1.2 Contexts and policy framework of disaster risk ...drr.upeace.org/english/documents//References//Topic... · Box 1.3 The six principles of sustainability 1. Maintain and enhance

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives

18

1.2 Contexts and policy framework of disaster risk reduction: sustainable development

Political support for disaster risk reductionhas to be established from the apex ofpolitical power but is only realistic if theperceptions of risk and the actionsproposed accord with the cultural beliefsand habits of society.

The national character and chosen form ofgovernance can be as much of adeterminant in understanding andmanaging the risks in a given country asare other various social, economic andenvironmental determinants.

In today’s world, societies are confrontedwith rapid change. Therefore, the value ofdisaster risk reduction can only be realizedthrough rigorous identification andcontinuous evaluation of the relationshipsthat exist between the beliefs andconditions in which people live, thechanging environment people inhabit anddepend upon for their livelihoods, and theforces of nature.

Most importantly, disaster risk reductionrelies on the consequences of collectivedecisions made and individual actionstaken or not taken. The emergence of adisaster reduction culture is conditioned

by the following contexts and processes:

• political context; • sustainable development in its three

related contexts: sociocultural, economicand environmental; and

• regional considerations linking disasterreduction and sustainable development.

Promoting sustainability in disasterreduction means recognizing and makingthe best use of connections among social,economic and environmental goals toreduce significant hazard risks. Thisentails abilities to reduce exposure and aidrecovery from infrequent large-scale, butalso more common smaller-scale, naturaland human-driven events.

The bottom line for any country, especiallythe poorest, is to build sustainablecommunities with a social foundation thatprovides for health, respects culturaldiversity, is equitable and considers theneeds of future generations. All countriesrequire a healthy and diverse ecologicalsystem that is productive and lifesustaining a healthy and diverse economythat adapts to change and recognizes socialand ecological limits. This cannot be

“While we cannot doaway with natural

hazards, we can eliminatethose we cause, minimizethose we exacerbate, andreduce our vulnerability

to most. Doing thisrequires healthy and

resilient communities andecosystems. Viewed in this

light, disaster mitigationis clearly part of abroader strategy of

sustainable development –making communities and

nations socially,economically and

ecologically sustainable.”

Source: J. Abramovitz,2001.

Box 1.3The six principles of sustainability

1. Maintain and enhance quality of life2. Enhance economic vitality3. Ensure social and intergenerational

equity 4. Maintain and enhance environmental

quality5. Incorporate disaster resilience and

mitigation into actions and decisions6. Use a consensus-building, participatory

process when making decisions

Source: J. Monday, Building back better,2002.

Community SustainabilityEnvironmental

Quality

EconomicVitality

Social & Inter-

generationalEquity

ParticipatoryProcess

DisasterResilience

Qualityof Life

1Living with risk - focus on disaster risk reduction1.2 Contexts and policy framework of disaster risk reduction: sustainable development

19

achieved without the incorporation ofdisaster reduction strategies, one of sixprinciples of sustainability supported bystrong political commitment.

The motivation to invest in disaster riskreduction is very much a povertyreduction concern. It is about improvingstandards of safety and living conditionswith an eye on protection from hazards toincrease resilience of communities. A safersociety to withstand disasters may beargued as a case of ethics, social justiceand equity. It is also motivated byeconomic gains. Socio-economicdevelopment is seriously challenged whenscarce funds are diverted from long-termdevelopment objectives to short-termemergency relief and reconstruction needs.

Environmentally unsound practices, globalenvironmental changes, populationgrowth, urbanization, social injustice,poverty, conflicts, and short-termeconomic vision are producing vulnerablesocieties. The impact of development ondisasters in an increasingly unstable worldshould be fully embraced if disaster riskreduction is to yield its expected benefits.This takes on particular urgency in theface of long-term risks brought about byclimate change which goes much beyondenvironmental degradation ormismanagement of natural resources.Development-as-usual is blind to risk andfuels disasters which threaten furtherdevelopment (BCAS 2002).

The political context

Political commitment is an essentialingredient for sustained risk reductionefforts. Obtaining political commitmentfrom public authorities is one of the fourprinciple objectives of ISDR. Thisobjective needs to be addressed throughincreased coordination at all levels. Disasterreduction should be dealt with as a policyissue across relevant fields of governmentincluding health, agriculture, environmentand development. (National and regionalpolicies are elaborated in chapter 3).

For example, in Southern Africa otherforces have combined to influence thepolitical context of disasters. Decades ofarmed conflict, political instability andpopulation displacement have conditionedmore recent approaches to disastermanagement. In addition to the loss oflives, war-related damage and destructionto infrastructure, the prevalence ofprolonged relief operations has beenwidespread in places, creating a sense ofdependency on external assistance.

International humanitarian assistance thatoften inundates countries facing severedrought or flood crises is seldomaccompanied by support for long-terminstitutional change that promotespractical mitigation efforts. To a significantextent, the emphasis given to the urgentsupply of material requirements andlogistical capabilities born of crisis andresponding to the needs of unsettledpopulations, persists long after the acuteconditions have been resolved. Too often amemory of relief supplies or a legacy ofexternal assistance remains to discouragelocal initiatives or sustained institutionalinvestments in disaster risk reduction.

If today, short-term actions reducing lossof life are effective, longer sustainedcommitment towards disaster reductionseems to be lacking. However, to befeasible, disaster reduction needs to showit is able to address short-term needs ofsurvival as well as to take care of longer-term objectives of prevention and capacity-building.

This approach is illustrated by effortsundertaken in the cities of Manizales andMedellin in Colombia. There, the deathtoll and economic damage due tolandslides and floods have decreasedconsiderably thanks to initiativesundertaken by the municipalities,universities, private sector and communitygroups, through reforestation, plantingground cover, improved drainage systemsand engineering works. In some cases,these investments are even generatingincome through harvesting and tourism.

“There is a hope for a lesshazardous environment,and its achievement willdepend upon the linkingand convergence, and theintegration, of hazardstudies into the largerconsciousness ofsustainability and equity”.

