Essay on Development Policy

Integration of Disaster Risk Management and

Development Planning

-

Towards Sustainable Development Results

Felix Bussmann

NADEL MAS-Zyklus 2008-10

February 2010

1

Acronyms

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

GNI Gross National Income

IMF International Monetary Fund

ISDR UN Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

LDC Least Developed Countries

MDG Millennium Development Goal

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

NRM Natural Resource Management

ODA Official Development Assistance

PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

WB World Bank

2

Contents

1 Introduction and questions addressed .............................................................................. 3

1.1 Natural disasters – why should they be a development concern? .............................. 3

1.2 Issues addressed in the framework of this essay ........................................................ 4

2 The link between disaster risk management, poverty reduction and development......... 5

2.1 Definitions.................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 The relationship between poverty and vulnerability to disasters ............................... 7

3 Disaster risk management and development planning – challenges for their

integration.................................................................................................................................. 9

4 Auspicious approaches to incorporate disaster risk management into national and

international development policies ......................................................................................... 11

4.1 Sustainable livelihood approach............................................................................... 11

4.2 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) ........................................................... 12

4.3 Risk-pooling and risk-transfer programs.................................................................. 13

5 Conclusions and recommendations................................................................................ 15

6 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 17

3

1 Introduction and questions addressed

1.1 Natural disasters – why should they be a development concern?

On January 12, 2010, a devastating earthquake triggered a major human tragedy in Port-au-

Prince, Haiti’s capital city, and surrounding areas. The disastrous event claimed probably

more than 200'000 human lives and destroyed a vast amount of the existing infrastructure

within the weakest economy of the American continent. Once again, the international com-

munity was confronted with the fact that tediously achieved development results can be wiped

out within a few seconds, leaving behind almost nothing but death and destruction.

The example of Haiti, although exceptional in magnitude, is not an isolated case. According

to UNDP (2004), some 75 percent of the world’s population live in areas affected at least

once by earthquake, tropical cyclone, flood or drought between 1980 and 2000. And there is

convincing evidence that the number and seriousness of disasters is increasing. This rising

global number of so-called natural disasters is attributed to (1) changes in the magnitude and

distribution of extreme events such as floods, droughts, windstorms and thermal extremes

potentially provoked by global climate change (DFID, 2004) and, even more important, to (2)

the great and increasing number of vulnerability factors such as inadequate legislation, know-

ledge gaps or settlements in endangered areas (GTZ, 2005). Looking at disaster figures of the

past decades it becomes evident that poor countries and poor communities are disproportion-

ately affected by disastrous events (DFID, 2004). In a sample of large natural disasters over

the period 1980 to 2004, fatalities per event were higher by orders of magnitude in low- and

middle-income countries compared with high-income countries; similarly, losses as a per-

centage of gross national income (GNI) were highly negatively correlated with per capita in-

come (Linneroth-Bayer et al., 2005).

The examples above reveal that disasters, apart from provoking human distress, seriously un-

dermine the results of development investments in a very short time, and therefore, remain a

major impediment to sustainable development and poverty eradication (United Nations,

2005). Regarding internationally declared development strategies, this fact holds back pro-

gress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Many countries are not on track

to meet MDG1, the prime goal of halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, and country

progress reports on MDGs frequently note progress on MDG1 impeded by disasters (DFID,

2004). This holds also true for Tajikistan, a country we will focus on at certain stages within

this essay in order to illustrate some of its statements by the author’s own experiences gained

4

during a project assignment in the field of natural resource management and disaster risk

management: The Tajik country progress report (United Nations Country Team, 2003) for

instance cites ‘natural disasters’ as one of nine main factors reinforcing poverty in Tajikistan

and thus creates a direct linkage between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and poverty allevi-

ation policy.

