DFID report on DRR_.pdf

DFID report on DRR_.pdf, updated 9/18/22, 12:29 PM

visibility65

About Global Documents

Global Documents provides you with documents from around the globe on a variety of topics for your enjoyment.

Global Documents utilizes edocr for all its document needs due to edocr's wonderful content features. Thousands of professionals and businesses around the globe publish marketing, sales, operations, customer service and financial documents making it easier for prospects and customers to find content.

 

Tag Cloud

This policy briefing is an output of a scoping study on disaster risk
reduction and development, commissioned by DFID in 2004.
Focusing on so-called ‘natural disasters’, it examines:
• the growing burden of disasters on the poor;
• their adverse effects on development and on progress towards the
Millennium Development Goals;
• their roots in past development failures;
• why development tends to overlook disasters; and
• how disaster risk reduction can be better integrated into
development policy and practice.
Disaster risk reduction:
a development concern
Action to reduce risks from natural disasters must be
at the centre of development policy
Disasters are a growing burden
on the world’s poor
The number and seriousness of disasters is
increasing, disproportionately affecting poor countries
and poor communities. The recorded number of
disasters, the number of people they affect and the
property losses they cause, have risen dramatically
each decade since reliable records began in around
1960. An average year will see disasters kill over
60,000 people and affect at least a quarter of a billion.
Numbers fluctuate; in 2003 almost 90,000 disaster
deaths were recorded.
More than half of disaster deaths occur in low human
development countries, even though only 11% of
people exposed to hazards live there. These countries
suffer far greater economic losses relative to their GDP
than richer countries. Their capacity to reduce risk is
also much more limited. For example, without external
assistance Ethiopia lacks the means to end famines
through investment in water management, marketing
and transport infrastructure, industrial development
and social protection.
Humanitarian responses to disaster impacts now cost
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors an
annual US$ 6 billion or seven percent of total official
development assistance (ODA) flows, and this
proportion is rising. Yet disaster-related costs to
development run much deeper than this.
Reducing the risk: woman working on reforestation project Malawi
© Mikkel Ostergaard / Panos Pictures
2
What makes a disaster?
Disasters and disaster risk reduction
A disaster is a severe disruption to a community’s
survival and livelihood systems, resulting from people’s
vulnerability to hazard impacts and involving loss of life
and/or property on a scale which overwhelms their
capacity to cope unaided.
This means that disasters – even so-called ‘natural
disasters’ – are not exogenous and uncontrollable
events, temporarily departing from normality, though
they are often seen as such. Disasters can be reduced,
and in some instances even prevented, by supporting
people’s ability to resist hazard impacts, for example by
promoting seismic resistance in building design or
construction of cyclone shelters. To achieve this,
human vulnerability and its longer-term societal origins
need to be centre-stage in our approaches to disasters.
Disaster risk reduction entails measures to curb
disaster losses by addressing hazards and people’s
vulnerability to them. Good disaster risk reduction
happens well before disasters strike, but also continues
after a disaster, building resilience to future hazards.
A diversity of hazards
Hazards come in all shapes and sizes. This briefing
focuses on ‘natural’ hazards – those that are weather-
related or geophysical in origin. Yet some ‘natural’
hazards are partly human-induced, such as storms or
droughts influenced by global warming or landslides
caused by deforestation. The disasters associated
with them reflect a complex interplay between these
hazards and factors leading to human vulnerability,
and are anything but ‘natural’.
Moreover ‘natural’ hazards cannot be considered in
isolation from other hazard types. Their interactions
with epidemics (especially HIV/AIDS), human impacts
on the environment, including ‘technological’ hazards,
and conflict are also of critical importance.
Vulnerability and poverty
Vulnerability results from people’s exposure to hazards
and their susceptibility to hazard impacts. It reflects
social, economic, political, psychological and
environmental variables, shaped by dynamic pressures
(such as urbanisation) that are linked to the national
and international political economy.
The converse of vulnerability is capacity to anticipate,
cope with, resist and recover from hazard impacts.
People’s capacities can be realised through collective
action within a favourable institutional environment
(local, national and international) to establish societal
resilience. Resilience at the community level, often
highly evolved, may be challenged by new pressures
such as climate change and globalisation or limited by
fatalistic belief systems, but can be boosted by
appropriate action on a wider scale.
Poverty and vulnerability go hand-in-hand, but do not
completely overlap. Not all disasters affect the
poorest most, yet poorer people tend to be both
more exposed and more susceptible to hazards,
suffer greater relative loss of assets, and have a lower
capacity to cope and recover. Furthermore, disasters
can induce poverty, making better-off people poorer
and the poor destitute despite programmes aimed at
fighting poverty.
In policy terms this means that poverty reduction can
help reduce disaster risk, but this requires an in-built,
proactive focus on addressing such risk rather than
seeing it as just another constraint to work within. At
the same time risk reduction efforts can promote
poverty reduction by helping people avoid the
impoverishing effects of disasters.
Disasters should be a core
development concern
Disasters hold back development and progress
towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). Yet disasters are rooted in development
failures. This is the core rationale for integrating
disaster risk reduction into development.
Disasters hold back development
Many countries are not on course to meet MDG1, the
prime goal of halving extreme poverty and hunger by
2015. Country progress reports on MDGs frequently