Source: White, Kates andBurton, 2001

“Managing risk dependson political will. Politicalwill depends on politicalleadership and a shiftingset of incentives, pressuresand polemics. Thepolitical costs ofredirecting priorities fromvisible developmentprojects to addressingabstract long-term threatsare great. It is hard togain votes by pointing outthat a disaster did nothappen. How can we,who see risk managementas a central priority andwho have valuabletechnical knowledge andskills to contribute, enterthis policy arena? Thisquestion is at the centre ofthe discourse. We knownow that we must engage,but do we know how?”

Source: I. Christoplos, J.Mitchell and A.Liljelund, 2001.


20

Political change, economic reform anddevelopment of public policy to protectpeople and resources are fundamentalsolutions for disaster reduction. Capturingopportunities for social change during the“window of opportunity” followingdisasters, for example by utilizing theskills of women and men equally duringreconstruction, is both possible andnecessary. Politicians that undertake no-regret policies and apply precautionaryprinciples in matters of environmentalprotection should take the same stanceregarding disaster reduction.

Similarly, the public that exercises greatpressure to bring about environmentalpolicy changes should become a politicalforce putting pressure on governments toprotect people from disasters. If itbecomes a popular issue, disaster riskreduction will gain momentum.

It should also be noted that politicaldecisions can have negative consequenceson disaster impacts. For example, hugehydraulic projects displace people andchange landscape references ofcommunities and their perception of risk,thereby increasing vulnerability byreducing the people’s capacity to assessand anticipate hazard-related threats.

Sustainable development

Disaster reduction has emerged as anessential requisite for sustainabledevelopment. The UN General Assemblyincludes disaster reduction in its treatmentof the sustainable development items in itsannual deliberations. Furthermore, the2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) adopted theJohannesburg Plan of Implementationincluding reducing risk and vulnerabilityas main targets by 2015 (for more detailsee Annex 5).

The escalation of severe disasters poses athreat to both sustainable developmentand poverty reduction initiatives. Repeatedexposure to disasters can lead to adownward spiral of poverty. As aconsequence, Principle 1 of the RioDeclaration is at risk. This principle statesthat human beings are at the centre ofconcerns for sustainable development andare entitled to a healthy and productive lifein harmony with nature.

The post-disaster reconstruction periodprovides the best time to introducedisaster reduction into sustainabledevelopment planning. When perceived asa distinct set of activities, risk management

“The state of acountry’s…political

condition at the time ofthe onset of a disaster is amajor determinant in theimpacts on society of that

event.”

Source: M. Glantz,2000.

“Can sustainabledevelopment along with

the internationalinstruments aiming atpoverty reduction and

environmental protectionbe successful without

taking into account therisk of natural hazardsand their impacts? Can

the planet afford theincreasing costs and losses

due to so-called naturaldisasters? The short

answer is, no.”

Source: UN/ISDR,2003.

Box 1.4Paired perspectives

Two countries respond to the question of the role of political commitment in disaster risk reduction.

Country one: A highly disaster-prone country, with considerable technical, material and financialresources, with strong political aspirations to modernize.

“Disaster mitigation is not a priority item, except at times of disaster. With many pressing requirementsrelated to health, education, development, defence, etc., disaster mitigation must during normal timesbe given diminished attention. We do not think that an easy recipe exists to overcome these obstacles.”

Country two: A highly disaster-prone country, with few technical, material and financial resources, andmuch greater demands to realize its strong political aspirations to develop.

“It has been possible for the government to institutionalize the concept of disaster management andalso to generate momentum at the grass-roots level for self-reliance in coping with and responding todisasters.”

Source: ISDR questionnaire, 2001.


21

initiatives are placed in competition withother environmental and developmentalobjectives, rather than being seen asintegral parts of the same whole.Therefore, political commitment andsocial acceptance of the value of riskreduction are necessary to increase thesustainability of communities.

Societies will become resilient when theyintegrate adaptive and risk managementprocesses in sustainable developmentstrategies. This implies the need to protectlivelihoods against risk and uncertaintyfrom global environmental changes, basedon trade-offs between different componentsof the strategic development framework.

Sociocultural context

As a pillar of sustainable development, thelinks between disaster and thesociocultural system are importantcomponents in disaster risk reduction.(Social vulnerability is discussed further inchapter 2). The term culture is understoodin a myriad of ways and represents acomplex notion.

Differences exist among groups of people,and these differences reflect a variety offactors including language, socio-economicand political systems, religion and ethnicityas well as historical experience andrelationships with nature. Each culturalgroup has its own set of experiences andexpectations as do women and men andpeople in different age groups.Furthermore, these relationships amongpeople are embedded in unequal powerrelations with different sets of values; somegroups become dominant and others aremarginalized. All of these factors are highlyrelevant in the context of natural disasters.

Much early thinking about disasters wasbased on a notion of nature and culturebeing separate. Disasters were seen as theproducts of a capricious and unpredictablenature and therefore beyond the control ofhumans. Often they were referred to asacts of supernatural forces, or acts of god.

It became increasingly obvious that thecauses of disasters are complex and thatbesides nature, people are also a causalfactor. Looking beyond beliefs, more andmore disasters are understood in terms oftheir cultural and social components. Vastdifferences in disaster vulnerability amongcountries and within individual societieshave their roots in unequal sets of powerrelationships, leading to unequaldistribution and access to wealth amongdifferent cultures or political settings.Therefore, much more research is neededon the social causes of disasters.

It is important that ownership of thedisaster context is not stripped from localpeople by external interference. There is agrowing appreciation of the need fordisaster reduction activities to be based onmore attentive participatory approachesinvolving local communities as much aspossible, considering them as proactivestakeholders and not passive targets forintervention.

Common sense solutions in one culturalsetting are often contrary to what may becommon sense in others. Local socio-political structures and cultural conditionssuch as kinship arrangements, customaryrights, community and family networksand systems of leadership nearly alwayspersist during disasters. It is importantthat these are not undermined.

