises was changed on an unprecedented scale.As supply network is complex,29integrated and intertwined,interruption of one certain supply chain may ca
314、use chain reaction.Amidst these challenges,enterprises began to stress the improvement of supply chain resilience and take emergency measures in an effort to maintain the stability and sustainability of their supply chains.In case of a destructive event,supply chain resilience is reflected in three
315、aspects:absorptive capability,adaptive capability and restorative capability.Vgrin et al.(2011)defines absorptive capability as the ability of supply chain to resist the impact of disasters and maintain normal operation.Absorptive capability is related to the robustness of supply chain and is the fi
316、rst line of defense of supply chain resilience.When supply chain is disrupted,Ivanov(2010)argues that the second line of defense,that is,adaptive capability,can help the supply chain adjust quickly to adapt to disruptions.As the third line of defense,restorative capability refers to the capability t
317、o restore damaged buildings,facilities,technological processes,etc.to their original state on the physical level.While building disaster resilience,it is also very important for enterprises to establish a set of scientific evaluation methods and index system.Kearney,an internationally renowned consu
318、lting company,has developed a set of supply chain resilience assessment matrix,which can understand the overall resilience level of enterprises by quantitatively evaluating the robustness,elasticity and coupling of supply chains.Resilience evaluation tools can help enterprises identify missing point
319、s,find the direction of resilience building and promote enterprises to strengthen disaster preparedness through quantitative diagnosis,early prevention,real-time tracking and accurate response from the internal and external environment of enterprises.The consequences of lacking resilience are fatal,
320、but the cost of building resilience is also very high.Limited by lack of resources and insufficient risk awareness,SMEs are facing many challenges in the process of disaster resilience building.To help enterprises cope with these challenges,guide them to mitigate disaster risk and build resilience c
321、apacity,UNDRR released a reporting guide in 2022,which proposes recommendations to governments and NGOs in four dimensions:introducing supportive policies,providing financial products,enhancing risk prevention awareness,and addressing supply chain vulnerability,with a view to reducing the risk of di
322、sasters and the exposure and vulnerability of enterprises to disasters through pre-disaster prevention.Chinas self-funded APEC project under EPWG-EPWG 01 2021S:Regional Economic Integration through the Lens of Disaster Resilience also found that in addition to the need for enterprises to strengthen
323、their own awareness of risk prevention and enhance their capabilities through product R&D and innovation,sales channel expansion and the application of digital technology,they should also vigorously develop public-private partnerships(PPP),and the government and other civil society can provide suppo
324、rt through policy development,publicity and education,scientific and technological cooperation,etc.,to help enterprises build resilience capability.ii.Why Resilience Capacity Building for SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs)are an integral part of the world economy,accounting for 90%of the
325、total global enterprises.Particularly in developing economies,SMEs are an important driving force for economic development,contributing over 50%of GDP growth and providing over 70%of jobs,which generate income for vulnerable groups and 30promote economic growth and social stability.However,due to th
326、e lack of mature disaster management mechanism,sufficient cash reserves and sound supply network,SMEs are more vulnerable to risks and hazards than large enterprises,with longer duration of damage and slower recovery speed.Therefore,SMEs with better disaster prevention and mitigation capacity is of
327、significant importance to better livelihoods of people in emerging economies.However,the existing studies on resilience capability building is still relatively macro in nature,and their relevance for SMEs lacks applicability and operability.In addition,governments are actively introducing relevant a
328、ssistance policies,however,the guiding functions of these policies need to be further enhanced.A UNDRR survey also pointed out that 79%of the SMEs involved in the study indicated that they had never received policy support related to disaster risk management from local governments.According to an OE
329、CD study report on 55 economies(OECD,2020),only 15%of the policy combinations are effective among the policies and measures implemented by governments to help SMEs strengthen disaster resilience capability building.In this context,this study assesses common priorities of disaster risk management and
330、 constraints of SMEs resilience building in most APEC member economies to put forward recommendations from both internal and external ecology SMEs,hoping to contribute to APEC member economies effort in building resilient enterprises with absorptive,adaptive,and restorative capabilities.Figure 3 Thr
331、ee lines of defense of supply chain resilience.Source:Ivanov 2021 iii.Framework for SMEs Disaster Resilience Capacity Building With better disaster resilience as its ultimate goal and vision,the framework is consisted of three levels-strategy,operation and enablers,aiming to include and connect esse
332、ntial factors,from top to bottom,for SMEs to prepare for disaster resilience building and/or strengthen resilience capacity.31 Figure 4 Framework for SMEs Disaster Resilience Capacity Building(i)Strategy Level:Disaster Risk Management Disaster risk management is the application of disaster risk redu
333、ction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risks,reduce existing risks and manage residual risks,to help strengthen disaster resilience and reducing disaster losses(UNDRR,2021).Disaster risk management of governments and the public sectors is guided by the Sendai Framework,which is considered and coordinated in relevant development plans,resource allocation and program activities,while