note progress on MDG1 being affected by disasters. In
many cases, increases in numbers below poverty
thresholds appear in aggregate national statistics
following a disaster.
Disasters – including the everyday small-scale ones
that go unnoticed by the outside world – affect poverty
reduction in several ways. They have macroeconomic
impacts, directly through physical damage to
infrastructure, productive capital and stocks, but also
indirectly and in the longer term by affecting
productivity,
growth
and
macroeconomic
performance. These hit the poor hardest for several
reasons. Loss of tax revenue and diversion of
resources into disaster response has fiscal impacts
affecting state provision of social services, while food
prices often increase.
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
3
Moreover
recent studies suggest
that both
governments and donors tend to fund disaster relief
and rehabilitation by reallocating resources from
development programmes. Although the impact of any
such reallocation is difficult to measure as it is
unrecognised in official figures, it can be expected to
affect the poor disproportionately through adverse
effects on poverty reduction efforts.
Locally, impacts on poverty and food security can be
much more severe and may not appear in national
statistics. Disasters stretch coping strategies to
breaking point and have long-term effects on
livelihoods. High frequency hazards such as drought
trigger immediate food crises, but can also have longer-
term ‘ratchet’ effects which impede recovery in interim
periods, especially when combined with other pressures
such as HIV/AIDS, poor governance and conflict.
Disasters also slow down progress towards the
remaining MDGs. For example:
• Disaster-hit families often fail to send children to
school, while schools may be closed down by
earthquakes or floods (MDG2).
• Disasters leave women and girls – including
mothers – with heavier responsibilities and
workloads and often poorer health. Disasters have
also been associated with increased domestic
violence and sexual harassment (MDG3&5).
• Children are in greater danger in floods and drought,
through drowning, starvation and disease (MDG4).
• Disasters directly cause disease and damage
to health infrastructure, while indirectly lowering
disease resistance by heightening poverty and
malnutrition. They may also lead women and girls to
resort to sex work and risk HIV infection (MDG4&6).
• Disasters can increase rural-urban migration, and
in cities disproportionately affect slum dwellers
(MDG7).
• Storms and tidal surges set back gains from
partnerships with small island states (MDG8).
Such diverse consequences tend to go far beyond the
immediate impacts which make media headlines and
international disaster statistics. This is one reason why
their role in holding back development may be much
underestimated.
Disasters are rooted in development failure
Disasters do not just happen – to a large extent, they
result from failures of development which increase
vulnerability to hazard events. Failure of institutions
governing development can be found at all levels, from
local and national institutions weakened by skills
shortages or corruption, to institutions of global
governance influenced by powerful countries and
powerful interests within them.
The global context influences disaster frequency and
severity in many indirect ways. For example, the
mushrooming of ‘new wars’ is a feature of the post-
Cold War global political economy, but also a
significant issue for disaster risk reduction because of
the many ways violent conflict and instability interact
with natural and biological hazards.
Development processes may increase exposure or
susceptibility to hazard more directly. Increased
exposure can result from global level climate change
exacerbating extreme weather events, or local level
destruction of mangrove stands which protect coasts
from tidal storm surges to make way for shrimp farms.
Rapid urban growth may increase exposure to
landslides, earthquakes or fires.
Increased susceptibility results from development
measures which erode capacity to cope with and
recover from hazard impacts. These effects can result
from the rapid liberalisation of agricultural markets,
the running down of state-run social protection
schemes, or the decline of informal safety net
mechanisms associated with some development
projects. Poor quality and poorly maintained
infrastructure, such as hospitals and flood barriers,
may even lead to higher casualties when they fail than
if they had not been constructed.
Development gains washed away: community displaced by flooding
Bangladesh
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
© GMB Akash / Panos Pictures
4
Disaster responses can exacerbate risk
Responses to disasters can themselves prolong crises
or create new risk. Humanitarian programmes are
indispensable in saving lives and relieving suffering in
emergency situations, but may sideline local leadership,
governance and technical capabilities which are needed
for long-term resilience. Patterns of donor resourcing –
poorly matched to needs, often unpredictable and
sometimes politically motivated – can be detrimental.
There tends to be an inappropriate emphasis on food
assistance relative to other short- and longer-term
needs for sustaining both lives and livelihoods.
Gains from ‘disaster-proofing’ development
‘Disaster-proofing’ development has the capacity to
transform ‘vicious spirals’ of failed development, risk
accumulation and disaster losses (Figure 1) into
‘virtuous spirals’ of development, risk reduction and
effective disaster response (Figure 2). This is not an
additional burden to be added to that of meeting the
MDGs – it is an essential part of the same task,
strongly justifiable on humanitarian, economic, political
and human development grounds.
Gains include positive impacts for each of the MDGs.
There are also many cases where cost-effectiveness
appears to have been convincingly demonstrated.
During the 1998 floods in Bangladesh, for example, the
value of cattle saved on a 4-acre flood shelter
exceeded the shelter’s construction cost by a factor of
seventeen. Reconstruction costs for a new deepwater
port in Dominica hit by Hurricane David were
equivalent to 41% of the original investment,
compared with about 12% extra for building the port
to a standard that could resist such a hurricane. Yet a
more systematic approach to appraising costs and
benefits of risk reduction activities is urgently required.
Risk Accumulation