For example, it is important to recognizethat death and illness have strong culturalimplications. When decisions aboutmatters such as mass burials are imposedon cultural groups by others, seriousproblems can occur that disrupt grievingand have long-term social, legal andpsychological consequences. Sometraditional practices must also be examinedcritically as cultural norms and familystructures may increase the vulnerability ofgirls and women to disasters.

Cultural patterns which structure the livesof women and men also must be clearlyunderstood. Their differing needs, rolesand social power in various social contexts

A definition of culture

A complex whole whichincludes ways of life of apeople, attitudes, values,beliefs, arts, sciences,modes of perception, andhabits of thought andactivity; that set ofcapacities is fundamentalto the mode of adaptationof a particular people.

Adapted from: Dictionaryof concepts in culturalanthropology, Robert H.Winthrop, 1991.


22

need to be taken into account. Men areusually seen as primary incomegenerators while women’s economicactivities, often the mainstay of thehousehold economy, are less visible.Women assume primary responsibilityfor the care of children, the elderly, thedisabled and the ill whose mobility andsurvival in disasters may be limited. Sex-specific dependencies and vulnerabilitiesbased on reproductive differences arerelevant in disasters as is the respectiveability of women and men to participatefully in household, community andnational decision-making about hazardand risk management.

In many cultures, attachment to place is acritically important element, thusdecisions to move people must be madecarefully. In some cases, people reportedfeeling more afraid and at risk inrelocation sites than if they had remainedin their home environment. In many casespeople are unwilling to leave a house inwhich they have invested most of theirtime and money, in which they earnincome and care for family members.Often it constitutes their principal legacyto their children.

In other instances, host communitieshave felt imposed upon by those whohave been relocated and violent reactionsare not uncommon. Relocation ofcommunities at risk may be scientificallythe most attractive and seeminglyreasonable prevention measure but it canbe contrary to cultural norms.

Cultural change is an importantconsideration in disaster reduction, as iscultural continuity. For example,intercommunity cooperation followingdisasters was extremely common amongtraditional Pacific island communities, andto a large extent sustained by ceremonialexchange systems. These exchange networksfell away as commercial trading, oftencentred in colonial capitals, replacedtraditional forms of exchange. Colonialgovernments replaced traditional politicalnetworks and missionaries furtherdiscouraged exchanges as threats toChristianity. Relief aid also reduced the needto maintain such networks.

With the migration of many Pacific islandersto places such as Australia, California andNew Zealand, new exchange networks haveemerged. Following disasters, major flows ofresources now enter Pacific island states inthe form of help from expatriates. Culturally,disasters have become important eventsthrough which Pacific island diasporamaintain links with their former homes.

An important finding of many researchersworking in developing countries or in localcommunities is that a wide variety of measuresfor reducing disasters existed in earlier, oftenpre-colonial, times. A variety of socioculturalor economic factors have in some cases erodedthese measures, undermining cultural supportand social activities that might have otherwisecontributed to sharing the exposure to riskamong members of the community, orincreasing their abilities to cope with abnormalsituations.

“The three-legged stool ofenvironmentally

sustainable growth,resource protection andconservation, and just

social development willnever prevent women andmen from harm caused by

naturally-occurringextreme events—but will

certainly help preventthem from becoming

disastrous in their effectsupon people. But neither

sustainability nor disasterreduction are possible so

long as structuralinequalities constrain

women’s lives and otherforms of social inequality

persist between peoples,nations, and regions.

Women and men can andmust find common ground

as they take up the hardwork ahead of buildingmore sustainable, just,

and safer ways of livingon this planet.”

Source: Elaine Enarson,2002.

Box 1.5The impact of cultural change on disaster resilience

Cultural changes tend to reduce disaster resilience in traditional communities and at the same time,disasters can exaggerate their influence. While such changes most probably would have happenedanyway, there can be little doubt that they can be hastened by disaster events, as the followingexamples from Pacific island states demonstrate:

• Introduction of new crops, especially cassava which is more vulnerable to high winds than yams ortaro, the common traditional subsistence crops.

• Replacement of traditional hazard-resistant housing with climatically inappropriate disaster-reliefhomes.

• Reduced need for food preservation and storage resulting from relief supplies, especially of rice,which has become an increasingly dominant component of diets in both rural and urban areas.

Source: John Campbell, University of Waikato, 2001


23

Economic context

The links between disaster and the economicsystem, another pillar of sustainable development,are clear. Historically, people have always madeinvestments to obtain, and then to protect, thoseresources that hold the greatest value for them.This is the principle behind insurance or otherefforts to spread risk within a community,including joint ownership or responsibility forprotecting assets.

The concern demonstrated by a farmer to protect asingle cow, a homestead gardener to conserve wateror a fisherman to mend nets in subsistenceeconomies further reinforces the crucial role ofeconomic systems in reducing risk.

Economics and the awareness of an increase indisaster severity and frequency provide incentivesfor development banks and international assistanceinstitutions to integrate risk reduction in theirdevelopment strategies and to develop innovativeforms of financial investment. This also happens atthe household and micro-entreprise level, and innational and regional economies.

Risk management planning involves an estimationof the impacts of potential disasters on theeconomy, based on the best available hazard mapsand macroeconomic data. These includeassessments of the costs of disasters, evaluation ofthe costs and benefits of disaster reduction and risktransfer measures (including the value of improvedforecasting systems) and incentives from theinternational community that lead towardsproactive disaster reduction projects. Such studiesare carried out through international cooperative

arrangements, especially by the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank (IADB).

Better understanding the real costs of naturaldisasters is difficult. Major impediments include alack of reliable data, or clear and consistentdefinitions of what is being measured.

Methodologies employed tend not to be so readilycomparable, and approaches to estimating costs ordetermining the extent of coverage can beinconsistent from place to place. In addition itremains to be proven that more precise damageand loss calculations would necessarily lead toevident changes in policy decisions or marketingpractices.

