Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management › fileadmin › user_upload › ... ·...

Linking Poverty Reduction

and Disaster Risk Management

Linking Poverty Reduction

and Disaster Risk Management

Eschborn 2005

Imprint

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5Postfach 518065726 Eschborn

Phone: ++49 (0)61 96 / 79 - 0Fax: ++49 (0)61 96 / 79 - 11 15Internet: www.gtz.de

German Committee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV)supported by the Federal Foreign Office

Tulpenfeld 453113 Bonn

Phone: ++49 (0)228 / 24 34 - 827Fax: ++49 (0)228 / 24 34 - 836Internet: www.dkkv.org

University of BayreuthInstitute of Social Geography and Institute of Development Sociology

Universität Bayreuth95440 BayreuthPhone: ++49 (0)921 / 55 - 22 78Fax: ++49 (0)921 / 55 - 22 69Internet: www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/sozialgeographie

Responsible: Bernd Hoffmann, GTZEditors: Annette Schmidt, Lena Bloemertz, Elisio MacamoContributors: Hendrik Barkeling, Helen Boeckh, Astrid Böhm, Christina Bollin, Lars Clausen, Theodor Dams, Wolf

Dio, Mario Donga, Katrin Freitag, Elke Geenen, Barbara Göbel, Ria Hidajat, Uwe Kievelitz, Birgitzum Kley-Fiquet, Traudel Köhler, Alison Lobb-Rabe, Sara Mohns, Andreas Manhart, Detlef Müller-Mahn, Penelope Pinson, Thomas Schaef, Sabina Schnell, Friedemann Wenzel, Karl-Otto Zentel

As of: September 2005 Text Editor: Alison Lobb-Rabe Editorial Office: GeoRed, Monika Hülsken-Stobbe, BonnLayout: FREUDE!design, Rendel Freude, KölnPrinting: Schloemer Gruppe, DürenPhotos: See page 82

3

Foreword

Irmgard Schwaetzer, DKKVChairGerman Committee for Disaster Reduction

Bernd HoffmannDirector of Division Governance and DemocracyDeutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ)

Detlef Müller-MahnProfessorUniversity of BayreuthInstitute of Geography

People in poor countries are at a high risk offalling victim to natural disasters. Owing to theirgeographical location and higher vulnerability,many developing countries suffer more severelyfrom the effects of natural disasters than industri-alised countries. Twenty-four of the forty-nineleast developed countries (LDCs) are under ex-treme threat. The World Bank estimates that 97percent of all human deaths due to natural disas-ters occur in developing countries.

A society’s self-help capabilities are a decisivefactor in preventing extreme natural occurrencesfrom turning into a human disaster. Poverty, rapidpopulation growth, the resultant settlement of en-dangered areas and the overexploitation of natu-ral resources exacerbate the risk. Lack of knowl-edge and a frequently fatalistic attitude to naturalphenomena prevent people from taking sufficientprecautions for their safety.

Natural disasters also worsen poverty. A destruc-tive event results in malnutrition, homelessnessand epidemics. Hardship and desperation in theaftermath of disasters can also foment armedconflicts. This sets off a fatal downward spiral be-cause insufficient economic and social resourcesmake a country even more vulnerable to the nextdisaster. In many cases, a natural disasterthwarts any social and economic development fora long time.

This baseline study looks at the connection be-tween poverty reduction and disaster risk man-agement and it sees their interlinkage as essen-tial for sustainable development. It proceeds froma complex notion of poverty that is not confined tothe economic component, but also encompassesparticipation, education and health. The studyseeks to show how disaster risk management

and poverty reduction can be made to comple-ment each other, and suggests ways of linkingthe two themes (risk analysis, livelihoodsapproach).

These planning instruments can only take fulleffect, if the political will is there at internationaland national level to ensure that they are imple-mented. At the Second World Conference for Dis-aster Reduction (WCDR II) in Kobe, Japan inJanuary 2005, the scientists, practitioners andpoliticians in attendance stressed the need tomainstream disaster risk management in all ar-eas of Development Cooperation as the only wayto achieve the United Nations Millennium Devel-opment Goals. In its report, Reducing DisasterRisk - A Challenge for Development, UNDP alsopoints out that one of the reasons for the rise inthe number of disasters is the failure to addressthe vulnerability of society and the hazards faced.

This is why the final report of the Kobeconference calls for disaster risk management tobe incorporated in poverty reduction policy, forexample in national poverty reduction strategypapers. Development Cooperation must find suit-able ways of codrafting national agreements. Thefinal report also calls for good governance in thepartner countries. A government’s professed willand support are necessary conditions for efficientdisaster risk management, thus providing a suit-able platform for poverty reduction and making aneffective contribution to achieving MDGs.

The present study pinpoints political, practicaland scientific approaches for German Develop-ment Cooperation to link poverty reduction withdisaster risk management. We hope you will en-joy reading our publication and look forward toreceiving your feedback.

4

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Introduction (Annette Schmidt and Lena Bloemertz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

1. Concepts and definitions (Annette Schmidt and Lena Bloemertz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131.1 Vulnerability and poverty – towards a clear understanding of these terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131.2 Concepts of poverty reduction and disaster risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2. Vulnerability and poverty – a co-dependant pair (Annette Schmidt and Lena Bloemertz) . . . . . . . . . . .192.1 Poverty reduction can reduce vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.2 Short-sighted poverty reduction measures can increase vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212.3 Disasters can set back poverty reduction efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232.4 Disasters can provide poverty reduction opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252.5 Economic and political misuse of disasters and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272.6 Who is affected by disasters? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272.7 Summary, lessons, and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

3. Basic concepts and instruments for combining poverty reduction measures

and disaster risk management (Lena Bloemertz and Annette Schmidt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313.1 The sustainable livelihoods approach – a poverty reduction approach

and its linkages to vulnerability and disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313.2 Risk analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353.3 Monitoring the results of disaster risk management measures and poverty reduction efforts . . . . . . . . . . .36

4. The integration of disaster risk management and poverty reduction:

Activities, actors, and prerequisites (Annette Schmidt and Elisio Macamo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .404.1 Experience with disaster risk management and with coping systems at the local level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .404.2 Who does what? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434.3 Prerequisites for an effective integration of disaster risk management and poverty reduction efforts . . . . .48

5. Incorporating disaster risk management into national

and international poverty reduction concepts (Annette Schmidt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495.1 What can disaster risk management contribute towards achieving

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495.2 How can disaster risk management contribute to improving

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .515.3 Disaster risk management and the German Program of Action 2015: In what do they coincide? . . . . . . . .545.4 How can disaster risk management be applied ideally within the different national

and international poverty reduction and development concepts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Contents

4

5

6. Identification and description of aspects demanding further research efforts (Elisio Macamo) . . . . .596.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .596.2 Disaster management and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .606.3 Poverty reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .626.4 Disaster risk management and poverty reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

7. Towards a better integration of disaster risk management and poverty reduction:

Some recommendations (Annette Schmidt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .667.1 Recommendations for the German development co-operation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .667.1.1 Dissemination of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .667.1.2 Inclusion of disaster risk management into the relevant strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .677.1.3 Disaster risk management as a central topic for all BMZ funded programmes in disaster-prone regions . .687.1.4 Systematic application of existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .697.2 Recommendations for the German contribution in partner countries and the international community . . . .707.2.1 Raising awareness and developing capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.2.2 Integration into Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .717.2.3 Supporting institutional reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .727.2.4 Valuing community-based approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .737.2.5 Strengthening capacities and responsibilities at all decision-making levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .747.2.6 Supporting international organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .777.3 Recommendations for the scientific research community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .777.3.1 Research issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .777.3.2 Conceptual clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .787.3.3 Tools for the measurement of the impact of disaster risk management on poverty

reduction and for the measurement of the impact of poverty reduction on disaster risk management . . . .787.3.4 The political economy of disaster risk management and poverty reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .797.4 First steps to take . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

List of pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Executive Summary

The study “Linking Poverty Reduction and Disas-ter Risk Management” was carried out as a reac-tion to the increasing numbers of disasters trig-gered by natural hazards in developing countriesthat put development at risk. The earthquake andtsunami disaster on the shores of the IndianOcean is just the latest example. Although thestudy could no longer consider the tsunami disas-ter, the authors are certain that its findings alsohold true for this case.

The study represents a joint effort of the GermanCommittee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV), theGerman Technical Co-operation (GTZ) on behalfof the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ), and the Uni-versity of Bayreuth. It focuses on the inter-con-nectedness of poverty, vulnerability, and naturalhazards. The intense discussions and exchangesof knowledge amongst the actors involved attestto the inherent link between these topics, thushighlighting the importance of the integration ofdisaster risk management and poverty reductionas an essential contribution to achieving sustain-able development. In light of this, recommenda-tions to mainstream disaster risk managementthroughout the whole practice of development co-operation have been formulated.

The first two chapters introduce key concepts ofpoverty and vulnerability and how the two inter-act. Disaster risk management is based on thepremise that natural hazards do not necessarilylead to disasters, but may do so when they affectvulnerable populations. Vulnerability is a centralissue to both disaster risk management andpoverty reduction. Increased vulnerability may bean effect as well as a cause of poverty. Conse-quently, disaster risk management and povertyreduction strategies should go hand in hand –especially as insufficient consideration of eitherdisaster risk management or poverty reductionmay increase a society’s vulnerability to naturalhazards.

In chapter three we introduce three basicconcepts and instruments that are of relevance ifdisaster risk management is to be integrated intopoverty reduction measures. The sustainable

livelihoods approach was developed in the con-text of poverty reduction, but explicitly addressesvulnerability, and so provides an entry point forintegrating disaster risk management into povertyreduction strategies. Risk analysis is an instru-ment that can contribute meaningfully to the plan-ning of projects and programmes with a povertyreduction approach. Monitoring is important forboth poverty reduction measures and disaster riskmanagement. Currently, it is being performed foreach separately, despite the great potential of shar-ing experience. Particularly in the monitoring ofpoverty reduction efforts, disaster issues unfortu-nately play almost no role. Therefore, after present-ing the different concepts of monitoring used in thetwo areas, we point out how and where it is possi-ble to combine views and existing tools.

Chapter four presents the relevant actors for dis-aster risk management and poverty reduction atthe local, national and international level. In thiscontext the relevance of a community-based ap-proach to disaster risk management is discussed.An extensive section focuses on the different ac-tors and their roles in disaster risk management,stressing the need for joint efforts in order to in-crease efficiency. This necessitates a sound dis-tribution of competencies and responsibilities indisaster risk management. The role for the na-tional government is to co-ordinate the differentefforts, to consider relevant issues in planning thebudget, and to provide an appropriate legalframework.

A number of national and international institutionsare involved in disaster risk management anddevelopment, such as the Disaster ManagementFacility (DMF) of the World Bank, the Bureau forCrisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) of UNDP(United Nations Development Program), and,notably, the International Strategy for DisasterReduction of the United Nations (ISDR). Both theISDR and the German Committee for DisasterReduction (DKKV) were founded in response tothe 1994 declaration of the International Decadefor Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). The twoorganisations have been emphasising the rele-vance of disaster risk management for developingcountries and provide a good platform for estab-

Executive Summary

6

able development in practice must consist of bothdisaster risk management and poverty reduction.

Local perceptions, actor-orientation, participation,and empowerment are important issues in pover-ty reduction approaches. When applied to disas-ter risk management, they help to answer a newquestion: What is perceived as risk? In chapter six,this issue is discussed by presenting the perspec-tive of social science research on risks and disas-ters. From this perspective, risk is described as anactive and calculated decision to face a hazard.The ability of societies and individuals to reduceinsecurity hinges on their ability to “translate” haz-ards into risks. Consequently, one has to ask howlocal understandings of risks and indigenousstrategies to cope with hazards can be betterconsidered and supported by activities of disasterprevention. With respect to poverty reduction,sociological research does not focus primarily onaspects of deprivation, lack, and suffering, butrather on the way in which societies and institu-tions make sense of poverty. When poverty isunderstood as an institutional category, it impliesa social condition that is made visible by interven-tion. From an academic point of view, therefore,the challenge consists in scrutinising the ways inwhich risk and poverty are produced by society.

lishing multi-institutional networks and bringingtogether scientists (e.g., the Centre for NaturalRisks and Development Bonn-Bayreuth(ZENEB), Deutsches ForschungsnetzwerkNaturgefahren) and development practitioners.Beyond this, co-operation with the private sectorshould be established, for example with the insur-ance industry or with water management compa-nies. Private investment can have a great impacton development; therefore, legal regulations mustbe in place that prevent investments fromincreasing vulnerability in the long run.

Chapter five discusses the possibilities for inte-grating disaster risk management into developmentefforts. Poverty reduction is the overarching goalof the international community within the Millenni-um Development Goals (MDGs), Poverty Reduc-tion Strategy Papers (PRSPs), and the GermanProgram of Action 2015, thus these declarationsand strategy documents are seen as promisingpoints of departure for the incorporation of disas-ter risk management efforts. The Program of Ac-tion 2015 is strongly committed to supportingcross-cutting disaster risk management strate-gies at national and international levels, and cando a great deal in promoting the treatment of dis-aster risk management not as an ‘add-on’ issue,but as a thoroughly integrated concern. Sustain-

7

Although the German Government does acknow-ledge the strong relationship between disasterrisk management and poverty reduction, in dailypolitical practice the topic is still limited to someisolated projects instead of being mainstreamedthroughout the whole range of development co-operation measures. Therefore, in the seventhchapter, the authors advise the German FederalMinistry for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (BMZ) and its implementing organisationsto undertake the following steps:

> Dissemination of knowledge

Existing knowledge on disaster risks and theirrelation to poverty must be dispersed through-out the official German development co-opera-tion structure. In doing this, special attentionshould be paid to the regional offices and theexecutive personnel who work in countries atrisk and/or in relevant sectors. For promotingthe dialogue between different organisationsand departments, the DKKV provides a valu-able platform.

> Inclusion of disaster risk management

into the relevant strategies

The concept of disaster risk management mustbe incorporated into the relevant planning doc-

uments (strategic sector and country papers)for those countries at risk. In addition, the topicshould be covered explicitly in the progressreports of the German Program of Action 2015.

> Disaster risk management as a central topic in

disaster-prone regions

In order to link disaster risk management withpoverty reduction and sustainabledevelopment, it has to be integrated in recon-struction processes in the aftermath of disaster,and as a cross-sectoral issue in co-operationprogrammes in disaster prone regions. Makingdisaster risk management a central issue inprogrammes that attempt to reduce vulnerabili-ty can be a major contribution towards furtherimproving German aid and paving the way to-wards the achievement of poverty reductiongoals.

> Application of existing tools

The tools developed for disaster risk manage-ment, such as risk analysis and the sustainablelivelihoods approach, should be systematicallyapplied within poverty reduction programmes.

With regard to our partner governments and theinternational community, German development

Executive Summary

8

co-operation should offer support and seek exchange of experience in the following fields:

> Raising awareness and developing capacities

In order to strengthen the abilities for proactivedisaster risk management, the public awarenesson this topic must be increased. The particularperceptions of risk and its underlying causesprovides the basis for capacity development.Awareness-raising activities should focus on thepossible origins of disasters and the relevance ofdisaster risk management for poverty reduction.The different actors' capacities for networkingand opportunities for participation need to beexpanded. This can be achieved by the develop-ment of human, organisational, and institutionalcapacities, and by strengthening co-operationbetween the state, the private sector, and civilsociety.

> Integration into PRSPs

The integration of disaster risk managementinto national Poverty Reduction Strategy Pa-pers is a promising step. Here, German devel-opment co-operation should offer advice in theplanning and implementing of PRSPs. The ob-jectives should be to promote the use of riskanalysis and to encourage the appropriate pri-oritisation of investments and budget allocationsthrough cost-benefit analysis, as they enhanceawareness of long-term effects.

> Supporting institutional reforms

In order to achieve an effective institutionalframework for disaster risk management andpoverty reduction, development co-operationshould advise on the institutional set-up andpromote cross-sectoral organisation and co-ordination between the concerned departmentsand sectors at all levels. Decentralisationprocesses need to be supported as does thedevelopment of strategies that delineate thecompetencies and responsibilities (as well asdegree of influence and resources) of eachactor concerned with disaster-sensitive pover-ty. Special attention should be paid to the sup-port of bottom-up planning processes and theparticipation of grassroots organisations andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs).

> Valuing community-based approaches

Empowering individuals and communities atthe local level is of central importance. Itshould include the appreciation of local know-ledge and traditional methods of coping withrisks within project and the government, ca-pacity building for local actors to enable themto claim their basic rights for security, and toallow realistic appraisals of resources and therange of local measures.

> Strengthen capacities and responsibilities

at all decision-making levels

The exchange of information, knowledge andexperience between the national, the regionaland the local level is vital to ensuring strongcommitment to the issues of disaster risk man-agement and poverty reduction, and to thesharing of relevant responsibilities. Govern-ments should be encouraged to serve as co-ordinating bodies.

> Support international organisations

International organisations such as UN and EUshould be supported with the process of integrat-ing disaster risk management into poverty reduc-tion policies. The BMZ should improve its disasterrisk management advisory capacity to enhance itsimpact on international organisations. For exam-ple, the BMZ could use its membership on rele-vant EU committees to influence the content ofpapers to include poverty-oriented disaster riskmanagement.

