In addition to explaining the benefits of investing in disaster mitigation, this section suggests that making health care facilities safe is an important way of managing disaster risk.

The description of the safe hospital strategy model includes guidelines and actions that should be implemented in countries to advance toward the goal of safe hospitals by 2015. Different elements must be integrated: policies, codes, a range of actors, a network approach to health services, proposals for different interventions that should be funded when new investments are made, proposals for existing facilities, and monitoring of progress. Consult the ‘Safe Hospitals’ reference documents.

Disasters caused by natural phenomena continue to be the most common threat to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Regardless of the frequency, intensity, and magnitude of the hazards, it is generally recognized that countries are increasingly vulnerable as a result of unsafe development practices.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) defines UNISDR Terminology as: “systematic efforts to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.”

Similarly, the United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) World Report on Reducing Disaster Risk Reduction, A Challenge for Development, defines risk reduction as the systematic preparation and execution of policies, strategies, and practices that minimize the vulnerabilities, hazards, and spread of disaster impact for the entire society, in the broad context of sustainable development.

Disaster risk reduction must be part of the decision-making process, in the area of public policy-making and development planning in particular. Risk management also implies participation, coordination, information management, and intervention by many specialized areas and sectors. This is a shared responsibility, among government, civil society, and public and private institutions in all sectors and at all levels, ranging from the local to the level.

Since the impact of disasters can be immediate and/or last several years, countries must develop strategies to reduce the likelihood of damage and losses due to the hazards they face, by reducing either hazard or their vulnerability.

Go to: Disaster risk analysis in health

As discussed in Module 1, there is a relationship between type of adverse event and the health effects it causes. For this reason, the health sector’s disaster management program should have a clear knowledge of the hazards that are present in the country or specific region in question, whether their origin is natural (geological or hydrometeorological), technological (chemical or radiological/nuclear accidents), social (violence, war, subversive activity), or biological (major epidemics). Existing vulnerabilities should also be identified—both the vulnerability of the population and the vulnerability of the health services—to ascertain the magnitude of potential risk to the health sector. This information is key to setting priorities and defining the actions of the health sector’s national disaster management program.

The level of risk to which a country or population group is exposed when a violent event occurs depends on a combination of two factors: the hazard itself and the vulnerability. As a result, defining risk requires assessing the hazards and the vulnerability of the people and elements exposed to them.

There are various tools for assessing hazards. The CAPRA platform includes the models most commonly used to assess the different types of hazards. It is important to emphasize that the analysis itself is the responsibility of national agencies and it requires the participation of technical and scientific institutions in fields related to geology, seismology, volcanology, hydrometeorology, and epidemiology, among others. In general, little can be done to change hazards, especially when they are of natural origin, and thus prevention (elimination of the risk) is more an ideal than a practical reality.