Abstract

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

Abstract

The findings reported in this deliverable reflect the state of knowledge up to their first submission date. A revised version will be submitted in August 2021 that will include more recent material. https://www.roadspace.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MORE-D2.3_WITHOUT-CONFIDENTIAL-ANNEXE.pdf; The development of new, alternative, diverse road uses challenges existing forms of allocating space on urban road networks. Different actors and stakeholders hold differing views on how space should be allocated across different transport modes and non-transport activities. These differing views are made material through the claims that are made by a wide range of stakeholders about the allocation and use of road space. What are these claims about? How are they mobilized? To what extent are these claims channelled by formal consultation processes? What similarities can be found across cities? How are these views represented at EU level? While some actors may promote the shift from roads as traffic-enabling infrastructure to a multifunctional urban asset, others resist this transformation. By purposefully using the notion of contestation, this report assumes that claims about the future of roads’ functions and uses contribute to reshaping the politics of space allocation as well as the ability of existing institutional arrangements and policy processes to accommodate such claims. It contributes to the work done in the MORE project by providing an analysis of the politics of road space allocation.