Scientific research must do a better job of inte-grating disaster-related theory, the experience ofdevelopment practice, and policy implementation.Crucial areas at the interface between practiceand research are:

> Conceptual clarification

Clarification of the concepts “disaster risk man-agement” and “poverty reduction” by takinginto account different areas of intervention.Identification of further areas into which thecombination of “disaster risk management”and “poverty reduction” can be extended.

99

10

> Development of tools for the analysis of disaster

risk management and poverty reduction issues

The aim should be to assess the ability ofcountries to manage disaster risk and reducepoverty with special focus on the constraintsand opportunities presented by the given so-cial, political, and economic conditions; to ex-amine how “disaster risk management” and“poverty reduction” are translated into practice;and to analyse the context within which deci-sions on disaster management and povertyreduction are taken.

> Analysis of the political economy of disaster risk

management and poverty reduction

In order to understand how institutions andinterventions are changed by practical work onthe ground, research is needed that reflects on

the following: the necessary institutional set-up;the influence of experience on the institutions,other factors – social, economic, political andnatural – of relevance to the design of institu-tional responses to disaster and poverty; andthe role of institutional set-ups within generalsocial trends.

The recommendations end with suggestions forsome “first steps to take” and highlight the mosturgent issues of raising awareness and the devel-opment of capacities for poverty-oriented disasterrisk management for German development co-operation.

11

Introduction

“Over recent years, the international communityhas come to realize that relief and developmentare not separate topics; disaster vulnerability haseverything to do with poverty and development,and vice versa.“ (Wolfensohn and Cherpitel 2002,p. 1). Disasters triggered by natural events oftenraise poverty rates in the affected regions anddestroy achieved development progress. Further-more, poorly-planned development and inappro-priate poverty reduction measures can increasevulnerability to external natural shocks. “If devel-opment efforts are not appropriate to existing en-vironmental factors, and their impacts on the en-vironment have not been assessed properly, theycan increase vulnerability to disasters.” (Özerdem2003, p. 202). Consequently, vulnerability isstrongly linked to poverty, as is disaster risk man-agement to poverty reduction. Economic loss asa consequence of natural hazards is increasing(UNDP 2004, p. 13). In developing countries, agrowing amount of funding is being devoted topost-disaster humanitarian aid, and so is nolonger available for development efforts. There-fore, development and poverty reduction effortsin hazard-prone countries must consider disasterrisk management approaches in order to reducepeople's vulnerability and achieve sustainableresults.

Poverty reduction is a central objective of Ger-man development policies, as well as of those ofother national and international organisations.The German government has designated povertyreduction to be the overarching objective of itsProgram of Action 2015. The necessity of disas-ter risk management, in turn, has been increas-ingly recognised from the 1980s onwards. Since1996, the German Federal Government has beenfostering disaster risk management approachesin Latin America, Asia and Africa, defining it as amajor trans-sectoral task in development co-op-eration. (BMZ 1996, p. 5).

Yet there are serious shortcomings in the integra-tion of disaster risk management and poverty re-duction. Although we have empirical evidence ofa strong connection between poverty and vulner-ability to disasters, and despite frequent state-ments in national and international development

policies about the importance of the two issues,the knowledge about their relationship is not suffi-ciently grounded in research and developmentpractice.

Furthermore, co-operation to date between bod-ies responsible for poverty reduction strategiesand those responsible for disaster risk manage-ment strategies has been limited, due mainly tothree major types of constraints: Organisationallimitations, varying perspectives, and the level ofexisting knowledge. As for organisationalaspects, different governmental departments areoften separately responsible for one or the otherof the two issues. Also, not all NGOs concernedwith poverty reduction show an interest in disas-ter prevention. In addition, activities related tonatural hazards often have been stereotyped asbeing event-driven rather than process-oriented,whereas actions related to poverty reduction tendto be of the latter type. Finally, for a long time inthe mainstream discussion, consideration of nat-ural disasters has focused almost exclusively onthe fields of natural sciences and emergency re-sponse activities. It is true that for years, severaldisaster research institutions have included socialaspects in their studies – aspects which were es-pecially highlighted at the first UN world confer-ence on the subject in Yokohama/Japan in 1994(see also the Yokohama Strategy atwww.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-yokohama-strat-eng.htm) – but this approach has onlyrecently been taken up in the management of(natural) disasters.

The current debate on disaster related theoryfocuses on a better understanding of the complexinterplay between society and nature, and rejectsone-dimensional or linear cause-effect explana-tions. Natural hazards are not considered to bethe sole cause of an ensuing disastrous situation;hazards must coincide with a vulnerable societyin order to trigger a disaster. The picture becomeseven more complicated if we consider that thedestabilising effects of extreme natural eventsare increased by interdependencies with othercrises such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic oreconomic shocks. In these cases, the povertytrap can be described as a downward spiral,

Introduction

12

We accept these conditions as a challenge and formulate the objectives of this study as follows:

> To shed light on the complex interaction between vulnerability to disasters and poverty, as well as between disaster risk management and poverty reduction strategies from different angles (section 1 and 2),

> To present concepts and instruments for the combination of the two issues (section 3),

> To describe best practices and to identify actors that could integrate these issues (section 4),

> To draw conclusions about how to use and integrate disaster risk management measures and efforts into the different kinds and different levels of poverty fighting strategies (section 5),

> To develop further research approaches (section 6),

> To recommend political action that would be necessary to speed up this process (section 7).

ending in a hopeless situation for the affectedpeople (Dams 2002, p. 4). Such scenarios canbest be classified as “complex emergencies”. Afamine, for example, triggered by a drought, is not

only the result of reduced rainfall, but also ofarmed conflicts, international displacement, orpoor governance.

13

1. Concepts and definitions

1.1 Vulnerability and poverty – towardsa clear understanding of theseterms

Disaster risk management essentially aims at areduction of vulnerability. Consequently, vulnera-bility is a key concept in the discussion about disaster risk management. While the general def-inition of vulnerability means “not being resistant”,the term is used in different ways. In the contextof disaster risk management, its understanding ismore specific and reflects the susceptibility of acommunity to the impact of natural hazards.

Vulnerability is caused by a broad range of politi-cal, institutional, economic, environmental andsocio-cultural factors such as insufficient know-ledge, organisational gaps, lack of personal andfinancial resource, inadequate legislation, etc.Changes in these factors can increase or reducevulnerability. Therefore, vulnerability is conceivedas a condition but also as a dynamic process.

Recent debate has questioned the concept ofvulnerability because ”… it was suggested that tospeak of people as being vulnerable was to treatthem as passive victims and ignore the many capacities that make them competent to resisthazards.” (Cannon et al. 2003, p. 7). So the concepts of coping capacity and resilience wereintroduced, accentuating locally availablestrengths. ISDR (International Strategy for Disas-ter Reduction 2002, p. 46) defines coping capaci-ty as “the manner in which people and organisa-tions use existing resources to achieve various

beneficial ends during unusual, abnormal, andadverse conditions of a disaster event orprocess.”

Resilience refers to the ability of people to copewith and withstand new, changing or unexpectedevents or situations, for instance by using materi-al, cultural, social or knowledge resources. Ingeneral, the notion of resilience focuses on thecapacity of systems to absorb externalevents/stresses without losing their functionalcharacteristics and thereby to maintain “… thecapacity to renew and reorganise after

disturbances.” (Yorqueet al. 2002, p. 433). Itcan be seen as the ca-pability to return to anormal or evenimproved state/func-tionality after a hazardor extreme situation.”Such resilience in theface of stresses andshocks is seen as thekey to livelihood adap-tation and coping.”(Davies 1996 as citedin: Scoones 1998, p. 6).

The concepts of capacity and resilience havebeen expanded to include the notion of adaptivecapacity, which looks at the ability to adapt tochanging conditions in the longer run. Adaptationis understood by Pelling (2003, p. 11) as aprocess by which a structure evolves throughinteraction with its environment to deliver betterperformance. Adger and Brooks demonstrate intheir study on Sahelian famine that adaptations infarm management and income diversificationhelped significantly to reduce vulnerability todrought (Adger and Brooks 2003, p. 28).

In our understanding vulnerability therefore doesnot only highlight the deficiencies within a society,but also points to the factors that reduce vulnera-bility through existing capacities or the ability toabsorb or adapt to stresses without loosing func-tional characteristics.

“Vulnerability denotes the inadequate means or ability to

protect oneself against the adverse impact of external

events on the one hand and on the other to recover quickly

from the effects of the natural event. Vulnerability is made up

of many political-institutional, economic and socio-cultural

factors.” (GTZ 2002, p. 47).

Concepts and Definitions

14

Vulnerability is not only a key concept in the dis-cussion about disaster risk management, but italso is a central issue in the debate on poverty.The discussion on poverty took a new turn in themiddle of the 90s, while in the 1980s poverty wasmainly understood in monetary terms, the con-cept today has been broadened to include differ-ent dimensions of deprivation. These dimensionsare shown in figure 1:

Figure 1 – Dimensions of poverty

“Each box represents an important dimension ofpoverty, which affects – and is affected by – allthe others. Household members may consumelittle and be vulnerable partly because they lackassets, often because of inadequate income,poor health and education, or because they losetheir few productive assets as a result of shocks.Lack of human rights and political freedom indi-

Protective

Security

Vulnerability

Gender

Environment

Economic

Consumption

Income

Assets

Political

Rights

Influence

Freedom

Human

Health

Education

Nutrition

Socio-cultural

Status

Dignity

(OECD 2001, p. 39 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/14/2672735.pdf)

cates a risk of violent conflict shocks. Vulnerabil-ity and social exclusion hamper human and po-litical capabilities, reducing incomes and assets,and so on. The fact that different dimensions ofpoverty are tightly interrelated, while still distinctand imperfectly correlated, is a major reason fora multidimensional concept.” (OECD 2001, p.39).

For the purpose of our study we need to come toa clear understanding of the relationship betweenthe concepts of vulnerability to natural hazardsand poverty.

Prowse presents different ways to look at thisrelationship (Prowse 2003, p. 3–9): Vulnerabilitycan be seen as a cause of poverty, as a reasonwhy the poor remain poor, or as an effect ofpoverty.

Obviously, vulnerability cannot be reduced to aone-dimensional, cause-effect relationship withpoverty. Vulnerability to hazards cannot be isolat-ed from broader social and political contexts, it is- as Figure 1 and the ensuing text demonstrate -intrinsically connected to the different dimensionsof poverty. But what does this mean within thespecific context of our study?

“The vulnerability of a population is a determinantof a disaster, as this essentially decides whethera hazard remains a hazard, or whether throughcontact with a vulnerable population this hazardturns into a disaster.” (Prowse 2003, p. 4). Thisimplies on the one hand, that the poverty situa-tion in which a person lives shapes his/her vul-nerability and the degree of impact the disasterhas on him/her. On the other hand, the impact ofthe disaster affects people's future vulnerabilityand thus influences their poverty situation.

A typical example of this adverse spiral-situationis the case of poor farmers who are forced tooveruse their resources, which increases theirvulnerability to risks such as drought, landslidesand floods. When this risk converts to a disaster,the subsistence-farmers' income base is severely

affected. As a result, the farmers become evenpoorer.

Another example: Local people in some areas ofColombia lack security (the protective dimensionof poverty) because of armed conflicts betweenguerrilla forces and the military. They have toleave their homes, and many are forced to moveinto low-standard housing. In some areas, thiscould increase their vulnerability to earthquakesor land-slides. So, while poverty can be seen asthe cause of vulnerability, in the Colombian ex-ample, it also can be seen from a different per-spective: Poverty as the effect of vulnerability, orvulnerability as the cause of poverty: People be-come vulnerable to earthquakes, and because ofthe disaster they lose their assets, which makesthem economically poor.

Both views are coherent, but they lead to poten-tially divergent conclusions about appropriateintervention. This is in fact a crucial point, as in-terventions usually aim at treating the causes andnot just the symptoms of a given problem. If, forinstance, vulnerability is seen as the consequenceof conflict, then the ideal solution would be to pro-mote conflict prevention. In contrast, when vul-nerability to earthquakes is seen as the cause ofincreasing poverty, then reducing this vulnerabilitywould be the main goal.

So the relationship between poverty and vulnera-bility is like an interwoven chain of action and re-action. However, poverty and vulnerability are notidentical, but retain their own distinct characteris-tics: “… not all members of a particular vulnerablegroup are invariably poor.” (Lok-Dessallien 1998, p.5 as cited in: Prowse 2003, p. 3).

15

There is an increasing acceptance of this multi-layered approach to poverty because it

captures poor people’s reality better than a view of poverty expressed solely in monetary

terms. However, it also has some empirical disadvantages:

> Measuring poverty becomes far more difficult,> The task of identifying the poor is more complex (is the wife of a sheikh in Saudi Arabia, who is

not allowed to vote, poor?),> If every kind of policy or activity is given the poverty label, there will be no real shift towards more

effective pro-poor policy action.


1.2 Concepts of poverty reduction and disaster risk management

Poverty reduction

Reducing poverty is a main objective proclaimed bythe international community. In the year 2000, 190countries agreed on the Millennium Declarationand its practical and achievable targets, the Millen-nium Development Goals (MDGs), to eradicatepoverty in its different dimensions. The Germangovernment developed the Program of Action 2015as its plan of operation for the Millennium Develop-ment Declaration.

The Program of Action 2015 establishes three levels for action (BMZ 2001, p II):

> International structures and arrangements, forexample, to asses human rights or regulateinternational trade in a fair and just manner,

> Structures in Germany, Europe and other in-dustrialised countries to advocate political co-herence,

> Structures in the partner countries.

For bilateral co-operation with partner countries,the GTZ-Mainstreaming Poverty Reduction Projecthas defined four main fields of support for a struc-tural poverty reduction approach. These are:

> Offering advice on the planning, the implemen-tation and the assessing of national strategiesto reduce poverty,

> Enhancing civil societies’ participation,

> Providing assistance to a poverty orientedmonitoring and impact analysis,

> Supporting poverty oriented sector policies.

There are several underlying principles of the inter-national poverty reduction approach. Promotion ofself-help and the idea of minimum intervention are

two of them that express how cautious any inter-vention should be. The focus of the interventionshould also concentrate on the affected people andinvolve them directly. Therefore, such principles asactor-orientation, orientation towards target-groups,and participation are important to enhance peoples’ownership. A multi-level intervention must be con-sidered to support changes at all political levels andto guarantee sustainability, another underlying prin-ciple.

The final goals are: Empowerment, which meansimproving poor peoples’ capacity in political andsocial processes, security understood as the imple-mentation of social security nets that protect poorpeople against shocks such as illness, economiccrises and natural hazards, and opportunity for thepoor people to improve their income situation(World Bank 2001, p. vi).

Having identified the principles and the goals of theinternational poverty reduction approach, we nowtake a short glance at the methodologies of povertyreduction. Unemployment is one of the major prob-lems in developing countries and is also one of themain reasons for poverty. Only economic growthcan reverse this trend of increasing unemploymentand can create sustainable and productive employ-ment. But although economic growth is essential,only certain forms of it can lead to lasting povertyreduction (Dams 2002, p. 8). What is needed is“pro-poor growth” or a “broad-based growth” thatspecifically improves the income situation of thepoor. There are two possible roads to this type ofgrowth. The first approach, poverty-oriented eco-nomic advancement, develops measures andstrategies of employment with particular attention todisadvantaged groups. The second one, the poten-tial-oriented economic advancement, supports pro-ductive fields that can compete internationally, andso can create employment. Which of these repre-sents the better alternative depends on the specificcountry situation (incidence and depth of poverty,degree of inequality, degree of industrialisation,available resources). It also depends on the individ-ual persuasion of the supporting institution andcannot ultimately be determined by this study(Trommershäuser and Kausch 2004, www.bmz.de).


1616

17

Disaster Risk Management

Damage caused by disasters is increasing world-wide. “In 2003 alone, 600 million people wereadversely affected by 700 natural occurrences.… Approximately 75,000 people perished inthose disasters – 30,000 of them were killed inseconds by the earthquakes in Algeria in May2003 and in Bam, Iran, in December 2003.” (United Nations General Assembly 2004, p. 20).Pictures of floods, droughts, tropical storms andlandslides are inundating our newspapers andtelevisions. Poor countries in particular are setback for years in their efforts to reduce poverty asdisasters become increasingly devastating.

The incremental number of climatic hazards (e.g.floods, drought and storms) and the great andincreasing number of vulnerability factors, suchas inadequate legislation, knowledge gaps or set-tlements in endangered areas, are the drivingforces behind these so-called natural disasters.They demand a paradigm shift from “reaction” to“prevention” (Annan 1999, p. 11), which requiresfar-reaching budgetary, programmatic and politi-cal shifts. New concepts such as disaster riskmanagement have been developed, and disasterprevention measures have increasingly been in-troduced into development planning (GTZ 2002,p. 20).

