This emergency item follows tragic events in South Asia and
Central America. The work of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
is well known in these situations, but on behalf of the International
Federation and our member National Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies I renew our condolences to and full support for all
those who have suffered so much from the disasters.
In our statement to this Assembly on Civil Society relations
with Parliaments on 17 October, we referred briefly to the testimony
provided on 14 September 2005 by the International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to the United States
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
The testimony was provided with the support of the office of
the International Federation's Permanent Observer to the UN
in New York, which has been augmented by a disaster management
specialist to enhance our work with the UN on the tsunamis and
now the other disasters which have struck the world this year.
This testimony of course followed events which came well after
the adoption of IPU's resolution adopted on 8 April 2005 in
Manila, on Natural Disasters and the role of Parliaments. But,
just as the resolution was motivated by terrible disasters which
had struck millions of people in South and South East Asia at
the end of 2004, the Senate Hearing followed terrible disasters
which had struck the United States.
The emergency item now being debated at this 113th Assembly
of the IPU follows yet more terrible disasters which have struck
at the lives and livelihoods of innocent and vulnerable people
in Pakistan, India and Central America. The United Nations and
other sections of the international community are taking stock
of the situation these disasters have revealed, and we in the
International Federation applaud the IPU for its determination
to play its part as well.
As we said yesterday, the International Federation and its member
National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies around the world
are ready to work with you and with your member Parliaments
in whatever way we can to help meet the needs of vulnerable
people in these situations.
Our testimony to the United States Senate is equally relevant
to your deliberations now. I will not read it all, but some
of its points are relevant in considering actions which parliaments
might be able to support.
After a disaster
Recovery must be able to link the emergency phase with the long-term
development process. During the recovery process, special attention
must be given not just to reconstruction of infrastructure,
hospitals, schools and homes, but it has to also foster economic
revitalisation and belief in a better future. This can be achieved
in many ways, through support to small businesses and assistance
to the local economy, credit schemes, loans and financial incentives.
The first priority for victims - whether they be a farmer in
Ethiopia, a fisherman in Sri Lanka, a waiter in New Orleans
or a doctor in Iran - is to re-establish their livelihoods and
to regain control over their lives. As such, they should be
fully supported in the recovery of productive assets. Attention
must also be given to restoring social services and rebuilding
local infrastructure.
The recovery process should identify areas for initial impact
and seek to support a return to normalcy, while long-term reconstruction
is being organized.
Nevertheless, post-disaster recovery should not be a simple
restoration of pre-existing livelihoods and infrastructure.
Instead, it should be treated as an opportunity to implement
better development policies, to "build back better," and to
strengthen individual faith and confidence.
How?
• Supporting spontaneous recovery. Within days
of even the most devastating disasters, such as those in Bam
and Banda Aceh, there is a part - and often a large part - of
the population whose natural resilience and positive determination
motivates it to return to normal and move on.
The spontaneous recovery carried out by individual communities
should be recognised and supported by the recovery process.
Regulatory frameworks and recovery efforts should enable and
further this spontaneous activity.
Equally important to recognise, however, is that parts of a
population can be rendered helpless by a traumatic event --
and recovery must therefore address both these realities.
• Recovery must be inclusive. Populations both
directly and indirectly affected by a disaster must be identified
and taken into consideration in recovery plans. It is important
to not isolate an affected population, as doing so can cause
resentment and tension between those assisted and those not
eligible for assistance.
Recovery initiatives must be participatory. Headway in the recovery
phase can been severely handicapped without the buy-in of communities
affected, whether they be contemplating the reconstruction of
the World Trade Center in New York City, recovering from a Tsunami
in a remote fishing village in Papua New Guinea, or rebuilding
shelter following an earthquake, such as in Bam, Iran where
a highly centralised form of management might have been anticipated.
Affected communities need to feel a genuine sense of ownership
and a role in determining what will become their new community.
Just as after Hurricane Mitch, the Gujarat earthquake: in almost
all post-disaster communities some form of national consultation,
involving community groups and leaders, needs to be included
in the recovery process.
• Recovery must be sustainable. Recovery efforts
must help build capacity at the local, regional and national
level. They should seek to support and strengthen local governance
mechanisms and to build the resilience of those affected through
activities such as income generation, vocational training, employment
and credit.
Post-disaster recovery interventions need to be timely to be
effective. Yet, at the same time, recovery efforts - and authorities
implementing them - should not be driven purely by the need
to "do something fast".