Monetary indicators linked to disasters should becritically reviewed as they often fail to capturespecific economic and social circumstances.Calculation of losses should take the nature andmagnitude of employment losses into account.Similarly losses have to be related to households’situation and vulnerability before and afterdisasters. The impact of a US$ 50 loss of assetscan be minor or huge depending on one’seconomic and social situation.

Given the recurrence and frequency of naturalhazards, a concerted effort will always be requiredto respond effectively to them, and to assess thefrequency of emergency recovery assistance, as wellas the prospects of reducing damage in the future.Promotion of disaster risk reduction needs to bematched by reality. In the case of the 2000 floodsin Mozambique, only 15 per cent of the money

Box 1.6Economic loss due to natural hazards in 2003

2003 was marked by a series of severe natural hazard events, with the number of fatalities far exceeding the long-termaverage. More than 50,000 people were killed in natural catastrophes worldwide, almost five times as many as in theprevious year (11,000); such a high number of victims has only been recorded four times since 1980. The heat wave inEurope and the earthquake in Iran each claimed more than 20,000 lives.

The number of natural catastrophes recorded in 2003 was around 700 – the same level as in the previous year – buteconomic losses rose to over US$ 60 billion (in 2002: US$ 55 billion).

Around the globe, 70 earthquakes caused damage resulting in economic losses of approximately US$ 6 billion, far higherthan the insured losses of approximately US$ 100 million. Windstorms accounted for about a third of the 700 eventsrecorded, but for 75 per cent of all the insured losses caused by natural catastrophes.

Source: Munich Re, 2003.


24

Box 1.7Evidence of the economic benefits of disaster reduction efforts

In the Caribbean, empirical evidence shows that it is significantly more cost-effective to design and build a structure tostandards that would withstand maximum expected wind or seismic forces in a given location, rather than build to lowerstandards and suffer the damages.

Source: Organization of American States, 1993.

Switzerland long ago recognized the value of forests in protecting important economic assets (roads, industries, infrastructure,tourism) as well as human settlements and people against avalanches and landslides. The economy provided by theprotection afforded by forests was estimated between US$ 2 billion and US$ 3.5 billion per year.

Source: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Economics and Climate, 1999.

In the United States, after the 1993 Midwest floods, government buyouts of flood-prone residents and movement of materialproperty to areas outside the 100-year flood plain were successful in reducing flood claims in subsequent flood events. Thebuyout initiative resulted in a significant reduction in National Flood Insurance Program claims and the availability of land inflood plains for other purposes. In the long run, economic sustainability, hazard mitigation efforts plus enhanced riskassessment utilizing appropriate tools will have environmental pay-offs.

Source: Annual Hazards Research and Applications Workshops, University of Colorado, 2001.

Figure 1.4Annual growth Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and occurrence of major“natural disasters” in Ecuador, 1980-2001

Years without major natural disasters Years with major natural disasters

1982

1983

1987

1989

1993

1998

1999

1980

1981

1984

1985

1986

1988

1990

1991

1992

1994

1995

1996

1997

2000

2001

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

El N

iño ph

enom

enon

Earth

quak

e in n

orth-

east

regio

n

"La J

osefi

na" r

ocks

lide

El N

iño ph

enom

enon

Annual growth of GDP (%) in Ecuador compared to preceding year

Source: PRECUPA/SDC project, Central Bank of Ecuador 2002


25

asked to replace river-level gauges waspromised despite large aid sums otherwisepledged. As the aid was so slow to materializeanyhow, key infrastructure works could not becompleted before the next rainy season.

The benefits of long-term disaster riskreduction versus the costs of repeated short-term post-disaster reconstruction need to bedocumented. In view of the exorbitanteconomic and social costs of recurringdisasters, long-term hazard reduction planningis becoming, more and more, a guidingprinciple and prerequisite for the sustainabilityof physical investments. Efforts to estimate thenet benefits of location or land use inhazardous areas, and also the actual benefits ofextreme events both need to be undertaken.

Improvement and enforcement of regulatoryframeworks for disaster reduction, includingdisaster-related insurance, building codes andland use planning can improve the chances thatinfrastructure is properly sited and built tominimize damages. This involves publicinsurance policy, market and regulatoryincentives for risk and vulnerability reduction,protection against fluctuations in insurance andreinsurance prices, augmentation of insurancecoverage at reasonable cost and backstopfinancial mechanisms.

The relationship between disaster and riskreduction and globalization also needs to beresearched further to explore, on the one hand,the detrimental effects of deregulation, and onthe other hand, the beneficial effects associatedwith economic competitiveness. Changes

associated with globalization which impact socialcohesion, environmental resources, economic stabilityand living conditions closely related to disasterresilience must not be underestimated. Capacities tocope should not be undermined by widening wealthgap, debt repayments, inequitable world trade practicesand misguided economic adjustment policies. Bycontrast, the potential for risk reduction to become anessential element to increase competitiveness, protectinvestment and contribute to securing tradeopportunities, while avoiding new risks and businessinterruptions, has to be more fully considered.

Box 1.8Economic initiatives for disaster reduction

• Assess natural disaster damage and loss potential (including historical perspective).• Analyse costs and benefits of disaster management (cost-effective allocation of resources).• Assess hazard risks at the project appraisal stage of all potential investment projects, including cost-benefit analyses that

estimate the hazard vulnerability implications of alternative levels of overall quality and strength, as well as returns fromspecific disaster-proofing features.

• Evaluate trade-offs between quality and quantity of structural mitigation measures.• Create incentives, cost-sharing and recovery for disaster reduction.• Consider disaster risk transfer and financing opportunities.• Enforce regulations under different levels of economic development and government capacity.• Determine pricing policy designed for rational use of resources.

Adapted from: C. Benson, United Kingdom Overseas Development Institute, Department for International Development, 2002.

