 |
|
|
|
Orissa Disaster Mitigitation
Programme/
India 2000
|
| |
Chapter 1 - summary
Risk reduction: challenges and opportunities
Risk reduction – why it is needed, how best
to go about it, and the challenges we face in achieving it – is
the theme of this year’s report. Much attention has been paid to
“complex political emergencies” over the past decade, so in this
chapter we concentrate on what are often (erroneously) called “natural”
disasters.
Between the 1970s and 1990s, deaths from natural disasters fell
from 2 million to under 800,000. But the numbers affected tripled
to 2 billion. Economic losses multiplied five times, to US$ 629
billion in the 1990s. Disasters devastate the development of poorer
nations. Hurricane Mitch, for example, put Honduras’s economic development
back 20 years. Landslides in 1999 cost Venezuela US$ 10 billion
– 10 per cent of gross domestic product.
Conversely, flawed development (e.g., rapid unplanned urbanization,
deforestation) is exposing more people to disasters. Even the better-off
are at risk. Turkey’s earthquake fatalities in 1999 were victims
of ineffective building codes, not poverty. And landslides in San
Salvador in January 2001 swept away poorly sited middle-class housing.
Risk-blind development is one factor in increasing vulnerability.
Another is the absence of effective disaster preparedness and mitigation
measures (e.g., flood-proof dykes, early warning systems, evacuation
routes, shelters, relief stockpiles, disaster response teams, public
awareness). Below are some of the barriers to more effective risk
reduction:
- Geopolitics: conflicts of the
1990s dominated the humanitarian agenda, pushing aside the problem
of vulnerability to natural hazards.
- No coherent risk reduction “community”:
professionals trying to mitigate disaster impacts are fragmented
along institutional boundaries.
- Risk reduction is seen as a separate
sector, when it should be mainstreamed into development and
humanitarian programming. As a result, risk reduction concerns
are marginalized or forgotten.
- Risk reduction is viewed as a
technical problem with technical solutions. But the underlying
factors that compel people to live in insecure conditions are
rarely addressed.
- Lack of resources: donors dedicate
far fewer resources to risk reduction than to relief. the European
Community’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO), for example, spent
just 1.5 per cent of its aid budget on disaster preparedness last
year.
- Invisibility of risk reduction spending:
development programmes may include mitigation, but it is rarely
reported in donor accounts.
What works in reducing risk, what doesn’t
and why? Monitoring tends to be short-term and focuses on outputs
rather than impacts. But there are many documented success stories
which prove that mitigation and preparedness pay:
- During the 1990s, 140,000 Bangladeshis
were killed by cyclones. But the Cyclone Preparedness Programme
evacuated and sheltered 2.5 million more people before the cyclones
struck – almost certainly saving their lives.
- Rainwater harvesting has helped 20,000
Indian villages to grow crops and maintain domestic water supplies.
- When floods struck Viet Nam in 1999,
only one out of 2,450 flood-resistant homes, built by the Red
Cross, collapsed.
But the picture is patchy. Initiatives are
poorly documented. Policy-makers lack adequate information. Case studies
demonstrating the benefits of mitigation and preparedness are needed.
More international and regional commitment is needed. Disasters are
complex problems which demand complex responses. Since risk reduction
goes to the heart of the development process, the challenge is well
beyond the capacity of disaster managers alone. It requires cooperation
between development agencies, governments, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), businesses, scientists and vulnerable communities. According
to the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, “We
know what has to be done. What is now required is the political commitment
to do it”.
Despite international initiatives, the front line against disasters
is held by at-risk communities, which offer valuable lessons in disaster
mitigation and preparedness. On the silt islands of Bangladesh’s
Jamuna River, for example, a local reed is used to stabilize new silt
deposits and make them fit for cultivation. The agricultural calendar
and crop varieties are planned around the annual flood cycle. Marriage
partners are sought on other islands to provide an escape route for
relatives affected by floods.
Community-based approaches to disaster mitigation lead to more accurate
definition of problems and solutions, because they draw on local expertise
in living with disasters. They can deploy low-cost, appropriate technologies
effectively. They are more likely to be sustainable because they are
“owned” by the community and build up local capacity.
However, the main weakness of community-based initiatives is their
limited outreach. Scaling up to achieve greater impact needs the participation
of government. Yet the state and its apparatus are often seen as part
of the problem.