What is understood by disaster risk management?What are its objectives and constraints? To ex-plain the aim of disaster risk management wetake a look here at the schematic evolution ofdisasters (figure 2):

Figure 2 - Components of disaster risk

In this logic: “ … risk is the product of the two factors, hazard and vulnerability. Therefore, it isclear that a risk exists only if there is vulnerabilityto the hazard posed by a natural event. For in-stance, a family living in a highly earthquake-resistant house would not be vulnerable to anearthquake of 6 on the Richter scale. So theywould not be at risk. If the hazard approacheszero, because for example, buildings have beenconstructed in areas far away from continentalplate subduction zones and tectonic faults, ahouse built with minimum precautions will be asafe place for the family, because they would onlybe vulnerable to very extreme events.” (GTZ2002, p. 17).

Disaster risk management provides local and national decision-makers and international co-operation with a set of actions and instruments toreduce disaster risk and to mitigate the extent ofdisasters. Disaster risk management can be un-derstood as: “… a development activity, which,through sustained initiatives, minimises the likeli-hood of a disastrous occurrence by reducing ei-ther the intensity of external threats (hazards) orthe vulnerability of those at risk.” (Holloway 2003,p. 8). “Disaster risk management comprises ac-tion (programmes, projects and/or measures) andinstruments whose intended impacts are express-ly aimed at reducing disaster risk in endangeredregions and mitigating the extent of disasters.Disaster risk management is the generic term forthe operational areas risk assessment, disasterprevention and mitigation and disaster prepared-ness.” (GTZ 2002, p. 47).

Hazard Vulnerability

Disaster risk

Disaster

In many developing countries the relevant actorsat local, regional and national levels are not capa-ble of implementing the appropriate preventiveactions on their own. Budgetary funding is lack-ing, while governmental and local institutions aretoo weak to integrate disaster risk managementefficiently into the different sectors. The popula-tion often does not know how to reduce their riskor how to avoid the creation of new ones. Partnercountries of German development co-operationoften do not have access to knowledge about thedifferent instruments and measures of disasterrisk management. International co-operation isneeded to support these countries.

Action in the scope of disaster risk managementcomprises improvement at all levels. German co-operation in this context mainly concentrates onthe municipal level, supplemented by the integra-

In this context it is essential to keep in mind that notall types of natural hazards can be prevented,above all earthquakes, volcanic eruptions ortsunamis. Especially in these cases, disaster riskmanagement is focused on the reduction of vulnera-bility. For other kinds, such as landslides and floods,measures can be taken towards both the reductionof the hazards and of the vulnerability factors.

tion into regional and national political structures.For example, GTZ advises the planning and im-plementation of such instruments as risk analysisand risk mapping. It also supports the develop-ment and implementation of activities to minimisehazards and vulnerability in rural regions, andhelps to integrate disaster prevention into overalllocal planning and land use systems. Here, oneof the prerequisites for sustainable and success-

ful disaster risk management becomes evident:When local communities are expected to take onresponsibility for disaster prevention, their per-ception of risk must be taken in account. In addi-tion to assessing the potential physical harm, IS-DR (2003, pp. 24, 41) also stresses the impor-tance of considering “… the social contexts inwhich risks occur and that people therefore donot necessarily share the same perception of riskand their underlying causes”. As community-based approaches involve public participation, itis crucial to understand the people's perception ofthe relevant factors to be addressed and the spe-cific risks to which they see themselves exposed.


18

Operational areas of Disaster Risk Management:

> Risk assessment or risk analysis is an instrument to provide quantitative and qualitative information about the nature and extent of a risk, by analysing hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability (see also 3.2).

> “Disaster prevention and mitigation denotes activities that prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of extreme natural events, above all in the medium and long term. These include on the one hand political, legal, administrative and infrastructure measures to address the hazard situation and on the other hand influencing the lifestyle and behaviour of the endangered population to reduce their disaster risk.” (GTZ 2002, p. 47-48).

> Disaster preparedness comprises “activities and measures to ensure effective response in anemergency and its impacts, including timely and effective early warnings and the temporaryremoval of people and property from a threatening location.” (Holloway 2003, p. 7).

18

19

Natural hazards disrupt poor people‘s livelihoods,and poor people are often more vulnerable to nat-ural hazards. This relationship between povertyand vulnerability is examined in the following sec-tions (2.1 – 2.4) by looking at the different dimen-sions of poverty.

Economic poverty can force people to settle inareas that are more prone to natural hazardssuch as landslides and flooding, which are moreaffordable than more secure locations.

Citizens also can become more vulnerable withinthe parameters of the protective dimension ofpoverty. For instance, in insecure environments,people tend to stay with their property eventhroughout the course of a disaster, because theyfear plundering. This reduces the effectiveness ofearly warning and evacuation measures.

The political dimension of poverty has a significantinfluence on vulnerability. Without the politicalright or influence to demand or enforce legislationon building regulations, for example, housing ismore susceptible to damage by earthquakes.

Marginalized people, particularly women, can berelatively more vulnerable as a result of their lowstatus, which is one possible manifestation of the

socio-cultural dimension of poverty. Lower status isoften a reason for being poorly-educated. Inade-quate levels of education, in turn, leave peopleuninformed about the relationship between the useor misuse of natural resources and disaster risk.

And finally, the human dimension of poverty,which in addition to education includes health andnutrition, is important for strengthening individualresistance when disaster strikes.

These different factors of poverty and vulnerabilitycan negatively or positively reinforce each other.Improvements in one dimension might foster im-provements in the others, just as setbacks in onemight lead to setbacks in the other dimensions.

The relationship between poverty and vulnerabili-ty is not one of a simple chain of causes and ef-fects. Rather, a linear understanding of the rela-tionship must be revised, as it harbours the dangerthat possible side effects of any action are notproperly considered, thereby unnecessarily ex-posing people to risk.

The negative and positive aspects of the relation-ship between vulnerability/disaster and povertycan be divided in four realms:

Poverty reduction realm

Negative realm Positive realm

Disaster realm

Short-sighted poverty

reduction measures can increase

vulnerability (2.2)

Poverty reduction can reduce

vulnerability (2.1)

Disasters can set back

poverty reduction efforts (2.3)

Disasters can provide

poverty reduction opportunities (2.4)

(Adapted from: UNDP 1994, p. 10).

Figure 3 – The relationship between poverty and vulnerability to disasters

2. Vulnerability and poverty – a co-dependant pair

20

2.1 Poverty reduction can reduce vulnerability

The fact that sustainable development can beachieved only through the reduction of vulnerabil-ity has been steadily acknowledged within theinternational donor community and UN organisa-tions (ISDR 2003, p. 16; UNDP 1994, p. 21;World Bank (see the World Bank Workshop on„Enhancing Poverty Alleviation through DisasterReduction in the Philippines,“ www.worldbank.org.ph)). “The uses of development programs todecrease vulnerability will increasingly be incor-porated into every level of program and projectpreparation and review within UNDP country pro-gramming and other financial and technical assis-tance projects.” (UNDP 1994, p. 28).

Development processes that reduce poverty en-able people to build up assets that provide securi-ty during times of emergency. They make possi-ble the construction of technical protection or theaccruing of further savings that can be drawn onduring stress situations. Measures that reduce

vulnerability to droughts reduce dependence onthe natural resource base. For example, indus-tries provide sources of income other than fromagriculture, although this increases dependencyon markets and thus on processes outside thecontrol of people at the local level. As anotherexample, improved infrastructure can decreasevulnerability in a number of ways. Transportationinfrastructure increases accessibility to marketsand other facilities, which becomes extremelyimportant in difficult situations.

UNDMTP (United Nations Disaster ManagementTraining Program) provides a case study of aforestry Project in Nepal where measures to in-crease forest products (e.g., fuel wood, fodder,etc.) are combined with measures to reduce dis-aster risk. The local communities are being em-powered and included in all kinds of activitiesfrom the planning to the implementation phases“… by giving rural farmers the commercial rightsto forest products and providing them with infor-mation concerning forest conservation, it ishoped that they will have more of an economic

2121

Vulnerability and poverty

interest in protecting forest land and increasing itsproductivity [ownership]. Special emphasis isplaced on training and extension activities forwomen, who perform most of the work related toforest products in Nepal. Working at the grassroots level, Nepal’s community forestry programis an innovative attempt to improve the productivi-ty of the land and reduce potential disasters bylinking increased production with protection offorest resources.” (UNDP 1994, p. 29).

Another development project that intends to re-duce vulnerability is described in the UNDP–Re-ducing Disaster Risk Report (2004, p. 68). Eco-nomic development strategies oriented towardsthe export of cash-crops can create substantialbenefit for local people. But they also are accom-panied by the risk of highly fluctuating prices andinsecure incomes. When low commodity pricescoincide with natural hazards, rural livelihoodscome under great stress. “In Nicaragua andGuatemala, the most impacted communities fol-lowing a drought in 2001 were seasonal farmworkers in depressed coffee-growing regions.”(UNDP 2004, p. 68). A Ghanaian cocoa growers’co-operative tries to shift this risk through a fairtrade agreement with some European cocoacompanies. The producers receive a guaranteedprice for their goods and the security of long-termtrading contracts. The fair trade institution alsoseeks the empowerment of all partners and sup-ports the producers in setting aside resources toenhance social development and ecological pro-tection. “For those communities facing disasterrisk, access to higher and more predictable levelsof income can help build resilience.” (UNDP2004, p. 68). Poverty thus is reduced in severaldimensions: The economic one through higherincomes, the political dimension through betterorganisational structures, and the socio-culturalaspect, because income-generating activities forwomen are supported by the cocoa growers’ co-operative. These development efforts have afavourable influence on the cocoa growers’ vul-nerability to disasters. Increased savings capaci-ty, the democratic organisational structures, andecological protection help to reduce the growers’vulnerability while helping them to cope with natu-ral hazards and avoid disasters.

2.2 Short-sighted poverty reduction measures can increase vulnerability

But economic development which is seen as avehicle for poverty reduction can also increasedisaster risk through many mechanisms. For ex-ample, unreasonable use of natural resourcesmight lead to environmental degradation or pollu-tion, which reduces the resilience of ecosystemsthat face natural hazards. As discussed in UNDP2004 (p. 22), Hurricane Mitch in 1998 forced the“… recognition that pre-disaster developmentpriorities had led to high levels of risk and humanvulnerability, eventually culminating in a humani-tarian disaster triggered by a tropical cyclone.”

Adger and Brooks also describe the adverse im-pact of environmental changes and misleadingdevelopment initiatives in the African Sahel onthe vulnerability to famine (Adger and Brooks2003, p. 19-42). Following consecutive dry yearsin the Sahel in the late 1960s, people depletedtheir stocks of capital, livestock and grain, whichincreased their vulnerability (Adger and Brooks2003, p. 27). This vulnerability was further exac-erbated through a shift from food production for alocal market towards a cash-crop agriculture,which initially generated expectations of improve-ment in the poverty situation of poor farmers, butactually made them more dependent on externalprice fluctuations.

The unfortunate coincidence of environmentaland socio-political factors led to a massive faminein 1972/1973. Here, socio-political factors playedthe main role. Sen had already come to similarconclusions in the 1980s: “[In his] seminal work inIndia on famine and entitlement he specificallyattributed famine-related losses more to failure inentitlements than failures in rainfall or crop produc-tion patterns.” (Sen as cited in: Holloway 2003, p. 3).

Even social development – despite the fact that itcreates gains in health and sanitation, enhancedparticipation, and education – can increase disas-ter risk. Urbanisation is one such double-edgedexample for social development. On the onehand, living in cities can provide better access tosocial institutions and thus reduce the human

dimension of poverty; on the other hand, urbani-sation can increase peoples vulnerability towardsdisasters. UNDP (2004, p. 22) notes that rapidurbanisation commonly leads to the formation ofinformal settlements and inner city slums. Thesesettlements are often located in highly hazard-prone areas (steep slopes, flood plains, close todangerous industrial sites, etc.); livelihoods be-come increasingly unstable. People are willing orforced to endure such conditions while “… seek-ing opportunities not only to improve their ownquality of life, but also to enhance the health andeducational attainment of their children …“(UNDP 2004, p. 22). According to UNDP, urbani-sation is an example “… where people are forcedto expose themselves or others to risk in order tofulfil their (or others) needs or desires.” (UNDP2004, p. 22). As UNDP correctly states: “… thisexample needs consideration, as it is notincrease in social development per se thataccounts for growing risk, but the unassisted ef-forts of the economically marginal and politicallyexcluded to gain access to basic human needsthat has forced them to accept environmentalrisk.” (UNDP 2004, p. 22).

As the above examples demonstrate, poorly-planned development can increase vulnerability.

Wisner presents another example for poorlyplanned development and he formulates drasti-cally: “It is not part of the human condition to beburied under a landslide triggered by an earth-quake. Earthquakes happen. But the disasterfollows because of human action and inaction.”(Wisner 2003, p. 45). And it is not exclusively theeconomically poor population that is affected bydisasters. In San Salvador, 400 homes in themiddle-class neighbourhood of Las Colinas weredestroyed by a landslide created by the collapseof a slope above, on which a settlement was be-ing built. The residents of Las Colinas and envi-ronmental groups had recognised the risk, andhad tried to stop the construction through legalmeans, but the presiding judge had ruled againstthem (Wisner 2003, p. 45).

In 1999 more than 17,000 people living in a main-ly urban area in north western Turkey died in theMarmara earthquake. Most of the people were

buried in houses that were built with poor andinappropriate construction materials and sub-standard workmanship (Özerdem 203, p. 205).The houses did not meet the Turkishrequirements for earthquake-resistant design,which do exist but often are not applied.

Apart from showing the close interaction betweenpoorly-planned development and disasters, thesetwo tragedies both point at the political dimensionof poverty. Although the affected people were notnecessarily economically poor before the disaster,they can be seen as poor within the political di-mension of poverty (see figure 1). The fact thatthese groups were aware of the risk is relativelyunusual, and is already a step in the right direc-tion. But neither group was able to defend theirright to safe housing through the courts. Bothgroups lacked political power and influence. Powerlessness aggravates other dimensions ofpoverty. In the cases above, the economic dimen-sion of poverty was worsened because housingassets were destroyed.

Another type of development measures „gonewrong“ deserves mention here, because it canincrease the vulnerability of the very people whoare intended to benefit: Early-warning systems orthe construction of dikes that are not built in asafe and secure manner or are not integrated intothe necessary political information system can lullpeople into a sense of false security. In the worstcase, people even give up their traditional earlywarning systems because they come to rely onthe supposedly superior technical innovations.When disaster strikes, the effects can be evenworse than they would have been before the “development measure” was implemented.

On the other hand early warnings that quicklyreach those at risk, and that are acted effectivelyupon, can substantially reduce damage due toloss of life and property. Effective systems requirethe identification of all sources of vulnerability andrisk, and the integration of early warning into pub-lic policy and community action, as well as theintegration of traditional systems into moderntechnological capacities.

22


23

2.3 Disasters can set back poverty reduction efforts

Disasters can set back poverty reduction effortsthrough broad direct and indirect impacts. Thischapter addresses the social, economical andpolitical implications of disasters that hinder or set back poverty reduction efforts.

Social implications of disaster

On a long-term average, 184 deaths per day arerecorded world wide due to natural hazards. Mostof these occur in countries that rank low on theHuman Development Index (UNDP 2004, p. 10).But the number of deaths reveals only the tip ofthe iceberg in terms of social loss and humansuffering. For every person killed, around 3,000more are affected by the natural hazards (UNDP2004, p. 14) and become severely impoverishedthrough the destruction of personal assets, dam-age to health and education infrastructure, andloss of drinking water and sanitation. If the disas-ter is compounded by casualties from HIV/AIDSor armed conflict, social and economic structurescan be completely destabilised. Population dis-placement is often a result of natural hazardsand has far-reaching social consequences.

In the 1990s, the term “environmental refugee”came into use, referring to people forced toleave their homes due to natural disasters orenvironmental reasons. (Actually, this term is notentirely accurate, as environmental problemsnever appear in isolation and only their intercon-nection with other emergencies results in greatnumbers of refugees.) UNEP (United NationsEnvironment Program) estimates that there are22 to 24 million environmental refugees (Biermann2001, p. 24). Most of these migrants move betweendeveloping countries. For example, between1968 and 1973 more than 1 million people leftBurkina Faso due to an enormous drought andsettled in neighbouring countries. Each year,thousands of inhabitants of Bangladesh leavetheir country due to heavy flooding and go to Assam/India (Biermann 2001, p. 25). Such mi-grants often must start a new life from scratch insurroundings that are completely unprepared toaccommodate them or are inappropriate for set-tlement. The social and economic challenges fac-

ing the host countries in coping with theserefugees are often unmanageable. Extremepoverty in all its dimensions can result from dis-aster-related migration, because the refugeeslack every kind of social service, including healthservices, schools and access to safe drinkingwater. Traditional family structures, once an im-portant form of support during crisis, have beendestroyed. Groups of citizens that previouslywere not considered poor can fall into povertydue to forced migration.

Haug (2000) looks at the impact of forced migra-tion on long-term development of pastoralists inNorthern Sudan. The nomadic pastoralist group,the Hawaweer, of this region lost most of theiranimals during the droughts of the 1980s andwere displaced. It should be stressed here that itnormally is the better-off who become refugees,as they are the ones who can afford to migrate.This means that not only a differentiated view ofmigration needs to be taken, but also on the con-text in which migration takes place. “It was not anew dimension of the Hawaweer people’s liveli-hood to migrate for work opportunities. They hadalways been mobile as part of their nomadiclifestyle and livelihood diversification.