Inadequate early warning and preparedness.

Inappropriate land-use planning and
construction standards.
• Failure to include risk assessment in
development projects and planning.
• Failure to engage community in risk
management.
Failed Development
• High levels of poverty and inequality.
• Food and livelihoods insecurity, inadequate health
care, education and physical infrastructure.
• Macro-economic decline and financial instability tied
to uneven global trade and debt agreements
• Political crisis and violence.
Disaster Losses
• Direct impacts on buildings, infrastructure &
stocks.
• Human deaths and injury. Damage to the
natural environment.

Indirect and systemic economic losses.
Reduces capacity to cope with or adapt to risk.
Increases human exposure to hazard and
susceptibility to harm.
By constraining the building of social
or human capital and failing to
encourage political participation within
prevention work, opportunities for
human development are missed.
Increased
numbers of
exposed people
& assets. Low
level hazards
magnified by high
vulnerability.
Household &
government resources
directed towards
emergency relief & away
from development,
preparedness &
prevention.
Limits resilience, weakening the
base for emergency response.
Stalls socio-economic development.
Undermines or destroys livelihoods.
Figure 1: ‘Vicious spirals’ of disaster risk and development failure
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
5
Risk reduction
Effective early warning and preparedness, land-
use planning and appropriate construction, risk
assessment in development projects and
planning, community based risk management,
insurance (financial and social) and asset
protection through social safety nets.
Development
Poverty alleviation, food and livelihoods security,
extending access to health and education, physical
infrastructure, macro-economic growth and financial
stability tied to global trade and debt agreements &
political participation.
Appropriate emergency response
and reconstruction
Humanitarian life saving; and working with
communities to restore productive systems and
livelihoods, regain market access, and rebuild
social capital human capital and
physical/psychological health.
Reduces human exposure to hazard and
susceptibility to harm.
By integrating the building of social or
human capital and encouraging
political participation within prevention
work, development is enhanced.
Lowers the exposure
of people and assets.
Reduces loss and the
costs of emergency
response.
Preparedness and
prevention built
into recovery and
reconstruction
initiatives.
Enhances resilience as a strong
base for emergency response.
Constrains secondary (e.g. health)
and systemic impacts of disaster on
livelihoods and the macroeconomy.
Figure 2: ‘Virtuous spirals’ of risk reduction
Why development tends to
overlook disaster risk
Given these links between disasters, development and
poverty, the question remains as to why development
policy and programming tends to overlook disaster risk.
Reasons relate to incentive, institutional and funding
structures, assumptions about the risk-reducing
capacity of pro-poor development, and inadequate
exposure to and information on disaster issues.
Incentive, institutional & funding structures
Incentives are stacked against disaster risk reduction. It
is a long-term, low-visibility process, with no guarantee
of tangible rewards in the short term, either for politicians
in affected countries or for donors. Both are influenced
by media pressure, which is intense in the immediate
aftermath of a disaster, but largely absent at other times.
Thus governments in developing countries have found
donors more responsive to emergency appeals than to
requests for aid for risk reduction. This often leaves
them having to choose between basic social spending
and risk reduction programmes. Yet where the political
will exists, sometimes prompted by popular anger,
results can be impressive. India has largely contained
famine since Independence; Cuba kept deaths down
to just five when Hurricane Michelle struck in 2001.
Within large international agencies, there is a long-
standing institutional gulf between humanitarian and
development wings, reflected in their separate
funding instruments. While many agencies have made
efforts to close the gap, uncertainty remains at the
interface between these respective mandates,
especially where questions of humanitarian ethics
arise in protracted conflicts.
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
6
Pressure to focus on the MDGs may lead development
specialists to see disasters a of largely tangential
concern in all but the most hazard-prone countries.
Disaster risk reduction therefore tends to be left to the
humanitarian side – even though it is not primarily a