Apart from being a development impediment, there is another good reason why natural disas-

ters should be a widely recognized development concern: Development choices made by in-

dividuals, communities and nations can pave the way for unequal distributions of disaster risk

(UNDP, 2004). Or in other words: Disasters are fairly often rooted in development failures

(DFID, 2004), either due to an increased level of hazard exposure or to an increased level of

vulnerability among the population. Hence, poorly planned development programs or pro-

jects, which do not consider disaster risk within any planning steps can exalt pre-existing, or

in the worst case even create completely new disaster risks.

Although some progress towards the necessary integration of DRM into poverty reduction

measures as an essential contribution to achieving sustainable development was made within

the past decade, there is still a serious lack of (1) heed, (2) funding and (3) sound tools and

approaches for successfully linking DRM activities and poverty reduction measures.

1.2 Issues addressed in the framework of this essay

This essay on development policy tries to shed light on the following issues:

• The conjunction between DRM, poverty reduction and development (section 2).

• Challenges for the integration of disaster risk management and development planning

(section 3).

• Auspicious approaches to incorporate DRM into national and international develop-

ment policies (section 4).

• Conclusions and recommendations for obtaining sustainable development results

through incorporation of DRM measures (section 5).

Experiences, which the author gained during a project assignment with a local NGO in Tajiki-

stan (Central Asia) will in a few cases serve to link the findings and theses of this essay with a

real-world example.

5

2 The link between disaster risk management, poverty reduction

and development

2.1 Definitions

As both, the DRM and the development literature are literally flooded with a great variety of

sometimes diverging definitions, the following section tries to shortly sum up some of the

most important concepts when talking about natural events and poverty:

Hazard: ‘A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause

loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services,

social and economic disruption, or environmental damage’ (ISDR, 2009).

Vulnerability: ‘The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that

make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard’ (ISDR, 2009). The term vulnerability

does not only highlight the deficiencies within a society, but also points to the factors that

reduce vulnerability through existing capacities (coping capacities) or the ability to absorb or

adapt to stresses without loosing functional characteristics (resilience) (GTZ, 2005).

Risk: ‘The probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses (deaths, injuries, property,

livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environment damaged) resulting from interactions

between natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions. Conventionally risk is

expressed by the notation Risk = Hazards × Vulnerability’ (SDC, 2005).

Disaster: ‘A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving

widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds

the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources’ (ISDR,

2009). Hereby, it is important to note that vulnerability is a very important determinant of a

disaster, as this essentially decides whether a hazard remains a hazard, or whether through

contact with a vulnerable population this hazard turns into a disaster (Prowse, 2003). This fact

will serve us as an entry point to link disaster risk with poverty.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR): ‘The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through

systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through

reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management

of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events’ (ISDR, 2009). A

6

key instrument for implementing DRR at a global level is the Hyogo Framework for Action1,

a declaration adopted in 2005 by the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (United Na-

tions, 2005; ISDR, 2007).

Disaster risk management (DRM): ‘The systematic process of using administrative directives,

organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and im-

proved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility

of disaster’ (ISDR, 2009).

Poverty: In the framework of this essay, ‘poverty is understood to be multidimensional – in-

dicated primarily by economic status, but incorporating inadequate access to education and

health care, housing and infrastructure such as drinking water and sanitation, and exclusion

from political decision-making’ (DFID, 2004). This multi-layered approach to poverty has

seen an increasing acceptance as it captures poor people’s reality much better than solely

monetary-based approaches (GTZ, 2005). OECD (2001) proposes the following poverty di-

mensions:

• Economic dimension (Consumption, Income, Assets)

• Protective dimension (Security, Vulnerability)

• Political dimension (Rights, Influence, Freedom)

• Socio-cultural dimension (Status, Dignity)

• Human dimension (Health, Education, Nutrition)

It is important to recognize that every dimension of poverty affects – and is affected by – all

the other dimensions.

1 The Hyogo Framework for Action is a guideline adopted by the international community to reduce

vulnerabilities to natural hazards. It outlines five priorities for action: (1) ’Make Disaster Risk Reduc-

tion a Priority’, ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority, (2) ’Know the Risks and Take Ac-

tion’, identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; (3) ’Build Understand-

ing and Awareness’, foster knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and re-

silience; (4) ’Reduce Risk’, reduce the underlying risk factors; and (5) ’Be Prepared and Ready to

Act’, strengthening of disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels (ISDR, 2007).