Figure 1.5Disaster losses, total and as share of GDP, in therichest and poorest nations, 1985-1999

Economic losses as per cent of GDP Economic losses

Richest Nations Poorest Nations

Billion $US Per cent of GDP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Source: Adapted from MunichRe, 1999


26

Box 1.9The economic impacts of natural disasters in Pacific small island developing states

Experience in Pacific small island developing states (SIDS), as in many other poor countries, showsthat it is probably not the actual dollar value of disaster loss that is most relevant, but rather the cost tothe particular nation in terms of percentage of GDP – and this can be very significant indeed.

A South Pacific study of 1997 concluded that natural disasters have a significant impact on keyeconomic elements such as GDP, employment and trade, and macroeconomic aspects, includinggovernment finances, monetary policy, inflation and the level of international reserves.

The conclusions underlined the importance of adopting appropriate policy and institutional capabilities inorder to minimize the extent of physical damage and economic losses, in addition to the continuing rolethat donors have played in providing assistance for relief and rehabilitation purposes.

The study noted that, “with their limited economic diversification, combined with a high agriculture-GDPratio prevalent among many of the small Pacific island states, [they are] particularly exposed to disasterdevastation and considerable economic losses. In the short to medium term, the destruction of standingcrops, physical infrastructure and housing could be severe, with the consequences that GDP couldbecome sharply depressed for some time, with likely consequence of provoking macroeconomicinstability”.

In the longer term, the study noted that damage to productive assets could lead to a loss of output withreduced economic growth and declining standards of living. “The reallocation of financial resources aftera disaster for emergency and rehabilitation purposes as well as reductions in capital investments canimpede the realization of major national development objectives.”

However it was equally noted that “the extent of the destruction and economic losses that result, bothimmediately and over time, depends on a variety of factors including the degree of dependence onagricultural production, the level of structural diversification achieved, resource endowment and the levelof disaster preparedness”.

In small countries generally, and in small developing states specifically, primary attention needs to begiven to a range of mitigation strategies that can reduce the exposure or risk of damage to productiveassets and associated economic losses.

The promotion of appropriate macroeconomic policies can also be vital in cushioning the destabilizingimpact of natural disasters. These can include firm adherence to fiscal and monetary policies at the timeof severe demands on financial resources created by emergency conditions or post-disasterrequirements, the encouragement of property owners to adopt insurance as means of spreading theirrisk, and the creation of a disaster reserve fund to facilitate a quick recovery of vital economic activitiesor infrastructure facilities following a disaster.

At a more basic level of reducing risks long before they threaten, practices that maintain a continuedcommitment to strong macroeconomic fundamentals, including adequate external reserves, can serveas buffers against disaster-related crises.

Source: Adapted from Te’o I.J. Fairbairn, South Pacific Disaster Reduction Project, 1997.


27

Environmental context

The third system with which disasterreduction is closely linked is theenvironmental system, yet another pillarof sustainable development. Disasters donot only affect the built environment butalso the natural environment.

Environmental degradation increases theintensity of natural hazards and is oftenthe factor that transforms the hazardinto a disaster. For example, river andlake floods are aggravated or evencaused by deforestation which in turncauses erosion and clogs rivers. Asstated by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC), social andeconomic systems are already affected bythe recent increasing frequency of floodsand drought.

Global environmental change,particularly climate change, poses anexceptionally complex challenge forhumanity that affects vulnerability andhazard patterns. In this context, thework of the Global EnvironmentalChange and Human Security(GECHS) project of the InternationalHuman Dimensions Programme onGlobal Environmental Change (IHDP)is of interest. It develops methods for anearly warning system of environmentalchange and its potential impacts todetermine why some groups orcommunities are more vulnerable thanothers, given the same level ofbiophysical risk.

Poverty and vulnerability are linked to thissituation. The poor are compelled to exploitenvironmental resources for survival,therefore increasing both risk and exposureto disasters, in particular those triggered byfloods, drought and landslides.Environmental refugees settling in fragiledrylands with low resilience are majorconcerns to resource managers, especially inAfrica. Addressing the poverty challenge istherefore urgent. The initiative taken by teninternational organizations including theWorld Bank and UNDP to discuss how tointegrate adaptation to climate variabilityand change into poverty eradication is awelcome step in this direction.

The natural environment provides solutionsto increase protection against disasterimpacts. Therefore, successful disasterreduction should enhance environmentalquality, which includes protection of naturalresources and open space, management ofwater run-off, and reduction of pollution.

Successful environmental policies shouldhighlight the effectiveness of disasterreduction measures. This should entail anacceptance of some degree of naturaldisturbance to avoid the greater consequencesof extreme events, and an appraisal ofalternative solutions to an exclusivelyengineering approach. As women and mentend to use different environmental resources,a gender perspective is especially important.Women’s roles as primary resource users andmanagers, not always in the interests ofsustainability, make them vital partners in wiseenvironmental management to reduce risk.

“Around the world, agrowing share of thedevastation triggered by‘natural’ disasters stemsfrom ecologicallydestructive practices andfrom putting ourselves inharm’s way. Manyecosystems have beenfrayed to the point wherethey are no longerresilient and able towithstand naturaldisturbances, setting thestage for ‘unnaturaldisasters’ – those mademore frequent or moresevere due to humanactions. By degradingforests, engineering rivers,filling in wetlands, anddestabilizing the climate,we are unravelling thestrands of a complexecological safety net.”

Source: J. Abramovitz,2001.

Box 1.10The International Human Dimension Programme on Global Environmental Change

Launched in 1990, the International Human Dimension Programme on Global Environmental Change(IHDP) is a non-governmental science programme devoted to interdisciplinary and international researchon the human dimensions of global environmental change. Its national committees and programmesaround the world bring scientists together on these issues. Research on urbanization, mountains,vulnerability assessment and “science for sustainable development” are some of its main activities.

Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) is one of its core projects. Working with adefinition of human security that connects the theoretical with the practical, the purpose is to promoteresearch on various topics related to environmental change and security, exploring among others thelink between environmental stress, vulnerability and human security. Another goal of the project is toextend collaboration among scholars and link policy makers, researchers and other groups, facilitated bythe International Network on Environment and Security (INES), a European-based project involvinginstitutes interested in environment and security.