humanitarian issue. Where crises are concerned,
conflict and HIV/AIDS have tended to crowd out
attention to ‘natural’ disasters.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), for their part,
generally find it easier to span the humanitarian-
development divide, yet naturally follow the priorities
of bilateral donor agencies that fund them. This often
means pressure to disburse and expend funds
efficiently and within relatively short timespans.
Disaster risk reduction, in contrast, is a longer-term,
lower-cost but relatively staff-intensive process.
Assumptions about
the risk-reducing
capacity of pro-poor development
Sustainable poverty reduction is proving to be an
elusive goal, and this is partly because disasters are
not being properly factored into development.
Poverty-focussed development efforts are sometimes
assumed automatically to address vulnerability, with
the danger that the role of risk reduction in achieving
pro-poor development is overlooked. Breaking this
impasse requires the design process for development
interventions to include systematic assessment of,
and explicit attention to options for addressing,
exposure and susceptibility to hazards for different
groups of people.
Where disasters are frequent and affect large sections
of the population, risk reduction has begun to force
itself onto the development agenda. Bangladesh has
seen relative success in implementing flood risk
reduction measures. In southern Africa and Ethiopia
humanitarian and development agencies are
collaborating with governments to find ways to move
away from a short-term emergency mode of
intervention
in
food crises to a
longer-term
development-oriented one.
Inadequate exposure to, and information on,
disaster issues
Because disasters are seen as a humanitarian
concern, development professionals are rarely
exposed to disaster risk reduction issues. The UN
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(1990-1999) achieved only a modest profile and
tended to focus narrowly on science and technology
aspects of hazard management. More recent work has
enhanced our understanding and knowledge of how to
design policies and programmes which tackle the
governance and socio-economic aspects of disaster
risk. There is also an international database on
disasters (EM-DAT), though data quality and coverage
remain major issues. (See Key Resources back page).
Tools for integration
There are many entry points whereby bilateral donors
can promote disaster risk reduction in international
and national development agendas.
• Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) offer
an important opportunity for governments in
the poorest countries to address risks to
development, including disaster risk. Some
PRSPs already deal with disaster management in
some form, though the emphasis tends to be on
early warning and response rather than preventive
strategies. Once included in PRSPs, risk reduction
activities will still need donor support for their
effective implementation.
• Country-level UN Development Assistance
Frameworks (UNDAFs) may help in channelling
such support.
• Donor-government strategy formulation exercises,
such as DFID’s Country Assistance Plans, are a
useful entry point for dialogue on support for
specific disaster reduction efforts.
• National Adaptation Programmes of Action
(NAPAs) for climate change are relevant as they are
designed to specify adaptive measures which low-
income countries can take to reduce risks related
to climate change.
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
Building resilience: community working together to reduce flood risk
North Korea
7
• Partnership agreements with multilateral agencies
(e.g. DFID’s Institutional Strategy Papers) and NGOs
(e.g. DFID’s Partnership Programme Agreements) are
further routes by which donors can promote disaster
risk reduction principles in the programmes and
projects they fund, as well as to support agencies
such as IFRC which work on disaster issues.
• Agreements with governments on programme and
project level funding, and to some extent on direct
budgetary support, offer potential entry points for
promoting disaster risk reduction.
• There are also many relevant international
initiatives and policy
forums
in which a
commitment to disaster risk reduction can be
demonstrated and priority actions agreed. These
include the OECD-DAC, the Commission for Africa
and the follow-up to the January 2005 World
Conference on Disaster Reduction.
Recommendations
Bilateral donors should establish
time-bound
strategies for making disaster risk reduction a central
concern of development policy and programming, as
well as of humanitarian work. They should also
promote and support a risk reduction agenda amongst
development partners globally.
To this end, a number of actions are recommended:
