2. INTERREGIONAL, COMPARATIVE STUDY ON ‘’THE ROLE OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN REDUCING VULNERABILITY TO NATURAL DISASTERS”

SDAR’s normative activity “The role of local level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters” was launched in 2002 with the objectives to:

® Analyse field-based evidence of the strengths (and limitations) and the comparative advantages of local institutions in disaster risk management, clarifying what tasks and requirements this implies in detail;

® Provide guidance to policy makers on how local organizations could be best empowered as partners in DRM applying the principles of comparative advantage and subsidiarity; and

® Elaborate strategies for linking disaster prevention and response activities into long-term sustainable rural development strategies.

Phase I of this programme activity focused on stock taking and a comparative study on the role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters. The main activities included:

Phase I - Activities

® A comprehensive analysis of secondary material and a literature review on “The Role of Local Institutions and their Interaction in Disaster Risk Management”.

® Nine comparative case studies were conducted in 2003 in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Honduras, Iran, Mozambique, Niger, the Philippines, South Africa, and Vietnam, focusing on lessons learned from concrete examples of experiences of local action before, during and after situations of natural disasters (particularly in places where phenomena such as droughts, storms, and floods occur periodically).

® A workshop for a first analysis and comparison between the case studies was held in FAO’s Headquarters in Rome from 31 March - 2 April 2004 to draw general and region-specific lessons learned;

® Field projects associated with the subject matter were also used to enrich the learning process^[4].

Phase I - Expected Outcomes

® Improved guidance and guidelines on how local organizations in different settings could be strengthened and empowered to take - as a key aspect of long-term sustainable agriculture and rural development - a more active role in the prevention, preparedness and management of recurrent natural disasters.

® Recommendations for national and local governments and CSOs in rural areas exposed to recurrent natural disasters on improved or more specific policies that help reduce the vulnerability and negative impacts of risks and disasters for rural communities, particularly for the poor, and minimize the time period required to resume rural development activities.

2.1 Review of Secondary Data

To initiate the study, a basic review of secondary data was conducted with the aim of obtaining an overview of what has been written and shared so far with regard to the roles local institutions and organizations play in disaster risk prevention and management, how they pursue these roles, and to what degree and how they interact with higher level DRM actors and systems. A key finding of the review^[5] was that in spite of the enormous amount of documentation available on DRM, and its richness, there is (a) a strong bias towards post emergency analyses, and that (b) within the more limited material available on disaster prevention and preparedness the analysis of local institutions and organizations is rather limited. Selected key lessons and good practice examples elaborated in the review have been incorporated into this report. To a large extent they are in line with and complement the case study findings. Annex 7 provides a list of relevant internet sites assessed by the literature review.

2.2 Case Studies

Building on FAO’s concept of the disaster management cycle^[6], the case studies focused on the role of local institutions in reducing risk and vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters in selected field sites (villages/communities) of Argentina, Burkina Faso, Iran, Honduras, Mozambique, Niger, Philippines, South Africa and Vietnam. The field studies analyzed concrete examples of experiences of local action before, during and after natural disasters. All case study research teams followed the same Terms of Reference, which defined the basic key concepts underlying the overall study, and the common processes of decentralization and social capital formation (Annex 2).

As part of their research, the case study teams were asked to assess the following set of key working hypotheses which were formulated on the basis of the fundamental assumption that local government offices and other local organizations/institutions are key actors in natural disaster management and rural development:

® Local level organizations and institutions have the following advantages in disaster management vis á vis higher level institutions: (a) represent local perspectives in policy making and DRM planning fora, (b) bridge and promote two-way communication between higher and local policy levels, (c) assist and guide locally the implementation of DRM activities, (d) mobilize local participation; and finally (e) handle at the local level the full emergency cycle, better linking, in particular, emergency prevention and rehabilitation activities based on an anticipatory (as opposed to reactive) mind set.

® Communities in the high risk and disaster prone areas which have encountered many episodes of disaster have, over time, accumulated considerable experience and knowledge of the causes and nature of the recurrent disasters in their areas.

The institutions covered in the studies include public institutions at the district, ward and village levels of governance (or département, arrondissement and commune levels in francophone countries and municipios in Latin America); rural councils and development committees (in a few cases the involvement of the private sector was also taken into consideration). The studies also analyzed and took into consideration the linkages and partnerships that exist between local authorities and traditional institutions such as chieftaincies, clan heads, councils of elders, headmen, and other village assemblies.

Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from the selected districts and pilot sites on formal organizations and committees in existence, their resources, and the risk prevention activities they undertake. Qualitative data were also collected from the stakeholders and potential victims of disasters about their experiences with disasters, their perceptions and definitions of risk, the resources at their disposal, their social networks, and hence their social capital and capacity for disaster or risk management. Key informant interviews were held with local government officials, representatives of local councils and development committees, chiefs or their representatives; representatives of farmer groups, co-operatives, and women’s groups. Particular emphasis was given to:

a) the assessment of the comparative strengths of local institutions (vis á vis higher level institutions) and the actual role they play in managing recurrent natural disasters;

b) the interaction/relation and complementarity between informal initiatives, community-based approaches to DRM and the formal government DRM systems in place, and

c) local level perspectives and perceptions about recurrent natural disasters and actual institutional preparedness and responses as felt at community level before, during and after a concrete disaster situation.

Case study authors were requested to include specific sections in their reports on: a) the context of the selected study sites including a detailed institutional assessment and the nature of the recurrent disaster phenomenon; b) the “story” of the disaster: how the pre/during and post emergency situation was handled, what happened? Who did what how and why? what went well, what went wrong?; c) lessons learned and recommendations on how local organizations could be strengthened and empowered to take - as a key aspect of long-term sustainable agriculture and rural development - a more active role in the prevention, preparedness and management of recurrent natural disasters; and d) recommendations for national and local governments and CSOs in rural areas exposed to recurrent natural disasters on improved or more specific policies that help reduce the vulnerability and negative impacts of risks and disasters for rural communities, and in particular for the poor.

The case studies vary according to the types of recurrent natural disaster situations studied, including the slow on-setting phenomenon of drought (e.g. Burkina Faso, Iran, Niger), and of rapid on-setting phenomena including floods (Mozambique) and tropical storms (Honduras, Philippines, South Africa,) and in some case the combination of several phenomena (Argentina, Vietnam). They further differ in that some of them present examples of experiences where community-based disaster risk management approaches go hand in hand or are even part of the government’s DRM approaches (Philippines, Vietnam). Others describe situations in which communities were not supported and assisted in their effort to prepare themselves for and cope with disasters (Iran, Mozambique, and South Africa). All case studies will be made available on internet through SD Dimensions (FAO).

2.3 Workshop for Comparative Analysis

Case study authors and/or resource people were invited to share and discuss their key findings with FAO SDAR staff, other FAO technical units and representatives from IFAD and WFP, in a workshop that was held in FAO’s Headquarters from the 31 March to 2 April 2004 (see Annex 1 for the workshop agenda and list of participants).

To facilitate the comparison between case studies, each study report was analyzed and key issues summarized in an analytical matrix. The matrix was designed in three sections:

- Section 1: describes the case study context (area and population covered, description of the hazard, land tenure and use patterns, livelihood strategies, formal DRM institutional set-up at national and local level)

- Section 2: summarizes local perspectives and perceptions related to: policies, practices and institutions (formal and informal), key actors and their respective roles, training and capacity-building activities for each phase of the FAO’s Disaster Risk Management Cycle.

- Section 3: summarizes the case specific recommendations and lessons learnt as indicated by the author.

Annex 4 provides two examples of consolidated matrixes: Philippines and Mozambique

The summary matrixes were distributed to the workshop participants prior to the workshop and served as the common background and entry point for the comparative analysis between cases. During the first workshop day participants enriched in working groups the matrixes on the basis of their own experiences and compared the information in order to extract good practice examples. On the second day working groups discussed the comparative strengths/weaknesses of different kinds of local organizations and institutions and identified their key roles in DRM. The discussion led to the elaboration of additional working hypotheses and to the identification of key entry points for building communities’ resilience and development opportunities starting from the emergency assistance phase. The third day of the workshop focused on the way forward and recommendations for improving institutional approaches to DRM, and possible follow-up activities for FAO/SDAR. Working groups discussed the following questions in particular:

® What are the key mechanisms and instruments required to improve the link between DRM and rural development?

® What kind of human capacities and skills are required at local level to strengthen DRM and its implementation?

® What products (normative and operational) are needed to enrich existing materials/tools supporting DRM and rural development linkages?

® What are the 10 key essentials which DRM systems should combine (in synergy with rural development?)

The participants were asked to consider specifically what is needed on top of standard “day to day” rural development planning in order to ensure the critical distinction between DRM and RD.