NET METERING (BALANCE NETO)

considered to have a direct bearing on why some countries have higher disaster losses than others (UNISDR, 2009b). The World Bank (2011) defines governance as “…traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised”. As per the World Bank, this also includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced. Although the World Bank’s definition is biased towards the formal coercive power of governments, some literature focuses on both formal and informal arrangements through which decisions are made and implemented in order to advance social goals (Guarnacci, 2012; Ming’ate, Rennie, & Memon, 2014). However, the role of governments

in governance and their accountability towards protection of society and the environment is a fundamentally accepted norm today. In particular, the concern attached to bad governance is most often directed at governments (Roberts, Wright, & O'Neill, 2007).

Bad or poor governance includes practices such as corruption, manipulation of the media, disrespect for human rights, arbitrary application of the rule of law, actual or potential political instability, lack of transparency, insufficient information flows, lack of accountability and responsibility, and lack of stakeholder participation in decision making. Good governance is represented by the ‘presence’ of these elements in a society (Roberts et al., 2007).Access to information on disaster risk, particularly for the most vulnerable, is considered as the first step in effective DRR (UNISDR, 2011). However, countries with poor quality governance fail to exercise these fundamental responsibilities that lie at the centre of disaster resilience of any society.

Much research has shown a statistically positive correlation between levels of corruption and their significant impact on government efficiency and the rule of law, two key components of risk governance (e.g. Ambraseys, 2011; Anbarci, Escaleras, & Register, 2005; Escaleras, Anbarci, & Register, 2007). Ambraseys (2011) states that differences in death tolls in different countries in natural events, especially earthquakes, is not only because of lack of education, scientific knowledge or technological capability in the country concerned, but rather are the consequences of the corrupt use of scientific knowledge. In general, “…more democratic, accountable states with more effective institutions tend to suffer lower mortality” (UNSIDR, 2011: p 141).

Technological disasters caused by poor governance have been emphasized in the previous section, which reiterates the importance of the concept of governance in DRR. In other words, the way in which the society is governed has a direct bearing on the increased or decreased disaster risk of the people. This thinking has led to the development of a relatively new subject, ‘risk governance’. Renn, Klinke & van Asselt (2011, p. 231) define risk governance as “…both the institutional structure and the policy process that guide and restrain collective activities of a group, society or international community to regulate, reduce or control risk problems”. The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) provides a broader perspective to risk governance. According to the IRGC (2008, p. 4) risk governance includes:

…the totality of actors, rules, conventions, processes and mechanisms and is concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed and communicated, and how management decisions are taken. It applies the principles of good governance that include transparency, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, strategic focus, sustainability, equity and fairness, respect for the rule of law and the need for the chosen solution to be politically and legally feasible as well as ethically and publicly acceptable.

18 According to Renn & Graham (2005), risk governance involves the ‘translation’ of the ingredient and core principles of governance to the context of risk and risk-related decision-making. Therefore, both development planning and developmental control instruments such as environmental assessment should be conceptualized within the context of risk governance. According to Kakonge (1998), well- conceived EIAs should reflect many of the elements of good governance principles including transparency, sufficient information flows, accountability, responsibility, and stakeholder participation.

Over the last few decades, the previously dominant state-based ‘top-down’ governance model has been quietly replaced by diverse forms of collaborative management, partnership arrangements, delegated authority to decentralized institutions, and community management (Lockwood, 2010). Similarly, the handling of societal risk problems has been shifted from a state-centric mode to multi- strata governance systems, where the political authority for handling risk problems is distributed among decentralized institutions (Lidskog, Uggla, & Soneryd, 2011). The concept of risk governance, especially, demands bringing together a wide range of actors from regional to local level who have a role to play in risk related activities (Assmuth, Hildén, & Benighaus, 2010), including development planning.

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) programme was developed by a World Bank research project. It enables assessment of cross-country indicators of governance under six composite indicators. These indicators are: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption (The World Bank, 2011). In addition, the European Commission (2001) identifies openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence as key good governance principles. In recognition of the importance of governance in DRR, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held in Kobe, Japan, in 2005, listed governance as its first priority for action (UNISDR, 2005). In this priority for action, countries are expected to ensure that DRR is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation at all levels. This recognizes having national institutional and legislative frameworks for DRR, allocating resources to all levels and community participation in DRR. However, this does not explicitly cover most good governance principles listed above, which may have greatly reduced the effectiveness of such priorities.