24


For decades, many Hawaweer people had beenseasonal labourers in the Nile area [or in otherareas...]. What was new due to the drought of the1980s was that many people went not of a freechoice but due to a desperate search for survivaland a desperate need for feeding a hunger struckfamily.” (Haug 2000, p. 10). Haug describes howthe Hawaweer were no longer welcome in theNile area as the labour surplus increased and themigration became more permanent. Residentstreated the Hawaweer as primitive nomadic peo-ple and humiliated them (Haug 2000, p. 11).

Beyond the immediate experience of therefugees in their new location, a long-term per-spective is necessary in order to become awareof the possible outcomes of forced migration.

Economic implications of disaster

In the 1990s, annual economic loss due to disas-ters was estimated at US $ 55 billion, which isequivalent to the total annual amount of interna-tional Official Development Assistance (ODA)(BMZ 2001, p. 15). “While absolute levels of eco-nomic loss are greater in developed countriesdue to the far higher density and cost ofinfrastructure and production levels, less-devel-

oped countries suffer higher levels of relative losswhen seen as a proportion of Gross DomesticProduct (GDP).” (UNDP 2004, p. 20). For exam-ple, the 1995 earthquake in Kobe/Japan, causeddamages totalling US $ 100 billion, or approxi-mately 2 % of the country’s GDP. However, thedamage incurred by the 2001 earthquake in ElSalvador amounted to “just” US $ 1.2 billion, butthis equalled 10 % of the national GDP (GTZ2002, p. 11). And there is another majordifference: Much of the economic loss in devel-oped countries is covered by insurance, which isnot the case in the developing countries.

Economic implications of disasters are conven-tionally categorised as direct losses that includeloss of physical assets, damage to infrastructure,and loss of inventory and agricultural produce.Included under indirect losses are those that arecaused by the disruption of the flow of goods andservices, such as the reduced opportunities forgenerating income. The final category of second-ary effects includes impact on macro-economicvariables such as economic growth, state budgetlevels, national indebtedness, and inflation. Esti-mating these costs is difficult due to data limita-tions. However, serious consideration of the sec-

2525

ondary effects of disasters is important, becausethese can have significant impact on long-termhuman economic development.

Although in absolute terms, wealthier people’seconomic loss due to disaster can be greaterthan that of the poorer people in the affected re-gion, the latter suffer more. Their poverty situa-tion makes them more vulnerable to the directeconomic loss and also to the indirect losses andthe secondary effects. Just one of the reasons forthis is that poor families typically have a higherratio of dependents to wage earners. The loss ofeven one family member’s job due to a disaster(indirect loss) therefore affects a disproportionatenumber of people as compared to the loss of ajob in a wealthier family.

“This is not to say that higher-income groups areimmune to disasters. Past examples of disastersdo not necessarily show that higher-incomegroups with access to information are less vulner-able and therefore less likely to suffer. In the 1985Mexico City earthquake, the lower middle-classwas the most affected group as their high-risehousing was more vulnerable to the earthquake’sground motion than the low adobe and brick-builthouses in low-income neighbourhoods.” (Mainand Williams 1994, p. 38 as cited in: IDB 2000,p.26-27). Middle-class families can be severelyaffected by disasters and run the risk of slippinginto poverty.

Political implications of disaster

Disasters can evoke severe governance problems.The mechanisms and processes through whichcitizens articulate their interests and exercisetheir legal rights – an important aspect of the po-litical dimension of poverty – can deteriorate to aneven worse condition than is “typical” of develop-ing countries. Inquiry into the economic aspect ofgovernance reveals that financial decisions madeduring disaster and the reconstruction period canhave major implications for poverty and quality oflife. Under time and financial pressures,politicians are likely to throw overboard carefullydeveloped budget plans and overturn long-termdevelopment programmes in order to create abigger emergency aid budget. All too often, this

money is used for the recovery of one group atthe expense of others. Economically poor groupswith little access to decision-making are likely tobe left out. Gender and other fundamental socialissues are often disregarded. The result can be areduction in social equality (UNDP 2004, p. 21).

Political aspects of governance can also be chal-lenged during a disaster. Disasters give politiciansthe opportunity to abandon the difficult daily politi-cal decision–making, and provide them a platformfor populist manoeuvring. Even democratic insti-tutions can be undermined by disasters, becausecitizens often desire a strong leader, who mustappear able to cope with the emergency and itsaftermath.

Finally, the administrative aspect of governance isthreatened. Efficient functioning of democratic or-ganisations – due to the exceptional situation – runsthe risk of breaking down. Lawlessness could result,and existing corruption problems might worsen.

2.4 Disasters can provide poverty reduction opportunities

It might seem paradoxical, but disasters can havepositive effects and beneficiaries. It is importantto take a look at them from the two possible andvery different viewpoints. One is to ask whatpoliticians, communities and individuals can learnfrom disaster that helps to reduce vulnerabilityand foster development. The other view could fallunder the cynical title of a book on drought pro-grammes in India: “Everybody Loves a GoodDrought” (Sainath 1999). Here the question iswho benefits, and how, from the distress of others.

This section sheds some light on the first aspect,and section 2.5 addresses how disasters can bemisused economically or politically.

Disasters can provide development opportunities.This brings us back to the discussion on adapta-tion and the Turkish earthquake example where a“… new level of public awareness for the enforce-ment of regulations concerning construction prac-tices to minimise risk …” (Özerdem 2003, p. 206)

resulted in more serious governmental disastermanagement that reduced people’s vulnerabilityto earthquakes. Disasters can trigger increasedopenness to political and social changes. Politicalattitudes can be altered more easily than undernormal circumstances. This might have short-term adverse impacts, but it also might have im-pacts that provide new opportunities for sustain-able development in the longer run.

Central America provides another example. Thegovernments in this region learned a lesson fromHurricane Mitch in 1998. The disaster made man-ifest that environmental degradation had led tohigh levels of vulnerability that finally culminatedin the humanitarian disaster triggered by a tropi-cal cyclone. Under the motto “Reconstructionwith Transformation,” Central American govern-ments, NGOs and donors agreed to consider pre-disaster development priorities, and agreed toinclude vulnerability issues in (rural) developmentpolicies. What might prove, in the end, to be justrhetoric is nevertheless a first step.

Taking this further, the Honduran governmenttook a long look at its political style and movedtowards more participation. Thus NGOs, some ofwhich represent the poorer stratum of the citizen,were given more responsibility and were accept-ed as partners in reconstruction. This paved theway for more NGO participation in political deci-sion–making. This was particularly evident in theformulation of the Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper (PRSP), where they used their consider-able influence to shape the strategy more infavour of the needs of the poor.

Something similar occurred after Hurricane Mitchhit Nicaragua, where efforts to decentralise thecountry were reported. Responsibility is slowlybut steadily being transferred to the communitylevel, which helps to strengthen capacities there,and paves the way towards better integration oflocal people in decision-making.

But it is not only individuals, decision-makers,and NGOs at the local and national levels wholearn from disasters. The international communi-ty, too, has learned to use reconstruction and re-lated efforts to promote prevention and foster dis-

aster risk management capacities in order toachieve more sustainable poverty reduction.

Crisis situations also seem to provide an opportu-nity for ameliorating gender inequality. Accordingto Bradshaw (2004), women’s organisations in ElSalvador identified several achievements regard-ing improved power balance after HurricaneMitch.

These included:

> Public acknowledgment of the roles playedby women in the emergency and reconstruc-tion periods, resulting in a number of positivechanges in the household.

> Women formulating, drafting and presentingcommunity project proposals, and then man-aging the projects and funds, too.

> Alliances being forged amongst town halls,NGOs, communities, and organisedwomen’s groups in the communitiesconcerning joint plans and proposals (Bradshaw 2004, p. 43).

On the other hand, violence against women wasreported to have increased in the aftermath ofHurricane Mitch. So, whether disasters really pro-vide a development opportunity with regard to achange in roles is hard to judge, and alsodepends on the specific country situation.

Beyond the possible, long-lasting improvementwithin the political dimension of poverty, disastersalso can have a short-term effect on the econom-ic situation of poor people: For instance, food-for-work programmes might provide an “income”even to those people who, under normal circum-stances, would have had no access of any kind toincome.

26

27

2.5 Economic and political misuse of disasters and disaster relief

Holloway notes that some African countries: “…wait until there is irrefutable evidence of crisis,and then seek international aid, rather than build-ing anticipatory capabilities that reduce disasterrisk proactively.” (Holloway 2003, p. 5). The au-thor finds that this behaviour is rooted in interna-tional assistance patterns, which have disabledownership of disaster risk. This certainly is true,and it is also true that some African politicians arewell aware of this. Money flows into a country on-ly when a disaster occurs that is big enough tomake headlines, and therefore politicians makeno effort to minimise disaster risk.

One example of negative results of humanitarianaid is the aid dependency and the receiving men-tality, as evidenced in Ethiopia since the faminesof 1984/85. Nowadays, many farmers there donot think it is necessary to invest further in theirfarming systems, instead relying on humanitarianaid in the event of hardship. According to Elliesen(2001, p. 265-267), food aid in Ethiopia led to areduction of self-help and the unfair enrichment ofpowerful groups that channel the aid to their sup-porters as “presents for their partisans.” Further-more, food aid is seen by the US government asa good way of supporting their domestic agricul-ture as a form of „export promotion,“ without anyconcern for the fact that such food distributionoften destroys the local markets. The Ethiopiangovernment, too, has a vested interest in foodaid: the government has big stakes in the trans-port companies that are contracted for its distribu-tion. Efforts to improve the self-help capacities ofrural people run contrary to these interests.

Disasters mobilise a huge amount of money,which creates an economic branch of its own. Sonaturally, as with any branch of the economy,there are a lot of conflicting interests. But a majordifference here is that disaster relief funds mustbe spent very quickly. Control and accountingmechanisms often are thrown overboard in theface of time constraints. This means disaster aidis especially prone to corruption, both in the re-ceiving countries and in the donor countries. Buttheft does not only take place at a high institution-

al level; it was plundering at the lowest social lev-els that the impoverished victims of the 2003earthquake in Bam, Iran, called the “disaster afterthe disaster.” (Kermani 2004, p. 20).

It is not only the economic sphere that becomesmore susceptible to misuse in disaster, but thepolitical one, as well. As already mentioned, politi-cians can benefit from catastrophes. On the onehand, they can direct incoming assistance to re-gions which are dominated by political supportersrather than send it to areas associated with theopposition. Holloway states that: “In some coun-tries, government’s humanitarian obligation toalleviate suffering has been misused for patron-age, with an implicit expectation of reciprocity atthe polls.” (Holloway 2003, p. 9). On the otherhand, they can use the media attention to pro-mote a public image as rescuer of the nation,which would not have been possible without thedisaster. Alberto Fujimori, Peru’s autocratic presi-dent, did this during the El Niño disaster of 1998.In “The Economist” of May 1998, he was reportedto be: “The true artist of the El Niño … becausesince then he rushed about frenetically takingpersonal charge of relief efforts.” (The Economistas cited in: IFRC 2002, p. 27). “Peru’s civildefence, responsible for national disaster man-agement, was shoved aside by a new group con-trolled by the president, and the result was organ-isational confusion. The main beneficiary wasFujimori himself, whose poll ratings went up form30 per cent in mid-1997 to 45 per cent a year later.”(IFRC 2002, p. 27-28).

2.6 Who is affected by disasters?

First of all, people in developing countries are,very generally speaking, more likely to be severe-ly affected by disasters then those in developedcountries. “The presence of many poor people ina given region can constitute a clear factor of vul-nerability, as the poor are more vulnerable thanother income groups because of the more haz-ardous location of their dwelling, the poor qualityof their housing, their different perception of risk[lack of knowledge about risks] and difficulty torecover from disasters.” (IDB 2000, p. 63). Thelikelihood of death in a disaster is four times higher


for these people than for those living in high-in-come countries (World Bank 2001, p. 171). Com-bining data from UNDP’s Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) with data from 2500 disasters trig-gered by natural events between 1991 and 2000reveals the very strong relationship between de-velopment and vulnerability to disaster. “Half ofthese disasters took place in countries with amedium HDI, but two-thirds of the deathsoccurred in countries with a low HDI. Only 2 percent of the deaths were recorded in the countrieswith a high HDI.” (Wisner 2003, p. 46). These andother studies demonstrate that the Human Devel-opment Index can be a proxy indicator for vulner-ability to extreme natural events. As a specificexample: “Despite similar patterns of natural dis-asters in Peru andJapan, fatalities average2900 a year in Peru butjust 63 in Japan.” (WorldBank 2001, p. 171).

However, people wholive in developing coun-tries are not a homoge-neous group. Rather, wemust distinguishbetween differentincome situations, ur-ban/rural settlements,race/ethnicity,class/caste, gender, age,household makeup(such as single-headedhousehold and numberof dependants), and soon, to come to specificconclusions about theeffects of disaster. Weknow, for instance, thatchildren, especially very young ones, who live inhouseholds with few livestock, are most severelyaffected by droughts. But unfortunately, little isknown about the impact of disasters on the physi-cal and psychological development of children.

More research has been carried out on the socio-cultural dimension of poverty, especially the gen-der aspects. However the knowledge gainedabout this key dimension of social difference is

only slowly being incorporated into professionalpractice.

It is well-known that disasters have a differentimpact on the poverty situation of men andwomen. This is because of the distinct roles ofthe two sexes in political, economical and sociallife, and also in their different reactions to disas-ter. Droughts, for example, often have a low im-pact on men’s health, as men tend to leave theaffected regions at an early stage of the disaster,whereas women do not have this migration op-tion, and must endure the severe conditions,made even more difficult without men’s support.


28

Some key poverty factors that aggravate women’s

vulnerability in comparison to men’s vulnerability are:

> High illiteracy rates,

> Limited ownership of assets such as land,

> Few employment opportunities outside the home,

> Limited mobility outside the home and locality,

> Low social status,

> Limited access to health services,

> Socially-constructed dependency on male relatives (Fordham 2003, p. 65).

During the recovery and reconstruction phase,too, women are more likely to suffer long-termconsequences on their well-fare than men (IDB2000, p. 28). In the case of Hurricane Mitch, thepercentage of women (especially female-headedhouseholds) still living in shelters some weekslater was significantly higher than that of men(IDB 2000, p. 28). Similarly, 32 % of Nicaraguanfarming households headed by females did not

29

plant the following year, compared to the 23 % ofmale-headed farming households that completelylost their sowing capacity (Bradshaw 2004, p. 26).

Another aftermath of disaster is the disproportion-ate increase in women’s unpaid reproductivework. For example, they have to take care of theirchildren when schools are closed to be used asshelters for disaster victims. Although this is anobvious burden, it typically is not consideredwhen emergency tasks are divided. Decision-making in a disaster context is considered a maletask, and women often do not feel qualified todefend their interests in the governing body.

On the other hand, most authors writing aboutgender categories warn against portrayingwomen merely as victims, because women havegreat capacities to resist and overcome disastereffects. For example, women have good organi-sational skills and networks, and are familiar withmanaging under adverse circumstances.

The same is true for older people. Due to chronichealth, mobility problems and possible mental

deficiencies, they make up a large proportion ofthe most vulnerable in disaster-affected popula-tions. But they also have key contributions tomake in survival and rehabilitation. They can playimportant roles in providing care, managing re-sources, and generating income, while applyingtheir accumulated knowledge and experiences.

Disabled people are particularly vulnerable duringand in the aftermath of disaster. They might havedifficulty escaping disaster because of their dis-ability, and the special facilities they need proba-bly are not accessible following disaster.

It has been well-documented that the economi-cally poor usually are hit hardest by disasters.“Lack of financial and material resources givespoor people less flexibility in protecting their liveli-hoods and homes against disaster. When disas-ter strikes, assets bought with loans (for example,a sewing machine or a cow) can be instantly de-stroyed. This forces the poor back to the begin-ning – or worse, since they have to pay back theloan for an asset long lost.” (IFRC 2002, p. 11).

Poor people might be forced to live in low-incomesettlements that are often more hazard-pronethan middle-class residential districts. This is truefor settlements in major cities (see section 2.2),but also for rural areas, where the poorer popula-tion is constrained in its settlement choice byproperty rights and wealthier landowners. Anoth-er problem is that they “… might willingly choosehazard-prone areas to improve their access toresources or increase their income-generatingpossibilities. Environmental hazard might be out-weighed by the perceived benefits of residence inhazard-prone areas such as volcano slopes,plains nourished by flood alluvia or river banks.”(IDB 2000, p. 64). Clearly, there is a link betweenpoverty and vulnerability to disasters caused byenvironmental degradation.