7

2.2 The relationship between poverty and vulnerability to disasters

Poor people’s livelihoods are disrupted by natural hazards and poor people are often more

vulnerable to natural hazards (GTZ, 2005). There is an intrinsic relationship between poverty

and the vulnerability to disasters that can be examined by looking at the above-mentioned

dimensions of poverty. Although highly correlated, poverty and vulnerability do not com-

pletely overlap (DFID, 2004) but can rather be described as a co-dependant pair (GTZ, 2005).

This important relationship is subsequently explained with a few examples:

• Economic poverty often forces people to settle in areas that are highly prone to natural

hazards but at the same time more affordable than hazard-proof locations (GTZ,

2005). Such a situation is often observed along rivers, where economically weak

communities are allowed to settle without legal permission what makes them ex-

tremely vulnerable to flooding.

• In environments with high crime rates, people tend to stay with their material belong-

ings although they register signs of an upcoming disaster because they fear plundering

(GTZ, 2005). This increased vulnerability roots in the protective dimension of pov-

erty.

• The political dimension of poverty is not only of importance for the poorest of the

poor having no power to demand protective rights or any influence on disaster preven-

tion strategies. The disaster in the course of the 1999 Izmit earthquake (Turkey) for in-

stance concerned non-poor urban residents and primarily rooted in the political dimen-

sion of poverty too. Most of the victims were claimed in middle-income households

living in recently constructed high-rise flats. The fact that legal standards for earth-

quake resistant structures were widely ignored during the 1990s construction boom re-

sulted in building failure (DFID, 2004). Another example how the political dimension

of poverty can contribute to vulnerability is given in Box 1.

• The socio-cultural dimension of poverty is the main reason for higher vulnerability to

hazards among marginalized people, particularly women. This is due to their lower

status within the society, which is often a reason for being poorly educated. It subse-

quently leads to e.g. inappropriate use of natural resources that in turn can increase

disaster risk (GTZ, 2005).

• The human dimension of poverty includes in addition to education health and nutri-

tion. Health and nutrition are factors that are of tremendous importance for strengthen-

8

ing the individual resistance and thereby cope with occurring natural events (GTZ,

2005).

Crucial now is that all these different factors of poverty and vulnerability can negatively

or positively reinforce each other. Hence improvements in one dimension might foster

improvements in the others, just as setbacks in one dimension might lead to setbacks in

the other dimensions (GTZ, 2005). However, the relationship between poverty and vul-

nerability is according to present understanding not of a linear type (i.e. simple chain of

causes and effects), rather can the negative and positive aspects of this relationship be di-

vided into four realms (GTZ, 2005) as indicated in Fig. 1. Since it would go beyond the

scope of this essay to provide detailed examples for all of the four possible cases pointed

out in the figure, the interested reader is referred to the existing literature on that subject

(e.g. DFID (2004), GTZ (2005)).

Fig. 1: The relationship between poverty and vulnerability to disasters. Modified from GTZ (2005) and re-

ference therein.

Yet while poverty and vulnerability are not the same thing, it becomes obvious that they

are highly correlated (DFID, 2004). It is due to this correlation that poverty reduction and

hence development can help to reduce vulnerability and subsequently disaster risk when

endowed with an active focus on disaster issues. However, this is not automatically true

and in the worst case, poverty reduction or development measures in general can aggra-

vate people’s vulnerability to disasters. This leads to the conclusion that such measures

must be planned with the specific disaster context of the geographic area of intervention

(GTZ, 2005).

