Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction with development policy is a key challenge, which requires development and strengthening of institutional and organizational frameworks at all levels of government.
The comparative study shows that disaster management and response coordination benefit from centralized command during extreme events but most of the DRM related functions require appropriate decentralization of functions, devolution of authority and community participation to complement the centralized system. This is particularly true for regions exposed to recurrent /chronic events progressively increasing local communities’ vulnerability. Local level community response is the most important factor enabling people to reduce and cope with risks especially in the most remote areas/marginalized groups. However, informal networks can be eroded in the long-term from exposure to stress and resources for mitigation measures are often lacking.
Therefore, on the basis of its experience with local rural institutions, SDAR’s follow-up initiatives should continue to focus on:
® Recurrent events and chronic processes gradually reducing the resilience and increasing the vulnerability of livelihood systems; (the impact of exceptional natural events normally go beyond local coping capacities and require emergency operations which usually go beyond local coping capacities)
® Vulnerability and coping capacities not on the hazard (Looking at the equation “Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability/ Coping capacities” the “coping capacities” is the dimension in which local institutions are crucial)
Three key aspects of the DRM and rural development integration will be taken into consideration:
® Relief as an opportunity to initiate longer-term development
Experience and the literature provide evidence that disaster management systems that focus on response and relief are inadequate and that, while response systems must be improved, greater focus on prevention and mitigation is essential. However, building a culture of prevention is not easy and resources for prevention and mitigation are often lacking. This reflects the difficulty in demonstrating cost-effectiveness involved in saving lives and public property from natural disasters before they occur. In this regard severe natural disasters can become opportunities for development since they catalyze the resources and momentum necessary to introduce policy reform. For example, in post-disaster situations governments are often forced to institutionalize their disaster management strategy. Most of the initiatives (both at policy and operational level) described by the case studies and literature review have been developed as a follow-up to a severe disaster (for example: in Honduras, India/Orissa, Mozambique and the Philippines). Furthermore, disasters offer development practitioners and governments opportunities to do things in a different way than before. They can easily introduce improved technologies and construction practices.
The emergency relief phase could become a strategic entry point to initiate development processes and build local communities resilience to shocks. Key questions to be answered are: how should local actors and institutions be involved in the emergency relief phase? What are the implications of inclusive targeting and what procedures should be followed? How can development opportunities be built during emergencies? How can short-term resilience building support long-term development? How can relief support be diversified to meet local needs, to recapitalize assets and support local institutions?
® Increasing local communities’ resilience to cope with shocks
Livelihood adaptation and diversification are a key component of disaster reduction strategies. One of the key variables associated with natural disaster risk is that of rural livelihoods. Vulnerable groups normally live in areas highly affected by natural hazards and have normally developed complex coping strategies which traditionally included (among others) shifting cultivation, crop diversification and transhumance. However, a rapid change of the vulnerability context often does not allow for traditional coping mechanisms to take place and results in an overall loss in the adaptive capacity of the community. Key forces in this regard are climate change, urbanization, changing markets and environmental degradation. Typically traditional coping strategies are being integrated/substituted by migration and remittances. High exposure to risk is often an unintended outcome of spontaneous household relocation and formal resettlement programmes promoted by government, in which newcomers lack the necessary agro ecological and farming systems’ knowledge to devise risk coping strategies. The investigation of rural livelihood strategies through the sustainable livelihoods lens can provide an important means of learning more about how to strengthen household resilience to cope with shocks.
Another key aspect is the identification of risk scenarios. The literature review has identified the six steps proposed by the Asian Disaster Reduction Center, (ADRC) under the title “Total Disaster Risk Management Approach” as an example how to integrate and plan DRM activities.
® Improving vertical and horizontal institutional linkages
Strengthening of institutional and organizational frameworks based on integration of sectoral planning, effective mechanisms of devolution of responsibilities, partnership with among local actors and community action.
|
The Total Disaster Risk Management Approach The Total Disaster Risk Management Approach (TDRM), comprises six systematic steps for problem definition, analysis, decision-making, implementation and monitoring and review (Guzman 2002):
|
Case-specific lessons learnt and policy recommendations are included in the case studies and are available under the FAO web-site www.fao.org. Additional analysis and consultations are, however, needed to translate the lessons and outcomes of Phase I into normative tools and operational programmes.