The opportunity to review existing laws and policies, and improve
risk reduction, disaster preparedness, response plans, hazard
and risk mapping, and emergency training is critical. In fact,
the need to do so will never reach a more aware public than
at this stage. Communities should be rebuilt to be more resilient
to natural hazards, and previous environmental, industrial or
social risk factors can be mitigated or even eliminated thanks
to heightened political support.
To rebuild communities and lives without addressing the underlying
causes of the devastation - whether weak construction, unplanned
urbanisation, or unprepared populations - would be tantamount
to humanitarian malpractice.
• Recovery must be needs-based. Recovery must
take into account the specific vulnerabilities of certain populations
and the specific challenges faced by particular groups (i.e.
those left handicapped after the earthquakes in Iran and Turkey).
Natural disasters primarily and most critically affect the poor
and vulnerable, and can further entrench poverty. Recovery must
avoid creating the same inequities that existed before.
In most situations where Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
work, it is clear that a gender dimension must be mainstreamed
into recovery plans. Sensitive issues around cultural, tribal,
racial or ethnic divides further complicate the process - but
cannot be ignored without reinstating or even aggravating previous
inequities.
Some other thoughts:
• Ensuring a Coordinated Response: Establishing
a coordinated effort in the midst of a disaster is difficult,
and often seemingly impossible. However, when achieved, coordination
lays the foundation for effective response by authorities at
local, regional and national levels.
Coordination involves building long-term relationships and sharing
information platforms between humanitarian operators, public
authorities, funding institutions and donors, and above all
the very public and communities affected.
• Building Back Better: Regardless of how devastating,
every disaster offers a unique opportunity to build back better
homes and schools, and to bring in new livelihoods, opportunities,
and hope.
Ironically in some cases, the disaster itself helps break the
cycle of poverty through improved infrastructure. In Afghanistan
and Angola, better schools have meant not just new buildings,
but also green space, play areas, and less crowded classrooms.
In countries impacted by Hurricane Mitch, IFRC efforts helped
improve living conditions, and in Bangladesh and Vietnam, our
coastal mangrove planting projects improved the environment
and strengthened resistance to cyclones.
"Building Back Better" also means more trade opportunities -
such as the possibility proposed by former President Clinton
in his current role as the UN Special Envoy for the Indian Ocean
Tsunami - to invigorate the housing construction business and
trade conditions through the rebuilding of Tsunami-affected
communities.
• Relocating Displaced Populations: The relocation
of affected populations - from and to devastated areas - is
fraught with sensitivity. Some of the displaced will never return,
while some will never leave, and both extremes must be managed
during the recovery process.
The man in Bam who refused to leave the pile of rubble that
was once his home and under which his family lay is no different
from the resident of New Orleans who refused to leave his flooded
house.
The process of relocation is often knotted in security issues,
evacuation dilemmas, land rights and titles, and feelings of
threat and jealousy from host populations. Public authorities
can be challenged by the simultaneous need to find new land,
assess environmental and other disaster risks, and assure a
source of work and transportation.
Transitions from sudden homelessness, to temporary, semi-permanent,
and finally permanent accommodation are very sensitive and must
be handled with care.
• Involving the business and private sectors in disaster
management: The Indian Ocean Tsunami has demonstrated,
more than ever, that the business and private sectors have a
significant role to play in post-disaster recovery. While this
may seem natural in developed countries, in those less developed
it is a new and promising source of aid. Opportunities exist
for logistical, material, technological and technical support
from the private sector.
The provision of financial and human resources can be an important
input in the context of broader and longer-term cooperation
and partnership.
Chair, we close this intervention with a suggestion to parliaments.
In our view the disasters which have struck this year have underlined
the need for all countries in the world to examine critically
the disaster preparedness of their own populations. To this
end, we suggest that it could be a good idea for all parliaments
to hold Hearings, or the equivalent, on the state of national
- not international - preparedness.
One item for consideration by parliaments could well be the
state of national laws and regulations relating to disaster
response. The International Federation leads international community
discussion of this issue (known internationally as IDRL). We
were therefore very pleased to hear such an elaborate description
of the need for careful work on international and national disaster
response laws rules and principles from the keynote speaker
for this item, Mr Thomas Peter of OCHA.
I know our National Red Cross and Red Crescent Society members
would be keen to support such a valuable process, and that it
could lead to significant savings in terms of lives, property
and livelihoods.
This is one way we can work productively with parliaments to
help address the main problems before the disasters strike,
which experience shows is when the most effective disaster response
is done.
We look forward to continuing to contribute to your important
deliberations on this topic, in any way we can.
|
 |
|
News