9

3 Disaster risk management and development planning – chal-

lenges for their integration

Despite the fact that disasters are a major threat to development and often have their origin in

development failure, there is an apparent lack of commitment to reduce disaster risk by its

integration into development planning. The reasons for this imbalance are a combination of

structural constraints working against DRR related to (1) incentives, (2) institutional and

funding structures, (3) assumptions about the risk-reducing capacity of pro-poor development

and (4) inadequate exposure to, and information on, disaster issues (DFID, 2004; Schipper &

Pelling, 2006).

(1) DRR is by nature a long-term process with low visibility. Due to relatively long return

periods of disastrous events, there is normally no guarantee of tangible rewards in the

short term (i.e. project/programme duration) and consequently little media interest in

the subject. For the wider public, it is often not obvious that a disaster is prevented or

its impact mitigated through DRR activities. This fact is substantially reducing the po-

tential for donor profiling. In contrast, when a disaster strikes the impacts are highly

Box 1: Mudflows in Khuroson District (Tajikistan) in Spring 2009

The spring season 2009 in Tajikistan was characterized by a series of exceptionally heavy rainfall events in April and May, triggering disastrous events such as floods, landslides, and mudflows al-most all over the country. In terms of damages, the most devastating event occurred in Khuroson District, where a series of two mudflows severely hit the town of Uyali. According to the Rapid Emergency Assessment and Coordination Team (REACT; a partnership for DRM involving over 50 state, local, and international actors), a total of 110 houses were completely destroyed and additional 230 houses were damaged to the state where they became uninhabitable.

The causes for the catastrophic events were twofold: (1) The sediments forming the surroundings of Uyali are by their nature highly susceptible to erosion and (2) an old irrigation system built in Soviet times was, due to the heavy rainfall, running beyond its capacity limit. This caused an overflow of channelled water towards irrigated fields that were subsequently washed away and led to the forma-tion of large-scale mudflows.

This hazard turned into a disaster since a few years ago houses were built next to the outlet of the pre-existing mudflow channel, although this area was declared to be a prohibited area for settlement activities. However, the local government was not able to enforce this decree, and several houses were constructed in the immediate hazard zone.

This example involves both, the economic dimension of poverty as well as the political dimension of poverty. Furthermore, it reveals in a dramatic way how inadequate development measures that are not considering disaster risk (such as the Soviet irrigation channel) can even increase the existing disaster risk.

10

visible, making disaster response (i.e. humanitarian actions) by far more attractive for

donors and local governments than disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation.

When governments in disaster-prone countries declare a state of emergency, interna-

tional funds are more easily available, and blame is pointed towards the hazard, rather

than the vulnerability conditions that may have resulted from poor governance, cor-

ruption and marginalisation of the poor among others. In this case, aid becomes a dis-

incentive for preventive actions (DRR) what is referred to as ‘moral hazard’ or Sa-

maritan’s dilemma’.

(2) In both bilateral and multilateral aid agencies there remains an institutional separation

between departments responsible for emergency operations and those concerned with

development policy and planning. This facts leads to significant difficulties in enfor-

cing policies that build development goals into relief or make development more se-

cure. This holds also true for the case of the Swiss Development Cooperation where

these two divisions continue to be at least organisationally separated.

Alongside with such an organisational separation is a separation of funding arrange-

ments. In most cases, emergency funds must be disbursed within a short period of time

and can therefore not be used for longer-term activities, which aim to build on DRR

opportunities that emerge in the aftermath of a disaster.

(3) There is still a strong perception that DRR is already incorporated into pro-poor de-

velopment. But as shown before, vulnerability and poverty though related are not the

same thing. Specific projects and programmes that can be integrated into pro-poor de-

velopment actions are needed.

(4) DRR issues remain marginalised in development policy due to a general lack of expo-

sure to disaster risk issues within the donor community. Although recent initiatives for

promoting DRR/DRM were successful, much work has still to be done.

Additionally, there is still a widespread view that disasters are completely natural phe-

nomena that are beyond human control. This fact in combination with the existing

confusing breadth of DRR related terminology makes the subject somewhat unpopu-

lar.