• Establish appropriate institutional arrangements for
promoting disaster risk reduction within donor
organisations,
improving
cross-sectoral
communication and understanding, and drawing
up new ways of working at the humanitarian-
development interface using a multi-hazard
approach to assessing and addressing risk;
• Operational guidelines and training: amend
guidelines for preparing strategy papers and funding
agreements to require an up-to-date assessment of
disaster risk for the country and its main regions,
and of how assistance will mitigate that risk;
• Promote risk reduction at national level:
- make maximum use of PRSPs and UNDAFs as
key entry points for promotion of a disaster risk
reduction agenda in the poorest countries;
- ensure that donor-government consultations
leading up to Country Assistance Plans are
used as an opportunity to design programmes
of support for enhancing risk awareness and,
where necessary, proactive efforts to tackle
disaster risk at national and sub-national levels;
- promote greater political will for disaster risk
reduction within partner countries;
-
include ‘weak and failing states’ in assistance
for disaster risk reduction, recognising that
special considerations will apply;
- explore the scope for promoting financial
instruments for risk management, for example
affordable insurance schemes, with possible
private-sector involvement;
• …within international and regional organisations
and forums: promote, and expand support for,
disaster risk reduction work in international and
regional organisations and forums;
• …in
the media: encourage national and
international media to take a greater interest in and
help raise awareness of risk reduction issues;
• …and in research and education: expand support
for research on key issues in disaster risk
reduction, including on the improvement of
systems for the collection and analysis of
information on disasters and their immediate and
longer-term impacts, on links with climate change,
health, livelihoods and governance, on approaches
to cost-benefit analysis and on options for
minimising hazards;
• Evaluate progress in mainstreaming disaster risk
reduction: develop performance targets and
indicators to assess progress in integrating
disaster risk reduction into both humanitarian and
development policies and programming.
Capacity building: Identifying risks, and how to address them, with the
community
Kenya
Disaster risk reduction: a development concern
Photo: Howard Davies, Exile Images
Some key resources
Benson, C and E.J. Clay (2004) Understanding the
Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters,
Disaster Risk Management Series paper # 4, World
Bank, Washington DC
Benson, C. and J. Twigg (forthcoming) ‘Measuring
Mitigation’: Methodologies for Assessing Natural
Hazard Risks and the Net Benefits of Mitigation – A
Scoping Study, Phase 1
report, ProVention
Consortium Secretariat, Geneva
EM-DAT Emergency Database, Centre for Research on
the Epidemiology of Disasters, University of Louvaine,
Belgium. http://www.cred.be/
IFRC (2002) World Disasters Report 2002: Focus on
Reducing Risk, International Federation of the Red
Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva
Tearfund (2003), Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The
policy and practice of selected institutional donors,
Tearfund Research Report, July
Tearfund (forthcoming), Mainstreaming disaster risk
reduction within institutional donors: performance
targets and indicators
Twigg, J. (2004) Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation
and preparedness in development and emergency
programming. Good Practice Review # 9, Overseas
Development Institute, London
UNDP (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk: a challenge for
development, UNDP, Geneva.
UN-ISDR (2004) Living with Risk: A global review of
disaster reduction initiatives, International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction, United Nations Inter-Agency
Secretariat, Geneva
Wisner, B; P. Blaikie; T. Cannon; I. Davis (2004) At Risk:
natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters
(2nd ed.), Routledge, London & New York
Contact details
DFID Public Enquiry Point
Tel: 0845 300 4100 (local call rate within the UK)
Tel: +44 1355 84 3132 (from outside the UK)
Fax: +44 1355 84 3632
Email: enquiry@dfid.gov.uk
Website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/
Conflict & Humanitarian Affairs Department, DFID
Tel: +44 (0)20 7023 0000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7023 0019
Email: chad@dfid.gov.uk
© Crown Copyright 2005. Any part of this publication may be freely reproduced providing the source is fully acknowledged.
01/05 2K Produced for DFID by Modern Colour Solutions
ISBN 1 86192 675 8
Overseas
Development
Group