28

There is growing recognition that by followingprinciples of wise environmental management,increased hazard protection as well as economicbenefits can be provided by the naturalenvironment. This can be accomplished bybuilding capacities, exchanging information,experience and knowledge and collaborating withother groups.

The wealth of information in both environmentaland disaster management studies should be shared.Both areas are multidisciplinary and innovative intheir approaches and analysis of the socio-environmental nexus. Traditionally, each isdominated by the public sector and non-governmental organizations which encourages wideparticipation. Tools such as vulnerability indexing,

inventory mechanisms, educational programmesfor public awareness and impact assessments arecontinuously being refined in both fields.

Encompassing long-term comprehensive goals tomanage growth, development and land use impliesincorporating an effective environmentalcomponent into disaster reduction strategies.Sustainable management of natural resources,including reforestation and settlement schemesshould increase the resilience of communities todisasters by reversing current trends ofenvironmental degradation and by addressinghazard management in a comprehensive way. Thiswill also contribute to the social acceptance,political feasibility and economic rationale ofdisaster reduction programmes. Furthermore,

Box 1.11Nature’s solutions to reduce disaster impacts

“The time has come to tap nature’s engineering techniques – using the services provided by healthy and resilientecosystems. Dunes, barrier islands, mangrove forests, and coastal wetlands are natural shock absorbers that protectagainst coastal storms. Wetlands, floodplains, and forests are sponges that absorb floodwaters. Nature provides thesevaluable services for free, and we should take advantage of them rather than undermining them.”

Source: J. Abramovitz, Unnatural disasters, 2001.

“Open space, greenways, and riverside parks serve as habitat for wildlife, protect streams from pollutants, help maintainwater temperatures, and keep people and development from the highest-risk floodplains. Trees can drastically reducestorm water management costs. American Forests studied Garland, Texas, and calculated that the city’s canopy reducedstorm water runoff by 19 million cubic feet during a major storm. Annually, the trees save Garland US$ 2.8 million ininfrastructure costs and US$ 2.5 million in air quality costs and residential energy bills.”

Source: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, 2001.

Around the village of Guarita in Honduras, local people practiced traditional Quezungal farming methods consisting ofplanting crops under trees, maintaining ground vegetation and terracing in order to root the soil and reduce erosion. DuringHurricane Mitch, only 10 per cent of the crop was lost, leaving reserves that could be shared with more severely affectedneighbouring areas.

Source: UNDP/BCPR communication, 2002.

The Viet Nam Red Cross Society conducted an environmental preservation project in Thai Binh province to addressdifferent aspects of risk relating to typhoon occurrence that threatens the people living on the coast. Two thousand hectaresof mangrove plantation were created along the coastline serving to reduce wind and wave velocity and action, therebyprotecting landscape, human life and local development assets.

Resource opportunities for improving livelihoods were provided by a healthier natural environment. The limited damageprovoked by the worst typhoon in a decade provided the best possible indication of the effectiveness of the plantation inreducing risks and its ability to enhance the resiliency of local communities.

Source: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, World Disasters Report, 2002.

During the 2002 summer floods in Europe the floodplains of Moravia absorbed the Danube flood wave and helped protectBratislava from higher flooding levels. This effect could be multiplied across the whole Danube basin to prevent futurelosses of life, property, and threats to human health – all that is needed is governments to invest in nature rather than inhard, old-fashioned, engineering solutions.

Source: World Wide Fund for Nature, 2002.


29

synergies with policy goals pursued in thearea of adaptation to climate change willbring additional support to efforts indisaster reduction.

Disaster reduction and environmentalmanagement should become joint nationalpriorities. Entities responsible for disasterreduction should have clear environmentalmandates. Inter-agency programmes areneeded to promote a holistic problem-solving strategy, justifying the protectionand restoration of natural functions ofecosystems, and assessing programmesubsidies to create the right incentives forsustainability.

Until recently, there was scant discussionand even less organizational contact betweenenvironmental management experts and riskreduction experts. In fact, antagonism,power and authority struggles andcompetition over uses of land and naturalresources often prevailed. It should also berecalled that the existence of environmentaldivisions within organizations and nationalministries of environment were not the normin the 1980s.

As disaster reduction and environmenthave a lot in common, the disasterreduction community should look closely atexperience gained in promotingenvironmental policies. The environmentalcommunity has been promoting its agendafor 30 years. Today, an environmentalstrategy to achieve sustainable developmentis a given policy option. Disaster reductionpolicy must follow a similar path.

Environmental accounting systems thatproduce information suited for decision-making should reflect disaster reductionconsiderations. Additional studies areneeded to improve systems of ecologicaleconomic accounting. Translatingenvironmental resources and services intoconventional economic figures is still verymuch a challenge.

Some of these boundaries have beenbreached. In the late 1990s in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, El Niño,

Hurricane Georges and Hurricane Mitchfocused attention on the full spectrum ofthe hydrological cycle to both developmentand disaster concerns.

The magnitude of the resulting fires,drought, flooding and landslidesassociated with these disasters inevitablystimulated discussion about therelationships that exist betweenenvironmental mismanagement and theoccurrence of hazards.

Until recently, the gender dimensions ofsustainable development, as well as indisaster risk reduction were easilyneglected. This occurred despite ampleevidence that environmental degradation,development practices, and naturaldisasters impact women’s and men’s healthand livelihoods differently. Women are alsoespecially proactive in risk reductioninitiatives at the household and local levels.