The follow-up strategy will focus on aspects of DRM relevant for the agriculture sector according to FAO’s mandate and includes the development of possibly three interrelated pillars of action:
a) Normative products
® Risk preparedness and Vulnerability Assessment/Monitoring Guidelines (building on already existing experiences of participatory pre- and post-disaster risk assessment; focusing however on resilience, rural institutional capacities and rural institutional learning process, including a checklist for the assessment of DRM capacity);
® Code of Conduct focusing on the impact of post emergency assistance on rural institutions and long-term rural development objectives and on transparency mechanisms for the distribution of relief goods/aid (including: role of informal social networks and leadership in relief aid distribution, exit strategy guidelines for external actors and handover procedures to local institutions, role of micro-finance and other credit institutions, identification of relief interventions that support/sustain local livelihoods and assets, mechanisms that allow for local purchase)[7];
® Recommendations and lessons learnt on participatory policy frameworks, DRM specific functions for extension services and “retrofitting” of rural sector development projects with DRM components (contingency planning, early warning, post-disaster credit facilities, de- and restocking mechanisms);
® Strategy for the development of tools appropriate for complex emergencies, Including the identification of which of the recommendations and lessons learnt on recurrent natural hazards are applicable for complex emergencies and identification of gaps.
b) Operational Pilot Projects
® Pilot projects in selected Emergency Hotspot Countries focusing on selected livelihood systems and the strengthening of institutional and technical capacities for risk prevention and emergency preparedness, and the integration of these DRM activities into regular local/district development planning
® Selected hot spot areas which are in the situation of receiving relief operations could be the starting point to initiate medium to longer-term pilot projects to link relief,-rehabilitation and development activities. Their emphasis could be on technical advice, initially complementing relief operations, but going beyond the timeframe of emergency operations. They would pool FAO strengths on a comparative advantage basis with those of other partners and local actors. FAO could contribute on different technical aspects including/combining - in response to situation specific contexts, existing capacities and needs - selected sub-components such as (among other possible components):
Livelihoods and vulnerability assessment studies
Risk perception and resilience studies
Institutional strengthening and partnership building for DRM, including improved extension service provision,;
DRM systems development/adaptation and their integration into regular local/district development planning
Awareness raising for, improving access to and local adaptation of early warning systems
Contingency planning for DRM,
Technical capacity building of DRM stakeholders
Livelihood adaptation: Elaborating and testing options for livelihood adaptation and/or diversification: Targeting selected vulnerable groups with support tailored to their livelihood systems[8]).
Participatory approaches to complement and match existing structures and capacities with innovative ideas and to promote local risk preparedness and adaptation strategies and capacities to cope with recurrent crises would be jointly developed and tested during implementation in selected pilot countries through a coached action learning approach.
® The pilot projects would serve as an operational platform for the development and testing of the normative tools, while the recommendations arising from the normative work would be fed back into the projects and used as on-going monitoring tools.
c) Partnerships Development
® On the basis of SDAR areas of competency, identification of a framework for complementary action with other FAO Services to deliver joint and complementary responses to requests of support on disaster risk prevention and mitigation.
® Build strategic and technical partnerships with external partner agencies for each of the above components (WFP, UNDP, IFRC, ADPC IDRM ...)
® Facilitate linkages between the academic world and grass roots organizations doing the work on the ground.
A more detailed concept note on follow-up activities will be drafted and distributed to major potential partners and donors.
|
[7] The literature review
provided some examples of similar initiatives: the Orissa Relief Code developed
after the 1971 cyclone and the recent initiative undertaken by the IFRC entitled
“Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
and NGO’s in Disaster-prone Areas”. [8] Such as for pastoralists in drought-prone areas: concrete interrelated risk mitigation strategies might include: improved grazing management, forage banks, credit facilities, (micro-) insurance, institutionalizing de- and restocking facilities for herders, early warning, livelihood diversification, conflict resolution taking into consideration both traditional and modern knowledge and strategies, empowering institutions/organization which integrate traditional and modern knowledge and power structures. |
