Risk and regulation: Can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters?

From an examination of national policies for risk mitigation, the paper asks what types of laws are successful and should be more widely adopted, and what does not work. Three types of regulations are considered: (1) regulations for constructing new buildings and code enforcement; (2) regulations for intervening in/upgrading the existing building stock; and (3) regulation of the insurance industry. When applied, improved codes can substantially reduce the impacts of natural disasters. However, unnecessary complexity is shown to compromise implementation and enforcement. The widespread destruction of buildings in the earthquakes of Kocaeli, Turkey, in 1999 and Gujarat, India, in 2001 was not due to inadequate codes. Destruction occurred because codes were not generally adopted. Improving the application and enforcement of codes in developing countries are necessary key measures. For the strengthening of existing substandard buildings, some regulations exist and some successful programmes of evaluation and strengthening are in progress. However, lessons from the US experience indicate legislation is needed to back such programmes, and further incentives for action are needed. Several national insurance schemes for natural catastrophe losses (US programmes for flood, New Zealand programmes for earthquake, and French programmes for all catastrophic natural hazards) have considerable potential to stimulate mitigation activity. Ultimately, coercion by government is only part of the answer. The success of any government action depends equally on the development in society of a 'safety culture' in which citizens both understand the risks they face and are prepared to participate in the management of them.