2.7 Summary, lessons, and outlook

Poverty in its multiple dimensions has a stronginfluence on people’s vulnerability to disaster,and vice versa. It is important not only to considerthe economic aspect of poverty, which is perhapsthe most apparent, but also the socio-politicaldimensions. Deprivation in the political dimen-sion, as an example, can affect not only the eco-nomically poor – although there is no doubt thatthey are affected in the most adverse way – butalso the middle class. People in or below this so-cial stratum often lack the political power to en-force their right to adequate construction stan-dards for buildings that can better withstand haz-ards, even when this is provided for by law. Andbecause of the complex relationship betweenpoverty and vulnerability, disasters typically wors-en the poverty situation of these groups, as wellas their vulnerability to future risk.

But disasters have different impacts on differentgroups within these socio-economic strata. Onemajor example is the different realities of disasterand its aftermath experienced by men andwomen. The complexity of social life in the chang-ing circumstances during and after a disasterevent should be studied further in order to devel-op adequate disaster risk management.

A main lesson to be learned is that disaster riskmanagement must be socially inclusive. Thismeans issues of gender, poverty, age, class, andso on (as well as representatives of these groups)must be integrated politically and practically intoprogrammes, projects and measures that aim atreducing disaster risk. This is not an easy task,and we are still learning how to do it. An importantstep would be for practitioners, academics, andpoliticians to reach agreement on this subject.

However, poverty reduction and developmentmeasures do not automatically achieve a reduc-tion in vulnerability. In the worst case, such meas-ures can even aggravate peoples’ vulnerability todisaster. Therefore, these measures must beplanned thoughtfully with regard to the specificdisaster problematic of a country or region.

The next section addresses the political and ad-ministrative conditions needed for successful in-tegration of disaster risk management and pover-ty reduction efforts. We also present different in-struments of the two approaches and how theycan be linked. The blending of the two approach-es and their instruments is necessary because,as discussed in this section, only developmentthat takes risks into consideration can have long-lasting results. The concept of disaster risk man-agement reinforces the long-term perspective ofpoverty reduction strategies, which is vital toachieving sustainable development.


30

31

3. Basic concepts and instruments for combining poverty

reduction measures and disaster risk management

access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can copewith and recover from stress and shocks, main-tain or enhance its capabilities and assets, andprovide sustainable livelihood opportunities forthe next generation; and which contributes netbenefits to other livelihoods at the local and glob-al levels and in the long and short term.” Mostagencies adopt this definition with only slight vari-ations.

The livelihoods framework provides an organisingstructure for analysis. The basic elements of theframework are presented in the figure next page.

This chapter presents three basic concepts andinstruments that are relevant for the integration ofdisaster risk management into poverty reductionmeasures. The sustainable livelihoods approachwas developed in the context of poverty reductionstrategies but explicitly addresses vulnerability ina way that provides an entry point for integratingdisaster risk management into strategies ofpoverty reduction. Risk analysis is an interestingand important contribution to the planning of proj-ects and programmes with a poverty reductionfocus. Monitoring is essential to both poverty re-duction measures and disaster risk management,but currently is being carried out separately foreach issue, despite the many benefits that couldaccrue through linkages and the sharing of expe-rience. Unfortunately, especially in the monitoringof poverty reduction approaches, disaster issuesreceive almost no attention. Therefore, differentapproaches to monitoring in the two areas arediscussed with a view towards how and where itis possible to combine existing indicators.

3.1 The sustainable livelihoodsapproach – a poverty reductionapproach and its linkages to vulnerability and disaster

The sustainable livelihoods approach takes a holistic view of people’s livelihoods situations andstrategies, and of their needs and interests. It wasdeveloped to help achieve poverty reduction, andto remedy the fact that a purely economic approachis inadequate for understanding poverty from theviewpoint of those concerned. The sustainablelivelihoods approach also explicitly addressesvulnerability as a main factor determining the sus-tainability of chosen livelihoods. This provides anentry point for integrating disaster risk manage-ment into strategies for poverty reduction. Thereare different approaches for the analysis of sus-tainable livelihoods (e.g., DFID, CARE, Oxfam –see Carney et al. 1999). The following discussionis based on the DFID sustainable livelihoods ap-proach (see: www.livelihoods.org).

The definition by Chambers and Conway (1992,p. 7) is that “a livelihood comprises the capabili-ties, assets (stores, resources, claims and

32

Livelihood Assets

Livelihood

strategiesInfluence

and access

In o

rder

to a

chie

ve

Vulnerability

context

Shocks

Trends

Seasonality

Transforming structures

and processes

Structures

> Levels of

government

> Private

sector

> Laws

> Policies

> Culture

> Institutions

Processes

Livelihood outcomes

More income

Increased well-being

Reduced vulnerability

Improved food security

More sustainable use of NR base

H

S N

FP

Figure 4 – Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

NB: Recently, the ‘Transforming Structures and Processes’ has been changed to ‘Policies,

Institutions and Processes’ (see section 4.1 of the Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets

at www.livelihoods.org).

Livelihoods assets are:

H human capital: The skills, knowledge, ability to labour, and good health;P physical capital: Basic infrastructure (e.g., transport, shelter, water supply, energy, and communications)

and the production equipment and means that enable people to pursue livelihoods;S social capital: The social resources (e.g., networks, membership of groups, relationships of trust, access to

institutions) upon which people draw in pursuit of livelihoods;F financial capital: The financial resources which are available to people (e.g., savings, credit, regular remittances,

or pensions);N natural capital: The natural resource stocks useful for livelihoods (e.g., land, water, wildlife, biodiversity,

environmental resources).

3333

Basic concepts and instruments

The transforming structures and processes arethe institutions, organisations, policies, and legis-lation that shape livelihoods. They are seen aseffectively determining access to various types ofcapital, to livelihoods strategies, and to decision-making bodies and sources of influence; theterms of exchange between different types ofcapital; and returns (economic and otherwise) toany given livelihood strategy.

The vulnerability context is comprised of:

> trends (long-term and large-scale) such aspopulation trends, resource trends, national /international economic trends, trends in gov-ernance, technological trends.

> shocks: Health shocks, natural shocks, eco-nomic shocks, conflict, and crop/livestockhealth shocks. These shocks can destroyassets directly or they can force people todispose of assets as part of coping strate-gies. Resilience to external shocks andstresses is an important factor in livelihoodsustainability.

> seasonality: Seasonal shifts of prices, pro-duction, health, employment opportunities.

The livelihood strategies are the range and com-bination of people’s activities and choices (in-cluding productive activities, investment strate-gies, reproductive choices, etc.) in attempting toachieve their livelihood outcomes: The goalspursued, the lifestyle that results from the activities.

Through livelihoods approaches “… the empha-sis is placed on both increasing the means peo-ple [acquire] for achieving their livelihood out-comes, and on developing a policy environmentthat supports people’s chosen livelihood strate-gies …” stressing people’s ability to define theirown priorities (‘empowerment’) and decreasetheir vulnerability (Schafer 2002, p. 15).

The DFID livelihoods approach stresses thelong-term aspects of any strategy and empha-sises the importance of resilience and reducing

vulnerability. “Sustainability as providing long-term results is seen as being important, wherebylivelihoods are seen as being sustainable whenthey are resilient in the face of external shocksand stresses; are not dependent upon externalsupport (or if they are, this support itself shouldbe economically and institutionally sustainable);maintain the long-term productivity of natural re-sources; and do not undermine the livelihoods of,or compromise the livelihood options open to,others.” (DFID – SLGS 2000).

Recognising the importance of vulnerability is,according to Cannon, a prerequisite of achievingsustainable livelihoods. From their point of view,“… it is supposedly a way of conceptualising whatmay happen to an identifiable population underconditions of particular risks and hazards.” (Can-non et al. 2003, p. 4). They see vulnerability ashaving a predictive quality, and poverty as beinga measure of current status. By integrating theconcept of vulnerability into the livelihoods ap-proach, the horizon of poverty reduction is extendedand can make efforts more sustainable. Throughvulnerability analysis it is made clear that disasterpreparedness should be a part of development.

The livelihoods approach is just a framework, andits operationalisation is a crucial step. It considersa wide range of issues, and according to Christo-plos et al. (2001), provides a valid set of methodsfor examining vulnerability. Applying the frame-work can also produce an overwhelming quantityof information, thus creating the necessity ofidentifying the major areas of importance(Schafer 2002, p. 18). DFID stresses that a liveli-hoods analysis does not have to be exhaustive inorder to be effective and that “… the idea is toidentify critical constraints in the livelihood sys-tem and identify leverage points for interventionthat maximise impact“ (Carney 1998; Goldman2000 as cited in: Longley and Maxwell 2003, p.3). However, Longley and Maxwell (2003, p. 24)criticise that the lack of clarity on just what a liveli-hood intervention is makes the prioritisation ofproblems difficult.

Another criticism is that the focus on the house-hold level means that questions of causality andthe broader dynamics of the situation are oftennot adequately addressed (cf. Ashley and Carney1999), and the attempt to understand actions atthis level, will not lead to an understanding of thelarger society. For instance, society has a stronginfluence on how different situations areperceived and explained, and the way situations,shocks and stress are perceived also shapes the

actions taken by individuals. Longley andMaxwell (2003, p. 2) as well as Norton and Foster(2001, p. 13) underscore the importance ofanalysing the broader environmental, social, po-litical and economic context, as well as the insti-tutions and structures that influence the mannerin which assets are used and how access to andcontrol over them can be gained and maintained.“A further dimension which is needed in the de-bate would address the key dimension of thefreedoms and opportunities which are availableto people to make use of their assets in political,economic and social arenas. This takes the de-bate into issues of accessible justice, politicalvoice and human rights.” (Norton and Foster2001, p. 30).

Twigg points out the risk that the significance ofnatural hazards will be undervalued in the sus-tainable livelihoods approach, as disaster mitiga-tion efforts often have to take place on higher lev-els than the household level. (Twigg 2001a, p. 21).

When it comes to operationalisation Cannon et al.(2003, p. 4) also criticise that “… there is littleanalysis of how shocks affect livelihood assetsand outcomes and in most ‘normal’ DFID devel-opment work there appears to be very little or noattempt to reduce peoples vulnerability to haz-ards and disasters.”

Participation and the focus on people and theirviews is an inherent and vital part of the sustain-able livelihoods approach. Norton and Foster(2001) consider how a sustainable livelihoods-based analysis could contribute to the overall for-mulation process of a Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper (PRSP), and recognise the challenge inusing sustainable livelihoods approaches, amongothers, to help to determine the right priorities (p. 27-29). They also see potential value of theapproach in addressing cross-cutting issue. Forexample, in explaining the consequences of theHIV/AIDS epidemic in terms of human or socialcapital can be helpful by providing a thoroughpoverty analysis. However, they state that in or-der “… to take the analysis forward in a complexcontext of analysing linkages between macro andmicro realities (as in a Poverty Reduction Strate-gy Paper (PRSP)) will inevitably require other


34

35

methodologies and approaches [than the sustain-able livelihoods approach]” (Norton and Foster2001, p. 31). All in all, they see the strengths of theapproach as dominating the weaknesses, especiallyin its normative and analytical principles (2001, p.30), which they maintain should be applied to otherforms of analysis, such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness approaches (2001, p. 29).

evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability(physical, social, and economic) that could posea potential threat or harm to people, property,livelihoods and the environment on which theydepend. At the same time, it takes account partic-ularly of the coping capabilities pertinent to therisk scenarios (cf. ISDR 2004, p. 16).

The aim of risk analysis is the systematic use ofinformation to determine the probability of eventsoccurring and to identify appropriate measuresfor pre- and post-disaster activities. It should becarried out in a participatory manner and provideadvice in project design, preparedness planning,and mitigation planning, while attempting to cre-ate or raise awareness at different levels. (Formore details, see methodology description inGTZ (2004): Guidelines: Risk Analysis – a Basisfor Disaster Risk Management).

Hazard analysis

Hazard analysis appraises the probability of anextreme event, its magnitude and duration. Theanalysis comprises the identification of possiblehazards in an area, the identification of the en-dangered sites, and an analysis of the probabilityand the possible magnitude of occurrence. Thenatural hazards can be grouped into meteorologi-cal hazards (e.g., floods, droughts, hurricanes),geological hazards (e.g., earthquakes,volcanoes), and others, such as epidemics.

Norton and Foster describe the principles

of the sustainable livelihoods approach as follows (2001, p. 30):

> To seek processes which are accountable, which engage with the disaggregated, specific realitiesof poor people’s conditions, which allow for appropriate subsidiarity in dealing with key issues, andwhich take a cross-sectoral perspective on the causes of deprivation and the analysis of measuresto reduce it.

> To focus on the need to achieve livelihoods outcomes for the poor as a guide to applying the conceptual framework in practical situations and to encourage partners to use it.

> To seek to prioritise policy and programme actions.

Further, they stress that the sustainablelivelihoods approach does an invaluable job in re-balancing the importance of different factors with-in poverty reduction frameworks by giving moreattention to people’s access to productive assetsas opposed to solely regarding health and educa-tion issues (Norton and Foster 2001, p. 31).

3.2 Risk analysis

Risk analysis is part of disaster risk management,and is comprised of the analysis of hazard andvulnerability, the two elements that “add up” torisk. These two kinds of analysis could contributeimportant information to the planning of projectsand programmes with a strong poverty reductionfocus.

Risk analysis aims at providing the basic quanti-tative and qualitative information to determine thenature and extent of risk by analysing potentialhazards (location, intensity, and probability) and

36

Vulnerability analysis and coping capacity

When assessing vulnerability, all factors affectingthe capacity of a population to cope with hazardsmust be captured. First the potentially vulnerablepeople have to be identified, after which the fac-tors that influence their vulnerability are estimated.

Here, different kinds of vulnerability

can be distinguished:

> Physical vulnerability (e.g., building quality, population density),

> Social vulnerability (e.g., education, social organisation, gender, minorities, power distribution, solidarity),

> Economic vulnerability (e.g., wealth status, income security, resources),

> Environmental factors that influence vulnerability (e.g., bio-diversity, arable land,degradation).

Any self-protection mechanisms already in place(traditional practices of early warning and moni-toring, evacuation plans, etc.) also must be con-sidered under coping capacity.

Often, vulnerability is estimated through the poten-tial damage to the population (life, health, well-ness), to capital equipment (buildings, infrastruc-ture), and to natural capital (forests, agriculturalland). In a last step, the culturally-accepted levelof risk is assessed.

When all these factors are considered, the hazardanalysis provides vital information for preventingshort-sighted development activities that wouldlead to increased risks (e.g., building houses indisaster prone areas). The findings can also beused for the cost-benefit analysis of particularmeasures. When carried out in a participatoryway, this can contribute to the empowerment ofthe affected people, building up their capacity toactively make decisions on which risks they arewilling to take.

As already mentioned in chapter 1.2, it must bekept in mind that the results of a risk assessmentneed not correspond precisely with the risk per-ception of the affected people. Especially nowthat highly-sophisticated, technical methods(such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS))are used for assessing risks, gaps might existbetween technical findings and people’s under-standing of risk; nonetheless, their points of viewand perceptions about the risks they face mustbe included (see e.g. ISDR 2004, p. 64).

3.3 Monitoring the results of disasterrisk management measures andpoverty reduction efforts

Monitoring is a complex issue for practitionersand scientists concerned with disaster risk. Anumber of international initiatives currently arebeing undertaken in this field in order to developsets of indicators for monitoring. Some of themare presented below, grouped by focus under eitherdisaster risk management or poverty reduction:

Monitoring disaster risk management progress

Monitoring measures in the field of disaster riskmanagement are being developed from two dif-ferent aspects:

> Monitoring disaster risk itself,

> Monitoring the effects of disaster risk management measures.

A prominent example of the first type is the newly-developed UNDP Disaster Risk Index(DRI) (UNDP 2004, p. 29-56). This index rankscountries according to physical exposure to haz-ard, vulnerability and risk. Data constraints limitthe DRI to three types of natural hazards: earth-quake, tropical cyclone, and flooding. The indexcan be used to make a general comparison of therelative disaster risk faced by different countries.The underlying principle of the DRI – the relation-ship between poverty, development, and disasterrisk – is an important one, but the index is alsoheavily criticised, because its information base islimited to recorded numbers of deaths withoutconsideration of loss of livelihood.

37

The World Bank and Columbia University havejointly developed a set of indicators called“hotspots,” which draws on the same database,but organises information according to regionsinstead of individual countries.(www.worldbank.org/hazards/files/hotspots2002).Taken together, these two indices provide an in-teresting basis for decision-making in develop-ment co-operation. The plan to continue record-ing these indicators on a local level will help insetting priorities when disaster risk managementmeasures are incorporated into poverty reductionprogrammes.

Even more interesting for the objective of thisstudy is monitoring the effects of disaster riskmanagement. Ideally, this would be done by sim-ply measuring the decline of risks and the reduc-tion of disasters. However, this is nearly impossi-ble because:

> The success of disaster risk management is theabsence of disaster, so what is an appropriatemeasure?

> Conditions, especially hazardous ones, andtheir characteristics change over time and varyaccording to location. No two hazard are identi-cal; therefore, their impacts are not exactlycomparable.

> The intervals between catastrophes are oftenquite long, making it difficult to measure success.

Thus new ways for measuring success with dis-aster risk management must be found. One solu-tion is to monitor proxy impact indicators,although the identification of proxies often isbased only on assumption or ambivalent informa-tion. Key monitoring questions as to the effects ofdisaster risk management mainly relate to thestrengthening of disaster response capacities,the extent to which lives and assets are betterprotected during disasters, and the improvementof food security during drought.