An important initiative in linkingenvironmental management to disasterrisk reduction was the publication ofStrategy for the Reduction of EnvironmentalVulnerability in Central America when Facedwith Natural Disasters: EnvironmentalManagement and the Evaluation ofVulnerability (May 1999). Produced in

“The failure by thedevelopment communityto take climate changeand disaster reductionseriously represents adouble disconnect in policywhich threatens the livesof millions of vulnerablepeople around the world.Part of the problem isthat professionals workingwithin these sectorsoperate in differentworlds and on differenttimescales. Disastermanagers are too busygrabbing the phone andordering more food andblankets to worry aboutrisk reduction anddevelopment concerns.Meanwhile climatechange scientists workwith 100-year modelsthat bear little immediaterelevance to the timespanof policy makers and fieldworkers. The developmentcommunity sits betweenthese two groups andbears the majorresponsibility for bringingthem together into onecoherent discourse.”

Source: BangladeshCentre for AdvancedStudies/New EconomicsFoundation, 2002.

Box 1.12Linking the environment and disasterreduction activities

• Assessment of environmental problemslinked to hazards based on reliable sourcesof existing information with the relatedevaluation of impacts and the need foradditional data.

• Mapping of environmentally sensitive areas,description of the characteristics of theenvironment and development trends inthese areas.

• Examination of environmental benefits to bedrawn from disaster reduction activitiesthroughout various sectors.

• Monitoring to provide information fordecision-making purposes (for example,suitability of land for development).

• Environmental tools for disaster reductionpurposes: regulations, incentives,conservation programmes, hazard controland mitigation, water/watershed, and coastalzone management.


30

collaboration with the UN Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, thisdocument provided an overview of the disasterand vulnerability problems in the region andproposed many wide-ranging projects forfinancing as part of the international process torehabilitate Central America. The content of theproposals went quite beyond environmentalproblems, touching on almost every foreseeabletopic of interest to risk analysts and managers.

Reflecting increased attention about the need forgender-aware and culturally-specific perspectives inthe global dialogue about sustainability anddisasters, the World Bank and IADBcommissioned studies of gender issues arising fromHurricane Mitch. Within the UN, the Divisionfor the Advancement of Women initiated a globalInternet conference and subsequent expert workinggroup to examine linkages between gender equality,environmental management, and natural disasterreduction.

The report and recommendations drew onextensive work conducted during the 1980s and1990s to incorporate gender perspectives intosustainable development, disaster reduction, andemergency relief. Gender analysis has proven to bea useful common thread for weaving together waysof thinking about disasters and sustainabilitywhich, while too often separated institutionally, areinescapably joined empirically.

Regional considerations linking disasterreduction and sustainable development

Progress can be shown through examples ofregional strategies for sustainable developmentthat strive to reduce the risk of disasters.

It was only after unacceptable losses occurred thatrisk assessment and management processes wereincluded in infrastructure development projects.Angry demands of the public after particularlydisastrous events (e.g. after the Gujaratearthquake in India, following Hurricane Mitchin Central America, or in the aftermath of thefloods in Mozambique) provoked important andnew commitments. These include the mandatoryinclusion of risk assessment by international andregional development banks and developmentassistance agencies in their respective activities.

Asia

Although there have been fewexamples of effective, systematicand long-term integration effortsbetween disaster reduction and poverty alleviationprogrammes, a dialogue between these two interestgroups is beginning to take place in the region.

In February 2001, the Asian Development Bank(ADB) organized the Asia Pacific Forum onPoverty. One of the key focus areas was socialprotection to diminish vulnerability to risks,generate employment and improve productivityand working conditions in Asia and the Pacific. Itwas one of the few times that a discourse onpoverty alleviation in the region recognizeddisaster reduction as one of the key interventionsfor social protection.

A notable example of an integrated programme isthe initiative of the Mekong River Commission(MRC). Following the extensive floods in VietNam and Cambodia in 2000, it developed aholistic strategy for flood management andmitigation that emphasizes land-use planning,structural measures, flood preparedness andemergency response.

The Phnom Penh Regional Platform onSustainable Development for Asia and the Pacific,adopted in the wake of the WSSD, noted that the

Box 1.13Long-term environmental changes and disasters

At the beginning of the 21st century, there is, particularlyin Pacific small island developing states (SIDS), growingconcern about the long-term consequences of climatechange, the El Niño phenomenon and the potential forrising sea levels. In recognizing the heavy dependenceof SIDS on the natural environment and their exposure toalmost all types of natural, technological and human-related hazards, there is a strong rationale forconsidering all these hazards in a generic sense asenvironmental hazards. Environmental impact isprecisely the premise for disaster reduction in fivegeneric environments:

• built environment – property, buildings, infrastructure;• natural environment – geography, physiology;• human environment – human life, socio-economic

factors;• terrestrial environment; and• marine environment.


31

financial crisis of 1997, the isolation and vulnerabilityof small island developing states and recurrentnatural disasters pose major constraints to theachievement of sustainable development.

Gender and risk issues linked to environmentalmanagement and mitigation of natural disasters werediscussed at the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Lawand Development (March 2002). States were urgedto “recognize the impact of development policies andprojects on environmental crises and natural disastersthat manifest themselves in an aggravated anddifferentiated manner for women, causing the loss oftheir income, workspace and livelihoods; and, often,leading to destitution and denial of women’s humanrights”.

In preparation for the Third World Water Forum(Kyoto, March 2003), the Asian Development Bankconducted a series of consultations on poverty, floodsand gender. Results of these workshops that lookedinto the impacts of water-related disasters on thepoor are available on their website.<http://www.world.water-forum3.com/>

Coping with natural disasters is perceived as anessential issue to be addressed in the region.Measures are called for to ensure that populationssuffering the consequences of natural disasters,severe environmental degradation and other relevanthumanitarian emergencies are given every assistanceand protection so that they can resume normal life assoon as possible.

The region, however, has a long way to go in termsof integrating poverty alleviation and disasterreduction programmes in practice. More research isrequired on understanding the nature of linkagesbetween poverty and vulnerability in different social,political, economic and hazard-specific contexts. Thiswill then improve specific frameworks, tools andmethodologies developed and applied to integratepoverty alleviation and disaster reductionprogrammes.

The Pacific

The crucial relationships thatexist between natural disasterrisks, the environment andtheir combined impacts on human societies areparticularly evident in the Pacific small island

developing states. People are highly dependenton the natural environment, and historicalrecords testify to the devastating effects thatnatural disasters cause in the region.