11

4 Auspicious approaches to incorporate disaster risk manage-

ment into national and international development policies

As shown in the previous sections, there is an urgent need to incorporate DRM into national

and international development policies and planning, as this is an essential prerequisite for

sustainable development results. In order to satisfy this demand, a considerable number of

potential approaches for a successful integration of these two subjects have been proposed

within the last few years. This section aims at presenting a small selection of such approaches,

whereby one has to be aware that this list is by far not complete.

4.1 Sustainable livelihood approach

The concept of ‘sustainable livelihoods’ is gaining importance in the development debate

(Scoones, 2005), as this approach takes a holistic view of people’s livelihoods situations and

strategies, and of their needs and interests (GTZ, 2005). Due to its holistic view, the sustain-

able livelihood approach (SLA) meets the needs addressed by the multidimensional nature of

poverty (see also section 2.1).

The SLA is particularly interesting for the purpose of integrating DRM and poverty reduction

measures as it addresses vulnerability as a main factor determining the sustainability of cho-

sen livelihoods (GTZ, 2005). Sustainability serves as an entry point for combining the two

subjects: According to Chambers & Conway (1992), ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities,

assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of

living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and

shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural re-

source base’. It is this coping capacity and the resilience and therefore the vulnerability fac-

tors of a household that determine its sustainability. Or according to Scoones (2005), ‘those

who are unable to cope (…) or adapt (…) are inevitably vulnerable and unlikely to achieve

sustainable livelihoods’. This definition implies that taking into account disaster risk is a

fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.

The SLA as a tool is providing an organising structure for analysis (GTZ, 2005). An example

of such a sustainable livelihood framework is provided in Fig. 2. Therein, every sequence of a

particular livelihood is analysed in its specific context (red arrows in Fig. 2). Important in the

context of integrating disaster risk measures and development policies is the fact that a SLA is

12

stressing the long-term aspects of any strategies and emphasises the importance of resilience

and reducing vulnerability (GTZ, 2005).

Fig. 2: The sustainable livelihoods framework modified after GTZ (2005) and Scoones (2005).

Through the integration of the vulnerability concept into the SLA, the horizon of poverty re-

duction is extended and can make such measures more sustainable. The vulnerability analysis

makes clear that disaster preparedness should be a part of development (GTZ, 2005).

4.2 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)

Integrating DRR into development policies and planning such as Poverty Reduction Strat-

egies (PRS) is the first priority for action within the Hyogo Framework for Action (ISDR,

2007). PRSPs are a necessary prerequisite for World Bank (WB) and International Monetary

Fund (IMF) concessional lending and for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted

Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Furthermore, many bilateral donors require the existence of

a PRSP as pre-condition for their support (DFID, 2004). These facts explain the observable

supremacy of PRSPs in development countries’ efforts to address poverty. But it is due to

their cross-sectoral approach that PRSPs offer a unique opportunity to integrate DRR issues

into national poverty-focussed development and associated development assistance (DFID,

2004).

Apart from other weaknesses (e.g. often donor-driven, limited awareness among all stake-

holders, etc.), existing PRSPs seldom incorporate aspects of DRR and if so, emphasis is pri-

marily on early warning and response rather than on preventive strategies. Furthermore, ho-

listic multi-risk analyses are only rarely carried out (DFID, 2004). However, DFID (2004)

stresses 3 ways as an entry point for bilateral donors to promote a DRR agenda within the

PRS process:

13

(1) Collaboration with the WB’s Hazard Management Unit: influence the Bank’s support

for the PRS process in the direction of encouraging governments to integrate DRR

considerations into key PRSP components.

(2) Technical advice to governments on opportunities for integrating DRR in PRSPs

(3) Ensure funding for DRR initiatives in PRSPs

PRSPs offer a great chance to promote DRR aspects in national development strategies, espe-

cially when combining them with holistic approaches as introduced in section 4.1. However,

still a lot has to be done to make PRSPs a real and widely owned development tool.