In addition to identifying indicators that can meas-ure the risk of disaster, the University of Maniza-les, Colombia, is developing, a „Risk Manage-ment Index.“ This index is intended to provideinformation about the progress of disaster riskmanagement measures at the national level. Cur-rently, the indicators are in their testing phase(www.idea.manizales,unal.edu.co).

The Department of Integration and Regional Pro-grams of the Inter-American Development Bank(IDB) presents another interesting instrument forassessing the effects of disaster riskmanagement measures (Bollin et al. 2003, p.59–76). It is a monitoring system that focuses on


the community and local level, and applies a setof indicators that serves as a basis for decision-making within the scope of disaster risk manage-ment policy.

The indicators are organised around four

key questions:

> How often and how intensely do disasters occur?

> Who and what is affected?

> What kinds of vulnerability exist in the community?

> What are the strengths and capacities of the community?

Reliable indicators are chosen and the question-naire is applied and validated for sustainabilityand political sensitivity within the geographicaland cultural context. The resulting risk index canbe used repeatedly, making it possible to monitorprogress achieved through interventions whichhave been applied to manage disaster risk. Thismonitoring system can test the effectiveness oflocal, regional, and even national disaster riskmanagement policies. It is an inexpensive andeasy system to use - two characteristics thatshould be highlighted, because monitoring sys-tems can be time-consuming and expensive.

But the most striking aspects of the IDB

participatory approach are:

> It promotes people’s understanding about howdisaster risk is related to their situation, includ-ing environmental aspects, changingdemographics, and the literacy rate.

> It includes peoples’ capacities for and know-ledge about coping with disasters.

Monitoring is not just a technical exercise, andstakeholder involvement should not be merely ameans for collecting monitoring data. Participa-tion also enables stakeholder to question disasterrisk management policy and to demand domesticpolicy dialogue on the issue.

Monitoring poverty reduction progress

There are several different measurements ofpoverty. The World Bank employs the „1 U.S. dol-lar a day“ poverty line (people with a daily incomeof US $ 1 or less are classified as extremelypoor), which is useful for comparative analysis of(extreme) poverty over time, among differentcountries, or within a given country. More com-plex are the composite UNDP Human Develop-ment Index, the Human Poverty Index, and theGender-related Development Index. These donot measure poverty in terms of income, but cap-ture such key characteristics as life expectancy,adult literacy rate, per capita gross domesticproduct, access to safe water, etc. (UNDP 2003).

Since the introduction of Poverty Reduction Strat-egy Papers “Poverty and Social Impact Analysis”(PSIA) is gradually playing a greater role in as-sessing the effects of policy reforms on povertyreduction. PSIA examines not only the expectedeconomic effects of structural poverty reductionstrategies in general, but also focuses on howthese affect different stakeholder groups and thedifferent dimensions of poverty. The approachalso analyses the political and institutionalaspects of policy reforms, which often are neg-lected by monitoring exercises. A central ideabehind PSIA and similar approaches to impactassessment – beyond just measuring the outputor outcome of a specific programme or project –is to promote transparency and dialogue betweengovernment and civil society regarding public pol-icy options and poverty reduction.

Whereas it is impossible to measure the impactof a single project or programme on nationalpoverty rates, it is possible to describe its plausi-ble contribution to poverty reduction. Specific out-comes for a targeted group can be documented.Several monitoring methodologies can makestatements on these outcomes, most of whichemphatically stress participation.

XXX

38

39

The last two questions, at the very least, must beasked directly of the beneficiaries of a specificcommunal project or programme. Their answersprovide a basis for estimating the scope andbreadth of a given projects’ impact.

The monitoring task is steadily being improved inthe contexts of disaster risk management andpoverty reduction. But currently, the monitoringinitiatives are being undertaken by two separatesets of experts, each focused on just one of thefields (poverty reduction or disaster risk manage-ment). Although the two groups of experts havemany problems in common and much experienceto share (such as in dealing with vulnerability),

they usually work parallel to each other. True,poverty normally plays an important role in themonitoring of disaster risk management, but dis-aster issues are almost completely neglected inthe monitoring of poverty reduction approaches.

The main message of this study is that the twotopics, disaster risk management and povertyreduction, should be combined. Naturally, thisalso applies to monitoring. It is essential to bringthe two expert groups together and to integratethe recently developed set of indicators on theeffects of disaster risk management, especiallythe analytical ones, into the monitoring of povertyreducing programmes and policies.

On behalf of the BMZ the GTZ-Mainstreaming Poverty Reduction Project advocates

structuring poverty-oriented monitory along the following questions or themes:

> Who benefits from the project/programme services provided? (Women, men, poor or less poor persons, etc.)

> To what extent were the services used? (Scale, duration, demand)

> Are the users satisfied with the services? What do they think about their quality? Do they fulfil important needs?

> How do the beneficiaries use the services to improve their lives?

This section discusses the relevance of a com-munity-based approach to disaster risk manage-ment. It presents two successful examples of re-ducing both poverty and disaster vulnerabilitythrough the application of local knowledge andinitiatives. We also focus on the roles of differentactors in disaster risk management, and outlineboth the common ground as well as thedifferences between disaster risk managementand poverty reduction.

4.1 Experience with disaster risk management and with coping systems at the local level

Local knowledge can contribute significantly tothe reduction of vulnerability. It is also consistentwith the principles behind GTZ’s community-

based approach to disaster risk management.The question that arises, however, is how localknowledge should be understood with referenceto disaster risk management and, particularly, tocoping systems at the local level.

For the purposes of this study, local knowledgecan be understood as the stock of skills, strate-

gies, and courses of action which local communi-ties have developed over the years to come toterms with threats to their livelihoods. This under-standing tallies well with the livelihoods approachpresented in the previous chapter in that it drawsattention to local perceptions, and also, evenmore importantly, to how local communities actupon these perceptions. Using a broad definitionof vulnerability, every measure that is designed toenhance the ability of a local community to copewith the hazards that threaten its livelihoodscould be seen as some form of disaster risk man-agement.

Development activities are geared towardsstrengthening the ability of communities to with-stand adversity. Adversity can come in the form ofa hazard that is beyond local coping capacities aswell as in the form of destitution. Both (the inabili-ty to cope and destitution) can be a cause aswell as an effect of disaster. More often than not,then, the challenge lies in explicitly making theconnection between disaster risk managementand poverty reduction in more development ini-tiatives.

We draw on three examples in order to illustratehow such connections could be shaped. Whiletwo relate to development initiatives, the thirdcase relates to the complex nature of disastersituations and how, under such circumstances,the connection between disaster risk manage-ment and poverty reduction can be practicallyestablished.

Misereor’s work in an impoverished and

drought-prone region of Zimbabwe

The first example concerns the work of the Ger-man NGO “Misereor” in the Zimbabwean regionof Mutare, in Manicaland province. Misereor sup-ports 250 families, who were resettled in thearea between 1980 and 1997. Over the past five

years, there has been little rainfall in the area as,indeed, in much of Southern Africa. As a result ofthis, the land is difficult to till and, consequently,the region is in the throes of hunger. Misereor’swork, carried out mainly by the Catholic Develop-ment Commission, helps the local community toadopt appropriate farming techniques. The fami-lies are assisted with irrigated, household veg-

40

4. The integration of disaster risk management and

poverty reduction: Activities, actors, and prerequisites

41

etable gardens that are to compensate crop fail-ure. They are encouraged to give priority toplants that require little water. Further, they aretaught to improve their storage technologies sothat they do not lose too many seeds. Finally,assistance is provided to them to raise goatsinstead of cows, as the former require approxi-mately nine times less water than the latter, withthe added advantage that their dung can beused on the fields.

In addition to these measures, which are a directresponse to the drought, Misereor is involved inother activities. These include the digging ofwells and the construction of canals and irriga-tion systems, schools, and health posts. Suchactivities not only help the 2000-people strongcommunity to withstand the onslaughts of na-ture, but also to respond actively to the ensuingpoverty situation. This is achieved by going be-yond prevention activities into forms of supportthat seek to restore some semblance of ordinarydaily life. Over a period of three years, Misereorwill channel € 165,000 of assistance to the com-munity. This is, in our view, a good example ofhow disaster risk management and poverty re-duction can be achieved concurrently at the locallevel. Misereor’s work in the region is consistentwith both: All that is missing is an explicit link be-tween the two.

CARE International’s attempt to re-vitalize

the livelihood strategies of the Tuareg

Another example is found in Niger in West Africa,where CARE International Germany helps Tu-areg nomads in the Air region to cope with thelong-term effects of the successive droughts ofthe seventies and eighties, as well as the conse-quences of the armed rebellion carried out from1991 to 1995. The Tuareg support themselvesthrough caravan trade, raising camels and goats,oasis gardening, and handicrafts. These econom-ic activities were severely affected by both thedroughts and the rebellion. As a result, not onlyhave the Tuareg become even more vulnerableto the natural hazard of drought, but also havebecome poorer.

CARE’s work aims at restoring the Tuaregs’ abili-ty to regain control over their habitat. In his de-

scription of the 1984 hunger crisis, German an-thropologist Gerd Spittler (1989), documentedhow the Tuareg had responded to the situation bystoically facing hunger and keeping their livestockalive until the bitter end. According to Spittler, therationale behind keeping their livestock was thehope that they might survive the crisis, and thenwould need livestock to start over with. CARE issensitive to this, as it orients its work towardsstrengthening the community’s ability to managein an environment for which they have developedcoping strategies that are increasingly provinginadequate. Once again, we have an examplethat demonstrates how inextricably intertwineddisaster risk management and poverty reductionare. Development initiatives under such circum-stances as faced by the Tuareg must be both.Here too, the challenge consists of making thelinkage more explicit.

The complexity of local perceptions and

coping strategies in disaster situations

in Mozambique

Our final example deals with the complexity ofdisaster situations. It is drawn from a village com-munity that was hit badly by the floods of 2000 insouthern Mozambique (see Christie and Hanlon2001 for an account of the humanitarian opera-tion). Although the village is located far from theflood plains of the Limpopo river, most of its mem-

bers have fields and cattle in the valley. Someeven have makeshift houses there, where theyoften stay for extended periods of time. Floodsare not completely unknown in the area. In fact,the villagers say that floods are like guests, theycome for a few days and then they depart. Theyare like generous guests, who bring presents.Indeed, floods clear the fields, loosen the soil andbring the promise of good harvests.

The floods in 2000, however, were unlike previ-ous floods. This was not because they were thebiggest in recorded memory, but rather becausethey stayed much longer than usual and whenthey finally left, they left hard soil behind whichthe villagers could not till with their simple hoes.As long as the water covered the length andbreadth of the plains there was a lot of nationaland foreign relief activity. As soon as the waterreceded, though, these relief agencies also de-parted and left the community to their owndevices. For these people, the real disaster wasnot the presence of the water, but rather their in-ability to come to terms with the situation left bythe floods. It was this inability which led villagersto consider the floods, retrospectively, as a disas-ter (for more details see Macamo 2003).

Much of the village is very poor. In the past, peo-ple’s main coping strategies have been labour

migration to other countries or to urban centres,family solidarity, and petty labour within the com-munity. Such strategies allowed the community toview natural hazards such as floods as naturalphenomena that did not necessarily mean misfor-tune or result in decline. But given the difficulteconomic situation that has been prevailing in thecountry and the region as a whole over the lastfew decades, these coping strategies have be-come useless. Thus the community is even morevulnerable to natural hazards, which in turn hasincreased its poverty. The village is locked in avicious circle from which it can emerge only if de-velopment policy purposefully combines disasterrisk management and poverty reduction. Thiswould mean taking into account local perceptionsof disaster and integrating them into policies de-signed to improve the community’s livelihoods.

Early warning systems were in place before thefloods in 2000 and worked quite well. Peoplewere warned well in advance of the floods. Butbecause the local people perceived floods as nat-ural, non-hazardous events with some benefits,they simply did not take the warnings seriously.As reported, many even refused to leave the val-ley, fearing that the warnings were a ploy by civilservants to get them off their land and steal theircattle. An otherwise effective prevention mecha-nism such as this early warning system can func-

42

43

tion properly only if it takes into account local ex-perience. In this case, it would have meant em-phasising measures designed to build trust be-tween the community and the state as well astranslating the technical language of early warn-ing into local idioms of reaction to hazards.

Experiences with disaster risk management andwith coping systems at the local level reveal thatdevelopment practice has, indeed, a wealth ofexperience that only needs to be explicitlyapplied. Development practice should and oftendoes include both disaster risk management andpoverty reduction, but the intrinsic connectionbetween the two must be reflected in the inten-tional design of interventions.

4.2 Who does what?

The discussion about the allocation of competen-cies and responsibilities is a highly political onethat must be carried out in order to achieve suc-cessful disaster risk management. Before pre-senting the recommendations for the integrationof poverty reduction and disaster risk manage-ment in section seven, we must come to a broadunderstanding of what the different actors in thedeveloping countries are already doing, and whyand how they are doing it. We take a closer lookat the functioning of institutions, and at the waydisaster risk is perceived and managed orreduced. Of course, the specific institutions in-volved vary from country to country; therefore,this section reviews the overall issues and gener-al principles.

Local actors

Local political institutions and local communitieshave played a major role in disaster risk manage-ment in recent years. This is appropriate, as theimpacts of disasters are mostly restricted to alocality or a region, and do not always affect anentire country. It also means that local knowledgemust be enhanced in order to minimise vulnera-bility to disasters. Further, national authoritiesoften fail to react rapidly and efficiently, so it isimportant that the endangered areas improvetheir own capabilities to prepare and protect theirpopulations. By shifting at least part of the

responsibility for disaster risk management to thelocal political level and local communities, an un-derstanding of local behaviour (settlement ondangerous slopes, deforestation) would neces-sarily become clearer to those most directly in-volved, and hence result in changed andimproved practices. The approach of community-based disaster risk management (GTZ 2003a)invests the affected people with a stake in deci-sion-making and greater responsibility, which isintended to produce more sustainable resultsthan would a top-down approach.

Local communities’ institutional capacities for ad-dressing hazards have long been underestimat-ed. Slowly, the scientific community and develop-ment practitioners have come to recognise howlocal communities diversify their production andmanage scarce resources to cope with naturalhazards. On the other hand, local institutions andcommunity networks clearly are overwhelmed byhazards that affect broad sectors of the popula-tion and require support from higher-level institu-tions, especially when HIV/AIDS, vulnerabilitiesthat emerge from changing demographics, or de-clining resources collide with the “natural” hazards.

Government

Although community-based disaster riskmanagement is an effective way to reduce vul-nerability to disasters, the national governmentremains the most important actor that managesthe overall system and is responsible for the safe-ty and security of its citizens. The government isthe institution that co-ordinates local, national andinternational approaches for managing disasterand ideally that equalises private and public inter-ests. But the government can perform satisfacto-rily only if it orients its behaviour to the three pil-lars of governance: economics, politics, and ad-ministration. Regarding the economic aspect ofgovernance, disaster risk management should bea consideration of the monetary and political deci-sions made by the state and should be accountedfor in the national budget. Seen from the politicalaspect, the government must establish the legalframework, provide for capacity development,and decide on the institutional set-up for disasterrisk management. Decisions and tasks that re-volve around disaster risk must be shared with

The integration of disaster risk management and poverty reduction

44


the other public and private stakeholders at thenational and sub-national levels. Naturally, anydecentralisation of disaster risk managementmust be accompanied by the decentralisation offinancial resources. And finally, the administrativeaspect requires governments to ensure thatagreed reforms of the institutions which accom-pany disasters are actually carried out.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

The NGOs in developing countries raise theirfunds mainly in northern countries, where it is fareasier to collect donations for traditional reliefassistance then for prevention, mitigation andpreparedness. For example, in 2001 the Euro-pean Union spent only 1,5 % of its EuropeanCommunity Humanitarian Office (ECHO)-budgetfor disaster mitigation and preparedness. Theremainder (approximately US $ 450 million) wasspent for humanitarian aid (IFRC 2002, p. 14.Total ECHO-budget in 2003 € 600 million.ECHO 2004, p. 13). The earmarking of funds typi-cally and persistently limits many NGOs to a tra-ditional disaster relief approach instead of adopt-ing a broader perspective on the relationship be-tween disaster and poverty reduction. Anotherreason for this is that funding for poverty reduc-tion is often fragmented and invested in small

projects that have very limited impact on structur-al risk reduction (Christoplos 2003, p. 98).

Nevertheless, some local NGOs have developedinteresting initiatives that aim at changing the re-lief approach and increasing the emphasis ondisaster mitigation and preparedness. One exam-ple is reported from the Gujarat State in India,where the work of 11 local NGOs in disaster riskmanagement was investigated by Oxfam (India)(Twigg 2001). As the impacts of disasters such ascyclones and floods (the study was carried outbefore the earthquake in 2001) slowed down de-velopment programmes, some NGOs rethoughttheir approaches. They demanded food securityprogrammes and the stimulation of economic ac-tivities specifically to prevent migration to hazard-prone locations. Plans exist for increasing earn-ings and savings to improve the standards of liv-ing and housing. NGOs that had already under-taken relief work began concentrating on improv-ing the capacity of disaster victims to effectivelydemand the relief to which they were entitled.