National disaster plans may mention mitigation and preparedness, but
lack detail and dedicated resources. Social and macroeconomic pressures
can undermine authorities’ capacity to reduce risks. Cash-strapped
central governments may simply abdicate their responsibilities, leaving
disaster management to local government and NGOs, even though they
lack the skills and resources to do so.
Cuba’s success in saving lives gives us a model of effective
government-driven disaster preparedness – what was the secret
of its success? Geographer Ben Wisner suggests “one cannot ‘fix’
disaster risk with technology alone. It is also a matter of enacting
and enforcing laws, building and maintaining institutions that are
accountable, and producing an environment of mutual respect and trust
between government and the population”.
Innovative approaches to risk reduction offer considerable potential.
One of the most exciting is the “sustainable livelihoods”
perspective, which analyses the range of vulnerabilities poor communities
face and the assets to which they have access. A valuable new field
tool to assess communities’ disaster resilience and mobilize
risk reduction is provided by the International Federation’s
vulnerability and capacity analysis (VCA).
Disaster insurance innovations include making policies conditional
upon implementing building and zoning codes. And under new weather
index-based insurance, automatic payouts are made within 72 hours
of pre-determined trigger events (e.g., high winds, low rains).
The idea of a right to safety from disasters is gaining ground –
a concept likely to be challenged by governments and businesses, which
fear it would increase their own liability. But it could strengthen
accountability between vulnerable people and those supposed to help
them.
Threats that natural hazards pose to society and development are massive.
Yet disaster mitigation and preparedness pay – in human, economic
and environmental terms. Three ideas could radically reform the way
we deal with risk:
- Relocate disasters within the wider
context of risk reduction: risk reduction is relevant to all
those working in hazardous regions, whether in relief, development,
business, civil society or government. It is not exclusive to
big disasters, but can be applied to recurrent, smaller hazards
that undermine vulnerable households.
- Long-term partnerships based on good
governance across many sectors and disciplines provide the
best basis for tackling the threats posed by disasters. Viewing
disasters in this way steers us away from the “technical
fix” towards more people-centred strategies.
- Setting targets for risk reduction
would concentrate political will and resources. Targets could
be set by governments, communities, NGOs and donors, to include:
reducing numbers killed and affected by disasters; implementing
disaster plans; training response teams; establishing early warning
and evacuation systems; protecting essential infrastructure; reversing
environmental degradation; devoting a percentage of relief funds
to disaster mitigation and preparedness.
|
Shelters
save lives and livelihoods
For two years, southern Sri Lanka
has suffered the worst drought in half a century. Crops have
failed for five consecutive seasons. Livestock has died, water
in wells has dropped dangerously low, children are malnourished
and school attendance has fallen. An estimated 1.6 million
people have been affected.
The drought-stricken community of Muthukandiya approached
a local NGO about the problem. What followed was a mitigation
initiative, based on low-cost “rainwater harvesting”
technology, which uses tanks to collect rain channelled by
gutters and pipes as it runs off the roofs of houses.
Villagers participated throughout the planning process. Two
local masons received on-the-job training in building the
5,000-litre household storage tanks. Each system cost US$
195, equivalent to a month’s family income. Half the
cost was provided by the community, in the form of materials
and unskilled labour. The NGO contributed the rest. Households
learned how to maintain the tanks, and the whole community
was trained to keep domestic water supplies clean. A village
rainwater harvesting society was set up to run the project.
Evaluations clearly show that the 37 households with storage
tanks have considerably more water for domestic needs than
households relying on wells and ponds – and up to twice
as much during the driest months. Their water is much cleaner,
too.
Nandawathie, a widow in the village, has made the most of
the opportunity. With a water supply nearby, she began growing
vegetables. She sold these and opened a small shop. This increased
her earnings, so she applied for a loan to install solar power.
She feels safer now that she no longer has to fetch water
from the well at dawn and dusk. Her children no longer suffer
from diarrhoea. And her daughter has more time for school
work.
|
Principal contributors to Chapter 1 were
John Twigg (Honorary Research Fellow, Benfield Greig Hazard Research
Centre, University College London) and Charlotte Benson, an economist
specialized in the economic aspects of natural disasters. John Twigg
and Madhavi Ariyabandu (Intermediate Technology Development Group,
South Asia) contributed to the box.
|
|
 |
|
Publications