4.3 Risk-pooling and risk-transfer programs

ISDR (2005) sees ‘the provision of risk/loss spreading mechanisms for those excluded from

insurance cover as a critical intervention to ensure that eradicating extreme poverty is harmo-

nised with reducing risk of potential losses from disasters like drought, floods, cyclones and

earthquakes’. This is essentially true, as post disaster humanitarian aid has failed to meet the

Box 2: The Tajik PRSP

The Tajik PRSP for the period of 2007-2009 (Republic of Tajikistan, 2007a) is the successor strat-egy of the first PRSP that was formulated for the period of 2002-2006. It is regarded as a medium-range poverty reduction strategy completing the framework of the long-term national development strategy (NDS) formulated for the period until 2015. Whether the PRSP was formulated in a partici-patory way including all different levels of concerned stakeholders or in a top-down approach re-mains rather unclear (VENRO, 2004; www.prsp-watch.de).

What is interesting for our purpose is the fact that the term ’disaster’ is mentioned only once on page 222 of a total of 253 pages. This underlies the rather minor importance of the subject within national policies. However, in the NDS, the subject of natural disasters has attracted a bit more attention: Therein, one of three main priorities for the promotion of environmental sustainability is formulated as follows: ’Resolve problems associated with natural disasters through their prevention and the effective management of natural resources’ (Republic of Tajikstan, 2007b). What is conspicuous in that statement is the fact that the concept of vulnerability is neglected by narrowing the focus to prevention and effective management of natural resources. Moreover, the document formulates the rather simple perception that ‘natural disasters are one of the main causes of environmental degrada-tion’ (Republic of Tajikistan, 2007b).

To summarise: Both, the Tajik PRSP as well as the long-term NDS give the impression that the sub-ject of DRR was not adequately considered in their formulation process though it would be a crucial prerequisite for sustainable development especially in a hazard-prone country as Tajikistan. In re-gard of the formulation process of the next PRSP, the international community should strongly assist the concerned working groups for an effective integration of the DRR subject into national devel-opment strategies.

14

needs of developing countries in reducing their exposure to disaster risk and ensuring suffi-

cient funds for financing the recover process (Linneroth-Bayer et al., 2005).

With the upcoming of micro-finance and micro-insurance approaches, risk-pooling and risk-

transfer programs have become interesting for the integration of DRR, climate risk and devel-

opment planning. As an example, the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool that was founded in

2000 obliges private residential property owners to take out a basic level of cover against

earthquake loss (DFID, 2004). Despite some shortcomings associated with limited public ac-

ceptance and implementation difficulties, the Turkish example sets an important precedent as

the first time an international financial institution has absorbed part of the disaster risk within

a developing country (Linneroth-Bayer et al., 2005). The same author further states that the

donor community as well could absorb risk in this way by providing support not only for risk

transfer but for a comprehensive risk-management program, which would ideally include pre-

ventive measures (e.g. building adaptations, capacity building, enforcement of land-use re-

strictions). Furthermore, providing assistance to risk-transfer programs could be an interesting

option to consider in the light of the ongoing climate debate and the associated emission com-

pensation negotiations.

Climate related insurance schemes are another way for spreading the burden of disaster risks

for individuals or for governments. The WB assessed the feasibility of such weather-forecast

based insurance models in Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Morocco, Nicaragua, and other countries

(DFID, 2004). They would compensate farmers for crop losses due to drought or other ex-

treme weather events. Being based on verifiable weather events rather than actual losses, such

schemes could be relatively easy to administer and could be marketed via banks, farm co-

operatives and microfinance institutes (DFID, 2004). Moreover, such mechanisms provide an

excellent entry point for integrating the closely related topics of disaster risk, climate change

and international development.

Not much experience with risk-pooling and risk-transfer mechanisms was made so far, never-

theless these concepts do offer a new approach for the integration of DRR and development

planning that is worth considering among the international community.