Numerous international NGOs are active in thedisaster risk management field. The activities ofthe German Agro Action in Nicaragua serve hereas a representative example of these initiatives.

4545

German Agro Action supports its national partnerin the set-up of community-based emergency aidcommittees. It also supports the formulation ofemergency aid plans, with the objective of intro-ducing a disaster risk management approach intolocal planning activities. To analyse the specifichazards in the project region, German Agro Actionassisted with the analysis of satellite photographsand climatic data and contrasting them with localcommon knowledge. The result was the produc-tion of maps that mark areas prone or vulnerableto hazards that are used as a planning base forregional policy (see: www.welthungerhilfe.de).

Multilateral and bilateral

development institutions

Interest in disaster risk management is growingamongst multilateral and bilateral developmentinstitutions. The World Bank, for instance, liststhree areas of action for reducing poverty in itsDevelopment Report 2000/2001 Attacking Pover-ty: In addition to promoting opportunity (under-stood as economic opportunity) and facilitatingempowerment, it strongly emphasises enhancingsecurity. Enhancing security is described as: “Re-ducing poor people’s vulnerability to ill health,economic shocks, crop failure, policy induceddislocation, natural disasters, and violence, aswell as helping them cope with adverse shockswhen they occur. A big part of this is ensuring thateffective safety nets are in place to mitigate theimpact of personal and national calamities.”(World Bank 2001, p. vi). The disproportionatelygreater impact of disasters on poor countries andespecially on the poorer population segments ofthe affected countries is a fact which has beenincorporated in the work of the Disaster Manage-ment Facility (DMF), the World Bank unit respon-sible for disaster risk reduction. The same is truefor the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)which intends to integrate disaster risk manage-ment checklists into all Bank development pro-grammes. This is a positive contribution to thecontinued pressing need for bridging the gap be-tween disaster risk management rhetoric andpractice.

UNDP, the UN organisation responsible for devel-opment and poverty reduction, focuses on

aspects of disaster risk management through itsBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery(BCPR). This set up promises to further the inte-gration of poverty reduction and disaster riskmanagement, as already evidenced by the new-ly-developed Disaster Risk Index (DRI). This in-dex fosters an improved understanding of therelationship between development and disasterrisk (UNDP 2004, p. 2). The DRI allowsstatements to be made about the average risk ofdeath from earthquake, tropical cyclones, andfloods for a specific country. “It also enables theidentification of socio-economic and environmen-tal variables that are correlated with risk to death…” (UNDP 2004, p. 30).

The United Nations declared the 1990s the “Inter-national Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction”(IDNDR). One result of this was theestablishment of the International Strategy forDisaster Reduction of the United Nations (ISDR)co-ordinated by the Inter-Agency Task Force onDisaster Reduction, supported by a secretariat inGeneva. This strategy involves several UN or-ganisations such as OCHA (Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs), WMO (WorldMeteorological Organisation), UNEP (United Na-tions Environment Program), FAO (Food andAgriculture Organisation) and WHO (WorldHealth Organisation). Its central objective is topromote disaster reduction in order to preventhuman, social, economic, and environmentallosses due to disaster.

The co-operation between UNDP and ISDR isvery fruitful. Currently, the two organisations areworking towards a framework for joint reportingon disaster risk reduction. UNDP plays an activeand central role in the implementation of the In-ternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction, al-though the implementation of disaster risk man-agement is also part of almost every UN strategyin disaster-prone countries.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ) declared asearly as 1997 that emergency-oriented develop-ment aid must be an integral part of developmentco-operation (BMZ 1997, p. 17). Disaster risk

management must be integrated into the devel-opment programmes of different sectors. Thisconcerns above all those programmes that sup-port decentralised municipal development, thesustainable management of natural resources,and rural development in hazard-prone regions.

The Federal Foreign Office is the leading ministryof the German government for humanitarian aidand disaster risk management. Its purpose in thecontext of disaster risk management is to promoteprojects for people who are highly vulnerable tonatural disasters. Because the findings ofresearch on disaster prevention all too often arenot put into practice, the Federal Foreign Officeconcentrates its efforts and funding on supportingdisaster risk management projects in doing justthis. Another pillar of its commitment is to furtherthe disaster risk management concept throughensuring its inclusion in the declarations and ac-tion plans of international conferences.

Since the IDNDR (International Decade for Natur-al Disaster Reduction 1990-1999), the GermanCommittee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV – suc-cessor of the „German Committee“), has beenemphasising the relevance of the disaster riskmanagement issue for developing countries with

special attention to the problems of extremepoverty. In preparation of the World Summit onSustainable Development (WSSD), DKKV pro-vided political advice to various ministries. At thattime and as a follow-up of the summit, DKKV un-derlined the necessity of effective disaster reduc-tion measures as a prerequisite to achieving sus-

tainable development, thus working towards anintegrated approach for the implementation ofdisaster reduction as a cross-cutting issue.

The scientific community

Extensive experience has demonstrated that put-ting scientific knowledge into practice is no simplefeat, but is hindered by complex socio-politicalprocesses. Hence the role of the scientific com-munity must be re-examined. Christoplos sees animportant new role for the ISDR (InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction) in bridging thisgap (Christoplos 2003, p. 101). The ISDR is theproduct of the IDNDR (International Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction), which had a primari-ly scientific orientation. Through different inter-agency working groups, ISDR promotes the inte-gration of scientific research on disaster into poli-cy, and takes a special look at the roles of vulner-able communities in risk management. In theGerman context, the DKKV platform supports the


46

47

establishment of multi-institutional and multi-sec-toral networks, including research institutions,implementing agencies, and political institutions(e.g., Zentrum für Naturrisiken und EntwicklungBonn-Bayreuth (ZENEB), Deutsches Forschungs-netzwerk Naturgefahren).

Fortunately, the previously one-sided preoccupa-tion with disaster issues on the part of the naturalsciences is slowly but surely changing. Now thereis increased co-operation between the social andthe natural sciences in performing research ondisaster risk management. Especially fruitful isthe collaboration between the branches of geolog-ical sciences and social and physical geography.

The private sector

So far, private sector engagement in disaster re-duction in poor countries has been limited. De-spite the current and fairly intense debate withthe insurance industry and even financial marketcompanies about the role they and their instru-ments should play in reducing disaster impact,no real business opportunities have been creat-ed to date. Nevertheless, international re-insur-ers such as “Munich Re” provide important ex-pert information about economic disaster risk.

Initial experience with a „work securityinsurance“ has been made by SEWA (Self-Em-ployed Women’s Association), an association forself-employed women workers in the informaleconomy in India (www.sewa.org). SEWAinsures 32,000 women against illness, widow-hood, fires, and floods. The organisation hasdemonstrated that insurance for the poor can berun in a self-reliant and financially viable way.

Water management, which represents a largemarket for international investment and is closelylinked to flood hazards and landslide risk, is an-other area were private investment could play asignificant role. So far, private investment in de-veloping countries focuses mainly on large citiessuch as Shanghai, Bogota, and Mexico-City, andis linked to infrastructure improvement. Thecompanies involved there engage very rarely inprotection of natural resources or the financingof integrated watershed managementprogrammes to reduce disaster risk. Main rea-

sons for this are imperfect environmental legisla-tion and the inadequate internalisation of exter-nal, environmental costs. The current debate on“green accounting” and the financing of environ-mental services might foster private investment inthe future, especially in this sector, as well as cre-ating income opportunities for farmers who pre-serve natural resources.

The most developed field of private investment isremote sensing and geological surveys. Privatesatellites, remote sensing, and geological surveyenterprises provide a wide range of very impor-tant services for early warning and disaster-sen-sitive planning procedures (e.g., for flood anddrought warning, seismic zoning, etc.). However,those services are financed mainly through multi-lateral loans or foreign technical assistance.

4.3 Prerequisites for an effective inte-gration of disaster risk managementand poverty reduction efforts

As early as 1994, Lavell stated: “… that significantchange will only be achieved to the extent that dis-asters and their mitigation can be transformed intoa significant political and economic problem, andan integral part of any development planningframework. To isolate disasters and make them a‘special problem’ is in itself an invitation to disaster.To the extent that governments operating underprecarious economic circumstances and facingmultiple social demands can be convinced thatinvestment in disaster prevention will bring real,accountable, tangible development benefits at alocal, region and national level, some advancemay be made. While disasters continue to be seenas ‘abnormal, ‘unpredictable’ and ‘uncontrollable’little will be achieved.” (Lavell 1994, p. 62).

Lately, attempts have been undertaken at severalpolitical and institutional levels to integrate disas-ter risk management and poverty alleviation ordevelopment planning in the spirit of Lavell’s text.But clearly, there is still a long way to go.

Fortunately, the preconditions for improving thisintegration already exist:

> The instruments and methodologies of povertyreduction and disaster risk management aresimilar (e.g., the sustainable livelihoodsapproach) and revolve around the same issues(such as the consideration of vulnerability inmonitoring activities). But further developmentand adaptation to specific situations continue totake place without taking into consideration theknowledge and experience which have alreadybeen made in the “other“ approach. In effect,each disaster risk management or poverty re-duction initiative starts from scratch, instead ofbeing based on shared experiences and mutuallearning. Exchange between the two fieldswould be fruitful for both.

> The sustainable livelihoods approach is broadlyaccepted, and can provide the framework andcontext for integrating disaster risk managementand poverty reduction. Where practitioners of

one are not familiar with the instruments of theother, exchanging information would enrichsustainable development planning. An exampleof this is risk analysis, which normally is notpart of poverty reduction measures.

> As cross-cutting issues, the points of departurefor poverty reduction and for disaster risk man-agement overlap. Ideally, representatives ofboth approaches do not act independently, butrather try to mainstream their concerns into po-litical decision-making. They also make effortsto integrate them into other development sec-tors, such as rural development, environmentalprotection, the health sector, etc. But so far,they typically try to do this individually, insteadof acting jointly.

> Both approaches are engaged are mostly thesame political and institutional levels. Disasterrisk management and poverty fighting meas-ures concentrate on local, national, and regionallevels.

> Moreover, the same is true for the institutionsand individuals responsible for the issues: Theyare also often identical.

Representatives of poverty reduction approacheshave, in recent years, been quite successful attaking this issue to higher decision-making levels,thus influencing policy. In contrast, disaster riskmanagement (still) is concentrated more at localand regional decision-making levels. For long-lasting and comprehensive development change,action at all political levels is indispensable. Thesuccess of disaster risk management, especiallythrough its community-based approach to locallevel decision-making is slowly but surely gainingrecognition. However, its role in supporting higherdecision-making levels should be enhanced.

So far, this study has taken a look at the actorsinvolved in disaster risk management and povertyreduction efforts, as well as local experience withboth. In the next section we examine how disas-ter risk management can contribute to variouspoverty reduction initiatives, as well as how dis-aster risk relates to national and internationalpoverty-fighting goals.


48

49

Poverty reduction is the overarching goal of theinternational community and is the focus of the Millennium Development Goals, the Poverty Re-duction Strategy Papers (PRSP), and other na-tional strategies, such as the German Program ofAction 2015, as just one example. The realisationof these programmes support the reduction ofdisaster risk. Likewise, disaster risk managementcontributes to reaching the overarching goal ofpoverty reduction.

5.1 What can disaster risk managementcontribute towards achieving theMillennium Development Goals(MDGs)?

At the UN General Assembly in 2000, all 190heads of the member states agreed to the Millen-nium Declaration. This declaration reaffirms cer-tain fundamental values as being essential to in-ternational relations in the twenty-first century:Freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respectfor nature, and shared responsibility. The 190

states adopted practical and achievable targets –The Millennium Development Goals – for reliev-ing the blight of extreme poverty and makingsuch rights as education, basic health care, andclean water a reality for all (Annan 2003, p. 2).The UN member states agreed on eight develop-

ment goals that have been broken down into 18targets with 48 indicators to measure progress.Most goals are to be achieved by 2015. All en-dorsing countries and international developmentorganisations now affirm that they are working toachieve these goals.

On behalf of the German government, the BMZhas developed the Program of Action 2015, whichoutlines the concrete steps Germany will take tocontribute towards reaching the goals andadvancing the fundamental values outlined in theMillennium Declaration.

The Millennium Development Goals are mutuallysupportive and require a multi-sectoral approach,including disaster risk management. Below, webriefly outline the relevance of and supportoffered by disaster risk management to the goals(UNDP 2004, p. 16).

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Disaster risk management is essential forpreventing disasters from increasing poverty ordestroying poverty reduction achievements. The

same is true forhunger. Poornourishmentreduces individ-uals’ capacity tocope with thestress causedby disasters.And disastersdestroyresources andassets, thusleading tohunger. Theobjective of dis-aster risk man-agement in thiscontext ideally

is to ensure that food production and stocks arenot threatened by hazards such as droughts,floods or tropical storms, in order to achieve sus-tainable food security.

5. Incorporating disaster risk management into national

and international poverty reduction concepts

“Interventions geared towards mitigating the adverse

effects of disasters and crises are a vital part of efforts to

achieve the Millennium Development Goals. After all, it is

the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed who are most af-

fected by environmental degradation, natural hazards or the

eruption of violent conflict. They are also the most likely to

suffer the consequences in the form of death and displace-

ment and the systematic loss of development gains.” (United

Nations General Assembly 2004, p. 20).

Incorporating disaster risk management into national and international poverty reduction concepts

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Proper education is effective in preventing disas-ters, because appropriate knowledge and analy-sis skills result in the understanding that environ-mental degradation increases vulnerability to po-tential hazards. Also, education helps preparepeople to participate actively in decision-makingprocesses, enabling them to defend their rights,for instance, to intact and resilient environments.But education can also be affected by disasters,for example, when educational facilities are de-stroyed by earthquakes or floods, are not safelyconstructed, or are built in unsafe locations. Oneobjective of disaster risk management is to en-courage governments to incorporate buildingcodes into national planning processes.

Goal 3: Promote gender equality

and empower women

A high rate of female illiteracy is one barrier towomen’s participation in important levels of deci-sion-making. Their low status in many cultures isanother. Most disaster mitigation and relief effortsare managed in high-level arenas where womenare not present. Consequently, their abundantknowledge on local sustainable development andrisk reduction is not available to the organisationsmaking the large-scale decisions. This real lossof potential human resources must be overcomeby “orienting disaster risk policy so that it builds

on the social capital represented by women [that]can enable a more informed development policy.”(UNDP 2004, p. 16).

Goals 4 - 6: Reduce child mortality, improve

maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria

and other diseases

Disaster and disease are closely intertwined. Theloss of resources such as tillable land throughnatural hazards can have severe impact on thehealth of the affected person. Children and preg-nant women experience higher risk, becausethey depend more than men on natural resourcesand family assets. The HIV/AIDS pandemic hasprogressively eroded the resilience of the ill indi-viduals, their families, communities, and govern-ments. Ill people cannot cope with the stresscaused by disasters, and the community that hasto care for them is likely to becomeoverburdened. Catastrophic events such asfloods or droughts destroy drinking water, sanita-tion, and health care systems, increasing the riskof disease. One of the objectives of disaster riskmanagement is to minimise the danger ofepidemics by minimising the causes.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Major disasters can destroy urban and rural envi-ronments. In turn, non-sustainable land-use pat-terns such as settlement in endangered areas,

50

the over-exploitation of natural resources, anddeforestation (to mention only a few) can triggerdisasters like landslides or floods. One of the fo-cal points of disaster risk management is to “en-courage governments to address the problemscreated by mega-cities, the location ofsettlements in high-risk areas and othermanmade determinants of disasters.” (ISDR2002, p. 288). Disaster risk management, thecentral tenet of which is the sustainable manage-ment of natural resources, supports this goal.

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership

for development

National debt burdens, trade restrictions, andglobal climate change are just some of the factorsthat hamper poverty reduction initiatives and cur-rently reduce human vulnerability to disasters ona global scale. Here, too, the two-way relation-ship between disaster risk and poverty becomesapparent. For instance, trade reforms can stimu-late a form of development that generates hazardand increases vulnerability, if disaster risk is nottaken into consideration. A global partnership thatintegrates disaster risk reduction into overall de-velopment policy is crucial.

The objective of the MDGs is to direct develop-ment planning towards priority goals. As we havementioned above, disaster risk management cancontribute towards achieving the MDGs. Andagain, the equation works both ways: All thesegoals can have an impact on disaster mitigation,because their object is to minimise poverty andvulnerability. But these affirmative statements areno guarantee for action, nor do they guaranteethat the processes entered into really will reducedisaster risk. For example, the third target of goalseven is improving the life of slum-dwellers, andits indicators are safe drinking water, sanitationand water disposal (UNDP 2002, p. 29). Howev-er, protection against floods and landslides wouldalso be important indicators. Unfortunately, theprovision of sanitation alone is no guarantee forsustainable development in disaster-prone areas.

Much work remains to be done. Efforts are need-ed both at the conceptual level to uncover thegaps between development measures and disas-

ter risk management in the MDGs and how theycould be overcome, as well as at the executivelevel to make development practitioners, govern-ments and citizens more aware of the disasterrisk issue.