There is growing concern among governmentofficials and scientists about the potential forincreasingly frequent and more severemeteorological and hydrological hazards resultingfrom climate change, and how they may affectPacific islands.

Africa

Poverty levels remain high inAfrica, especially among therural poor. High levels of foreign debt andinternational conflicts have discouragedinvestment and growth. Under these austereconditions, significant investments at householdor national level to mitigate the impact ofnatural or other threats are difficult to achieve.

In Southern Africa, the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC) expressedconcern that ten years after the adoption ofinternational agreements at the UN Conferenceon Environment and Development, SouthernAfrica was still “confronted by social, economicand environmental crises”.

Among the core issues identified, poverty washighlighted as the primary constraint to socio-economic development, but matters of health,food security, climate change, water availability,land degradation and market access were alsocited as critical issues.

Each of these factors has a bearing on prevailingvulnerability and risk issues in the region. In aregion still heavily dependent on agriculture tomaintain household livelihoods and nationalfood security, drought and floods present seriouschallenges to sustainable development. Althoughthe links between disaster reduction and nationaldevelopment programming are still weak inAfrica, some countries including Ghanaexplicitly integrate disaster reduction in theirpoverty reduction strategy.

The African Ministerial Statement to theWSSD stated that the increased incidence of


32

natural disasters in Africa poses a major obstacleto the African continent’s efforts to achievesustainable development, especially in view of theregion’s insufficient capacities to predict, monitor,handle and mitigate natural disasters.

Reducing the vulnerability of the African people tonatural hazards and environmental risks ismentioned as a requirement to achieve the povertyreduction goals of the Millennium Declarationalongside other basic requirements includingeconomic growth, access to sources of energy andbasic health services. Extreme weather events suchas floods and droughts induced by climate changeare singled out.

Latin America and the Caribbean

The health sector hasrecognized that risk reduction isa key consideration for an improved health sectorthroughout the region. The hurricanes andearthquakes affecting the region in the 1990s haveconvinced the Pan American Health Organization(PAHO) and most health authorities that a cultureof prevention must include mitigation of structuraland non-structural damages to health facilities andwater supply systems.

This was made clear following the collapse ofseveral hospitals during an earthquake in Mexicoin 1985. Action requires significant capitalinvestment, a decision in the hands of ministriesand financing organizations. As a result, only alimited number of hospitals have been retrofitted,illustrating that disaster reduction requires broadconsensus and political will.

The severity of the El Niño/La Niña phenomenonof 1997-1998, led to the establishment of theAndean Regional Programme for Risk Preventionand Reduction (PREANDINO) with theobjective of promoting the development of disasterrisk prevention and mitigation policies and newinstitutional arrangements aimed at incorporatingprevention into development planning.

The Rio de Janeiro Platform for Action on theRoad to Johannesburg 2002 was adopted by theRegional Preparatory Conference of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean for WSSD. Ministers

of environment and other senior representativesfrom Latin American and Caribbean countriesstressed the need for actions that reduce disastervulnerability and promote a culture of riskawareness by means of education, improvedinformation dissemination and the use of earlywarning systems.

In Central America, natural hazards areexacerbated by the high level of vulnerability inthe region. Therefore, any sustained commitmentto reduce risk needs to be considered in thecontext of poverty reduction.

Increasing attention is being given to the globalnotion of risk as opposed to a more restricted viewof disaster management. United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) in ElSalvador has proposed the use of risk managementas a uniting concept in the design of its five-yearprogramme with the government. The conceptualframework used in the Lower Lempa Valleyimplemented with the Ministry of Environmentwas elaborated around the notion of global or totalrisk, where risk reduction is regarded as acomponent of development investment.

Europe

Disaster reduction hastraditionally been approachedthrough rigid civil protectionframeworks at the national levelsthroughout Europe, but shifts from emergency toprevention outlooks and from national to regionalperspectives are now taking place.

The European Commission has no overall disasterreduction or prevention strategy, but it is fundingspecific activities related to this field. Councildecision of 9 December 1999 (1999/847/EC),establishing a European community actionprogramme in the field of civil protectionrecognized that a greater awareness of therelationship between human activities and naturemay in the future make it possible to prevent manydisasters, including floods.

By referring to risk awareness, assessment andsustainable development, the decision encouragedprojects in the area of prevention, preparedness,detection and study of the causes of disasters as well


33

as analysis of the socio-economic implications ofdisasters. In this regard, an integrated Europeanstrategy on prevention, preparedness and responseto natural, human-induced and other risks is beingelaborated. The sixth Community EnvironmentAction Programme also foresees a network forexchange of prevention practices and tools.

At the Ninth Ministerial Session of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement in Bandol(France) in October 2002, severalrecommendations concerning national Euro-Mediterranean disaster reduction platforms wereadopted. These involved considerations aboutelaborating a risk culture, a first phaseimplementation of risk prevention initiatives andISDR. It called for strengthening and developingcooperation with the European Commission, inparticular the Directorate General of theEnvironment to develop and implement theexisting EUR-OPA initiatives in risk prevention.

Concluding remarks

Despite the progress achieved, much more isrequired to implement institutional changes thatwill help in the evolution of a disaster reductionculture. The processes conditioning the emergenceof disaster reduction need to be conducive tounderstanding risk and vulnerability, awarenessand management, leading to safer long-termdevelopment planning based on anticipation ratherthan cure.

Disaster reduction strategies drawing uponsustainable development concepts should beproactive and continual. To be effective, they needto promote political commitment, a financialrationale, environmental sensibility and culturalawareness. Such a shift in mentality should, inparticular, meet the mitigation requirementsimposed by the slow-onset disasters that globalenvironmental changes will bring about.

Documents

1.2 Contexts and policy framework of disaster risk ...drr.upeace.org/english/documents//References//Topic... · Box 1.3 The six principles of sustainability 1. Maintain and enhance