15

5 Conclusions and recommendations

An integration of DRR measures with development planning is indispensable for effectively

reducing disaster risk and coevally making disaster efforts sustainable. As shown in this essay

on development policy the international community is facing a great challenge towards the

integration of DRR and development planning, and new tools and approaches are needed to

meet the requirements of such integration. The following recommendations are the main re-

sults of the present work but do not claim to be exhaustive:

• Bi- and multilateral aid agencies should take appropriate steps to overcome the exist-

ing organisational gaps between humanitarian aid departments and departments con-

cerned with development policy and planning. Furthermore, the disbursement period

of emergency funds in the aftermath of a disaster must be prolonged in order to build

on emerging DRR opportunities.

• DRR is not automatically addressed in pro-poor development. Donors as well as im-

plementing agencies shall place specific focus on potential DRR measures.

• DRR agencies shall continue to disseminate disaster risk issues among potential

stakeholders. International strategies as the Hyogo Framework for Action shall be re-

inforced.

During the last few years, DRR issues gained attention among the scientific community resul-

ting in a set of new and promising approaches towards an integration of DRR measures and

development planning:

• Sustainable livelihood approaches offer a strong entry point for DRR measures by

pinpointing the importance of the vulnerability concept. Their major advantage roots

in the holistic analysis of a particular livelihood concept and in stressing the long-term

aspects of any development strategy.

• PRSPs display a sort of pre-eminence in development countries’ efforts to address

poverty since they are a widespread requirement for any development assistance

among the donor community. Bilateral donors have the opportunity to promote a DRR

agenda within the PRS process by (1) collaborating with the World Bank’s Hazard

Management Unit, (2) advising governments on opportunities for integrating DRR

into PRSPs, and (3) ensuring funds for DRR initiatives in PRSPs.

• Although relatively new and therefore largely untested, risk-pooling and risk-transfer

programs offer an opportunity for donors to absorb part of the disaster risk within de-

16

veloping countries. Ideally, such mechanisms shall be incorporated in a comprehen-

sive risk management program including preventive measures.

17

6 Bibliography

Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992): Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the

21st century. IDS Working Paper, 296.

DFID (2004): Disaster risk reduction: a development concern. Norwich: Overseas Develop-

ment Group.

GTZ (2005): Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management. Eschborn: Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.

ISDR (2005): The link between Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and disaster risk re-

duction. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/mdgs-drr/link-mdg-drr.htm

ISDR (2007): Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

and Communities to Disasters. Geneva: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(ISDR).

ISDR (2009): 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).

Linneroth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R., Pflug, G. (2005): Refocusing Disaster Aid. Science,

309:1044-1046.

OECD (2001): The DAC Guidelines – Poverty Reduction. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Prowse, M. (2003): Towards a clear understanding of ‘vulnerability’ in relation to chronic

poverty. Manchester: Graduate School of Social Science and Law, University of Man-

chester.

18

Republic of Tajikistan (2007a): Poverty reduction strategy of the Republic of Tajikistan for

2007-2009 (Draft). Dushanbe: Republic of Tajikistan.

Republic of Tajikistan (2007b): National development strategy of the Republic of Tajikistan

for the period to 2015. Dushanbe: Republic of Tajikistan.

Schipper, L. & Pelling, M. (2006): Disaster risk, climate change and international develop-

ment: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters, 30(1):19-38.

Scoones, I. (2005): Sustainable rural livelihoods – a framework for analysis. IDS Working

Paper, 72.

SDC (2005): Vademecum – Hazard maps and related instruments – Experiences with the

Swiss System and its adaptation abroad. Berne: Swiss Agency for Development and

Cooperation (SDC).

UNDP (2004): Reducing Disaster Risk – A Challenge for Development. New York: United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

United Nations (2005): Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction – Kobe,

Hyogo, Japan, 18-22 January 2005. Kobe: United Nations.

United Nations Country Team (2003): Progress toward the Millennium Development Goals –

Tajikistan 2003 [MDG Country Report]. Dushanbe: United Nations.

VENRO (2004): PRSP watch – Tadschikistan. Verband Entwicklungspolitik deutscher Nicht-

regierungsorganisationen e.V. (VENRO).