Planning recovery to minimize future risk

There were more disasters in 2000 than in previous years of the decade. The good news is that the year 2000 saw significantly less people killed by disaster. Some 20,000 as compared to the average of 75,000 per year during the decade. The bad news is that the number of people affected by disasters went up to 256 million compared with an average from 1991 to 2000 of 211 million per year.

A major cause in the increasing of number of people being affected by disasters is the increase in the number of hydro-meteorological disasters such as floods, wind storms and droughts.

Against this background, this year's World Disasters Report looks at the subject of, and the difficulties involved in, recovery from disasters. The overall picture, particularly for those in the most disaster-prone countries, is far from encouraging. Chapters in this edition of the World Disasters Report look at the way in which recurrent disasters from floods in Asia to drought in the Horn of Africa to wind storms in Latin America are sweeping away development gains and calling into question the possibility of recovery. Gaps between life-saving relief and longer-term development can leave disaster-affected people stranded. Technical solutions that do not adequately take account of community's needs may mean that reconstruction does not lead to recovery.

In the past, post-disaster reconstruction has focused too much on rebuilding physical infrastructure. But there is more to recovery than concrete. Local livelihoods, economies and institutions have to be strengthened and rebuilt. Volunteer networks, from Bangladesh to the Caribbean, are a critical part of many early warning and disaster preparedness systems. Investment in the social capital of disaster-affected communities is key to building sustainable recovery.

Too often those affected by disaster such as the families afflicted by floods in Viet Nam and mudslides in Venezuela are rebuilding their homes and communities the way they were before the disaster. They are literally "reconstructing the risk", leaving them just as exposed to future hazards. They don't have the resources to do otherwise and they can't wait for the benefits of long-term development. This transitional period, which may start days or hours after disaster, is where humanitarian organizations need to play a more effective role. This role may include strengthening private homes against flood waters, encouraging the community to draw up a "risk map" or establishing locally-based preparedness measures – all measures to improve the resilience of communities to catastrophe.

However, action at the local level alone will not bring genuine recovery from disasters. Root causes need identifying and tackling. In many cases, nature's contribution to "natural" disasters is simply to expose the effects of deeper, structural causes – from global warming and unplanned urbanization to trade liberalization and political marginalization. The effects of man's action are often evident – many natural catastrophes are un/natural in their origins.

Macro-factors driving disasters are beyond the scope of aid. But not beyond the remit of humanitarian advocacy, which can champion solutions to these root causes with both national and international institutions. The ever-increasing risk posed by disasters will only be contained by putting the planet's vulnerable people at the centre of disaster response and of humanitarian advocacy.

Didier J Cherpitel
Secretary General