Table of Contents This chapter assesses how countries are managing current and projected disaster risks, given knowledge of how risks are changing with observations and projections of weather and climate extremes [Table 3-2, 3.3], vulnerability and exposure [4.3], and impacts [4.4]. It focuses on the design of national systems for managing such risks, the roles played by actors involved in the system, and the functions they perform, acknowledging that complementary actions to manage risks are also taken at local and international level as described in Chapters 5 and 7. National systems are at the core of countries' capacity to meet the challenges of observed and projected trends in exposure, vulnerability, and weather and climate extremes (high agreement, robust evidence). Effective national systems comprise multiple actors from national and sub-national governments, private sector, research bodies, and civil society, including community-based organizations, playing differential but complementary roles to manage risk according to their accepted functions and capacities. These actors work in partnership across temporal, spatial, administrative, and social scales, supported by relevant scientific and traditional knowledge. Specific characteristics of national systems vary between countries and across scales depending on their socio-cultural, political, and administrative environments and development status. [6.2] The national level plays a key role in governing and managing disaster risks because national government is central to providing risk management-related public goods as it commonly maintains financial and organizational authority in planning and implementing these goods (high agreement, robust evidence). National governments are charged with the provision of public goods such as ensuring the economic and social wellbeing, safety, and security of their citizens from disasters, including the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. They also control budgetary allocations as well as creating legislative frameworks to guide actions by other actors. Often, national governments are considered to be the 'insurer of last resort'. In line with the delivery of public goods, national governments and public authorities 'own' a large part of current and future disaster risks (public infrastructure, public assets, and relief spending). In terms of managing risk, national governments act as risk aggregators and by pooling risk, hold a large portfolio of public liabilities. This provides governments responsibility to accurately quantify and manage risks associated with this portfolio-functions that are expected to become more important given projected impacts of climate change and trends in vulnerability and exposure. [6.2.1] In providing such public goods, governments choose to manage disaster risk by enabling national systems to guide and support stakeholders to reduce risk where possible, transfer risk where feasible, and manage residual risk, recognizing that risks can never be totally eliminated (high ...

The present study assessed the importance of basin management plans for managing lakes in Malaysia within the context of Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) governance principles. Although ILBM has been promoted since 2007, less than 2% of the lakes in the country have basin management plan in place. Most of these management plans need to be fully adopted, reviewed and evolved as living documents by all relevant stakeholders for successful lake basin management. Increasing demands for resources and development within catchments, as well as emerging threats, require integrated management of lake resources for sustainable use, highlighting the need to develop basin management plans for all other lakes to support their effective management. The present study also provides a narrative for developing an ILBM plan, including consideration of lake characteristics, the linked lentic–lotic water systems comprising lake basins, ecosystem services, participatory planning and for performing continuous lake governance improvements within a cyclical process. Management planning for lakes should address specific focus areas or major threats, continuing the process until all its relevant governance pillars are strengthened. These ILBM plans can eventually be integrated to the larger river basin management and state water resources management planning towards effective water governance.

No abstract

Malaysia has, since the turn of the 21st century, formally adopted Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) as the way forward to sustainably manage its water resources. This paradigm shift has also been embodied in the National Water Resources Policy formally launched in March 2012. The adoption of IWRM marks a clear shift away from past fragmented and sectoral management practices. The recent endorsement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by Malaysia has further reiterated that IWRM will be implemented at all levels by the year 2030. Despite the formal declaration and adoption of the IWRM policy, its implementation to‐date has yet to gain adequate traction on a national scale. Fragmented management of the water sector both at the Federal and State levels is a legacy from the past which continues as the institutional norm. There is a need for IWRM awareness raising, advocacy, and capacity building. This includes training and education programs, modular and material development, communication, and delivery system, facilities establishment, and appropriate governance mechanisms to improve the current water management system and practices in Malaysia, as well as ensure local participation and governance. This approach will also polish the shortcoming through the mobilization of all institutional and community stakeholders toward the implementation of the IWRM agenda nation‐wide.

No abstract