5.2 How can disaster risk managementcontribute to improving PovertyReduction Strategy Papers(PRSPs)?

In 1999, at the G 7/8 summit in Cologne, a debtrelief initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Coun-tries (HIPC II) was signed. It established that fu-ture debt relief of the most highly indebted poorcountries was to be based on the drawing up ofstructural poverty reduction strategy papers(PRSPs), which present the countries’ develop-ment policies. The papers must satisfy a numberof conditions: They must promote macro-economic and financial stability, and must guar-antee the broad participation of civil society in theformulation, implementation, and monitoringprocesses. Funds freed up through debt remis-sion or made available by International Develop-ment Association (IDA) concessional loans(PRSPs have been made a requirement forthese) must support the reduction of poverty. Theownership of the formulation and implementationprocess is meant to lie in the hands of the indebt-ed country. A recipient country’s PRSP is also toserve as the basic reference for donor countriesin planning future assistance. About 70 countrieshave shown interest in preparing a PRSP, 44Full-PRSPs have been submitted to the WorldBank and at least 12 more countries have begunprogress in this direction, as they have submittedan Interim-PRSP (www.worldbank.org, February2005).

The overall assessment of PRSPs so far ismixed. One positive aspect is the general tenden-cy towards a stronger poverty orientation of policyprocesses. Others are higher transparency ofpolitical processes, the increased channelling offunds into social programmes, greater responsi-bility for development policy being taken by therespective countries, and greater civil society par-

51

52


ticipation. Civil society participation is, however,also one of the most strongly criticised aspects.Despite the gains, agreement is widespread thatbroad participation of civil society, parliamentsand other actors has been insufficient so far – insome cases, not truly taking place. Furthermore,the tendency of the World Bank, InternationalMonetary Fund, and donor countries to dominatethe processes reduces the recipient countries’actual ownership. The lack of clear priorities, thepredominance of short-term indicators, and over-ly positive estimates of future growth rates for thefunding of programmes are further negative as-pects.

Nevertheless, the PRSP is more than just anoth-er paper that the donor community demands fromthe developing countries. It certainly plays an out-standing role in the countries’ policies and in therelationships between donors and recipients –and probably not just because of the consider-able amounts of money which are negotiated onthe basis of PRSPs. Therefore, if the disaster-development linkage is to be supported at highlevels, the PRSP would be the right vehicle.

How can the knowledge of disaster risk manage-ment improve the PRSPs? What types of supportdo PRSPs offer in moving disaster prevention

and mitigation forward? Let us examine thePRSPs of two countries that have been severelyaffected by disasters, in recent years: Hondurasand Nicaragua. How are their experiences re-flected in their PRSPs?

Both papers shed light on the relationship be-tween environmental degradation and disasters:“The sustainability of the PRS is also related tothe need to reverse the process of environmen-tal deterioration, to decrease the level of ecologi-cal vulnerability and to prevent future disasters.”(PRSP – Honduras 2001, p. 93). And both pa-pers stick to the point that vulnerability to disas-ters and poverty go hand in hand. The analysisof the relationship, although sometimes a bit toosuperficial, appears reasonable. While develop-ing countries often are reproached for preferringthe preparedness and ad hoc responseapproaches over ones of disaster reduction or

mitigation (World Bank 2001, p. 172), this cannotbe confirmed for Honduras or Nicaragua,because reducing disaster is an integral part ofboth their PRSPs.

The Honduran paper emphasises housing prob-lems. This aspect of the disaster problematic isrepeated several times, for instance: “In the hous-ing sector, public funds have been allocated toprojects beyond the reach of poor families, result-ing in marginal neighbourhoods often built onsites unsuitable for habitation, lacking basic ur-banisation, full of environmental problems andexposed to natural disasters.” (PRSP – Honduras2001, p. ii).

The strategic planning of the Nicaraguan PRSP isorganised around four pillars. The third of these,better protection for vulnerable groups, points outthe relevance of disaster risk management. Asrevealed in the first paragraph explaining this pil-lar in the PRSP, the potential effects of disasterhave become a central concern: “Improved socialservices, however, may not be sufficient, to assistNicaragua’s extremely poor, as noted earlier, theyoften lack information on or the means to accessthese services. […] Moreover Nicaragua’s manynatural disasters perpetuate poverty.” (PRSP –Nicaragua 2001, p. 34).

5353

Although these examples take up the issue ofdisaster from different angles, two importantweaknesses relevant for dealing with disastersare evident in both:

> In general, the issue is not treated as a trans-sectoral one. Although it is true that a connec-tion is made to the environmental problem,there is almost none made, for example, to gov-ernmental or health aspects.

> Even more problematic is the fact that budget-ary allocations to the different programmes andprojects do not reflect the importance which thedisaster issue has been given in each of thetwo PRSPs. Although it is not always easy todiscern what is included under specific budget-ary rubrics, in the Honduran paper, for exam-ple, there is no specific heading which refers toimproving the housing conditions which arethreatened by disasters. And in the case ofNicaragua, no programme or project has beenplanned to improve the situation of the poorwho are vulnerable to disaster (other than theone food security programme for poor ruralfamilies affected by natural disaster that couldbe found). (PRSP – Nicaragua 2001, p. 131).

Ideally, what would be added on disaster riskmanagement so that PRSPs can be used moreeffectively to help people move out of poverty?

> Analytical work

Poverty analysis, which is a central element ofthe PRSPs, should be enlarged by risk analy-sis, an instrument that provides detailed infor-mation about the risk of disaster in a certainregion or sector of the population. The resultshould be a country-specific conclusion on thesignificance of vulnerability and disaster riskmanagement for poverty reduction. At thesame time, because risk analysis is a partici-patory instrument, the potentially affected pop-ulation would be involved in the different ana-lytical steps, which would raise awareness ofthe problems and processes of disaster riskmanagement.

> Formulation of the strategy

Based on the risk analysis, approaches to dis-aster mitigation and prevention should be incor-porated into the relevant sectors of the PRSP.For example, the section on good governancecould propose mechanisms to strengthen localcompetencies and responsibilities for disasterprevention and mitigation; the chapter on envi-ronmental protection could consider nationaland local regulation of land use; and so on.

> Implementation

During the implementation phase, particularlyrelevant sectors such as environmental andresource management, decentralisation,health, housing, and education should be givenspecial support (capacity development, advice,resources) for minimising risks and integratingdisaster risk management activities into theirprojects and programmes.

> Monitoring

Indicators that address the effectiveness of pol-icy measures that are essential to disaster pre-paredness, prevention and mitigation should beintegrated into the monitoring system.

We have outlined above – admittedly in a fairlysketchy way – how knowledge and instruments ofdisaster risk management could improve thePRSPs. In section 5.4, we discuss in more depthhow this can be done and, ideally, by whom. Butfirst we look at the relationship between disasterrisk management and Germany’s Program of Ac-tion 2015.

5.3 Disaster risk management and theGerman Program of Action 2015:In what ways do they coincide?

As mentioned earlier, the BMZ, on behalf of theGerman government, has developed theProgram of Action 2015 (AP 2015), which pres-ents the specific steps Germany is taking to con-tribute towards reaching the Millennium Develop-ment Goals. “For the German government,poverty reduction is an important element of itsoverall policy, which is guided by the principle ofsustainable development.” (BMZ 2001, p. II). Fur-thermore, poverty reduction has been designatedto be the overarching task of German develop-ment policy (BMZ 2001, p. II).

of poverty) has been fully incorporated into theAP 2015. This opens up broad fields of actionthat can address many aspects of poor people’ssituations in coupling disaster risk managementwith fighting poverty.

For example, two of the activities belonging to the6th priority area, ensuring access to vitalresources – fostering an intact environment, readas follows: “… the German governmentcontributes towards designing and formulatingUN policy in this area and supports projects tobetter protect people from natural events in coun-tries and regions that are highly prone to disaster.”And “[it] will support the elaboration of strategiesenabling poor population groups to adjust to cli-

mate change as a contribution towards food security and disaster prevention.” (BMZ 2001, p. 22).


54

The AP 2015 consists of ten priority areas for action, for each of which, in turn,

a number of specific activities are suggested.The priority areas for action are:

1. Boosting the economy and enhancing the active participation of the poor,

2. Realising the right to food and implementing agrarian reform,

3. Creating fair trade opportunities for the developing countries,

4. Reducing debt – financing development,

5. Guaranteeing basic social services – strengthening social protection,

6. Ensuring access to vital resources – fostering an intact environment,

7. Realising human rights – respecting core labour standards,

8. Fostering gender equality,

9. Ensuring the participation of the poor – strengthening good governance,

10.Resolving conflict peacefully – fostering human security and disarmament.

It should be noted that the expanded definition ofpoverty according to the OECD-DAC Guidelineson poverty reduction (see figure 1 – Dimensions

55

In addition, the AP 2015 provides a framework foraction on disaster reduction, which encompassesthe following activities (BMZ 2001, p. 22):

> Turn research findings of specialist academicinstitutions on disaster prevention into practicalsolutions which can be implemented,

> Strengthen national and international disasterreduction committees,

> Develop intersectoral disaster reduction networks,

> Support training and education measures atschools, universities and in adult education,

> Establish international co-ordinating agenciesto provide early warning about floods, fires, etc.,

> Participate in shaping and formulating UN disaster reduction policy.

Despite its advancement of these important activ-ities, there is still a need that the Program of Ac-tion 2015 takes up disaster risk managementmore systematically. The importance of the rela-tionship between disaster risk and such relevantissues as, for example, economic development(priority area for action 1) is until now not clearenough.

So far, two AP 2015 progress reports are avail-able, giving us the opportunity to see how theactivities relating to disaster risk managementhave progressed and been realised.

Both reports, dated June 2002 and January 2004,are still vague concerning disaster risk managementissues. They do not make it possible to trace thedifferent actions prescribed by the AP 2015 tolearn of specific progress over the past threeyears in the area of disaster prevention and miti-gation. In the corresponding line of action underthe heading “realisation of emergency aid and itseffective connection with structural reconstructionand disaster prevention and mitigation,” there is avery general indication that programmes of theUNHCR receive support form the German gov-ernment. The report also says that development-

oriented emergency aid in the water, health andeducation sector has been realised (BMZ 2002,p. 22-23). Further information on particular activi-ties related to the reduction of disasters is notprovided in this first progress report.

The second progress report, formulates generalstatements about the importance of disaster riskmanagement to guarantee sustainable develop-ment (BMZ 2004, p. 12-13 and 27-29). A concretereference to the AP 2015 framework of action ondisaster reduction is the realisation of the interna-tional conference on early warning in 2003 (BMZ2004, p. 14).

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from thesereports – that Germany has supported preciousfew activities in the field of disaster reduction –would definitely be false, because it in fact hassupported numerous activities. Unfortunately,they simply were not included in these progressreport. In its twelfths report on development coop-eration the German Federal Government statesthat, according to paragraph VI of the MillenniumDeclaration, it aims at reducing the disaster riskin affected countries by three elements: The riskanalysis, the disaster prevention and the prepara-tion for disasters. In the report preventive recon-struction is regarded as an additional element,which tends to include disaster prevention inplanning and implementation of emergency aidas well as in reconstruction schemes (BMZ 2005,p. 77-79).

We can draw certain conclusions from analysingthese three papers:

> A process-oriented understanding of disasterrisk management exists, which goes far beyondthe former approaches of disaster prepared-ness or emergency aid.

> The understanding of disaster as a trans-sec-toral issue, as set out in the 1996 BMZ policypaper entitled “BMZ’s Development-orientedEmergency Aid,“ has not yet been acted uponthoroughly (cf. GTZ 2002, p. 24). For example,no linkage has been established between thelast priority areas for action (resolving conflictspeacefully) and disaster risk management. Theidea of complex emergencies, which hasmoved beyond a linear explanation of disasterrisk towards a socio-political perspective whichrecognises the links between armed conflictsand vulnerability, should be more incorporatedinto the AP 2015.

The Program of Action 2015, because of its im-portance for the BMZ and the German govern-ment, is the point of departure for making theconnection between poverty reduction and disas-ter risk management. The ground is prepared; thedetails are in progress to be worked out.

5.4 How can disaster risk managementbe applied ideally within the different national and internationalpoverty reduction and developmentconcepts?

Generally speaking, it is true that a lot of elementsof the different poverty reduction and developmentstrategies can have a positive impact on govern-ments and individuals who must cope with haz-ards. The good governance discussion – which isalso central for the German Program of Action2015 – takes up the question of the rights, dutiesand responsibilities of the government and civilsociety. It emphasises the issues of enforcementand setting up the required institutions, which arealso important for the prevention and mitigation ofdisasters. The broad understanding of poverty re-duction which underlies the Millennium Develop-ment Goals stipulates important economic and

56

social conditions for the participation of vulnerablegroups in decision-making. The Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper (PRSP) places empowerment atthe centre of poverty reducing strategies. The ob-jective of the recommended pro-poor or broad-based approaches to growth is to achieve equi-table reinforcement of the economic capacities ofpoor and vulnerable groups. Because of their over-whelming importance, each of these could serveas a useful point of departure for programmes,measures and instruments of disaster risk man-agement. But while many of them officially recog-nise the importance of disaster risk managementin meeting their own goals, the actual practise re-mains far behind.

What is still needed is:

> Thorough and systematic treatment of the dis-aster risk issue, not as an „add on“, but as atrans-sectoral theme in MDG, PRSP and AP2015 discussions, implementation and reports,

> Reflection of the importance of disaster riskmanagement, not only in the poverty analysis,but also in indicator lists, budgets, etc.

Why has this not yet happened consistently?

> Doubt exists as to the benefit of investment indisaster risk management, especially in areaswere disasters occur only seldomly,

> The complexity of the relationship betweenpoverty reducing strategies and the disasterrisk management can paralyse action,

> Insufficient knowledge about the options andadvantages that disaster risk management hasto offer.

How can German development co-operation further promote disaster risk management?

Raising awareness and developing capacity areessential, basic requirements for the implementa-tion of disaster risk management strategies inpoverty reduction programmes.

57

Although the interrelation between disaster riskmanagement and fighting poverty seems obvi-ous, it is still necessary to point this out repeated-ly in order to raise awareness about it (which isalso true for other trans-sectoral issues, such assustainability and gender). Local people’s interestin the issue must be aroused, and broad supportfor it must be mobilised amongst public-sectorinstitutions in both developing and developedcountries. “Raising awareness involves helpingpeople and institutions to better grasp the hazardproblem and current levels of vulnerability, aswell as the cost and benefit connection in disas-ter risk management at the economic, social andpolitical level.” (GTZ 2002, p. 32).

Raising awareness is strongly interconnectedwith capacity building or capacity development.Although Holloway mentions that even signifi-cant investments in capacity building have notalways fulfilled the promise of strengthened dis-aster reduction capabilities (Holloway 2003, p. 2and p. 6), they are no less necessary for produc-ing skilled practitioners able to integrate disasterconsiderations into ongoing activities and servic-es. The GTZ policy paper on “Capacity Develop-ment for Sustainable Development” does notonly focus on people’s or organisations’ capaci-ties, but also on the strengthening of institutionalcapacities (GTZ 2003, p. 3). This relatively newapproach reinforces previous capacity buildingefforts, and makes them more effective.

In accordance with the message of this policypaper, capacity development should adopt thefollowing three focuses:

Human Resource Development

Human resource development is especially rele-vant to the PRSP approach, because ideally itinvolves civil society in the formulation of thestrategy, its implementation, and the monitoringprocesses. Therefore, citizens should know aboutthe advantages of risk analysis. They should beable to articulate their knowledge, for instanceabout coping strategies, so that it might be con-sidered in the formulation of the PRSP. Toimprove the implementation phase, citizensshould be informed about such issues as environ-mental aspects and how they relate to disaster

risk. Moreover, they should have the skills to inte-grate disaster considerations into poverty reduc-ing programmes and projects. And finally, civilsociety should learn how to measure progress indisaster prevention and mitigation. In most coun-tries, significant capacity building is needed toenable civil society to perform these tasks. It isalso necessary to enhance people’s negotiatingand articulating skills through special training pro-grammes, so that they are able to assert theirright to live in safety.

Organisational development

NGOs need to be equipped to become able part-ners of government in the PRSP context. Manyorganisations require training to deepen their the-oretical knowledge about the relationshipbetween poverty reduction and disaster risk man-agement, as well as their lobbying skills, so thatthey can take part effectively in policy dialogues.NGOs need to be conversant in cost-benefitanalysis, in order to convince and put pressureon decision-makers in favour of disaster riskmanagement. They also need to learn how totransform theoretical knowledge into practicalwork, so that they can influence the projects andprogrammes that result from the PRSP.

In some countries, the PRSP-process goes hand-in-hand with decentralisation efforts, creating newduties for NGOs. Many NGOs need support indeveloping their own position within this new con-stellation, and their role in disaster risk manage-ment. These changes also create the risk that


some governments might try to dispense of un-popular issues by turning them over to NGOs. IfNGOs are assigned disproportionate amounts ofresponsibility for some of the underlying tasks ofdisaster risk management, they could well beoverburdened in the long run.

Institutional development and the

development of policies

The three poverty-fighting initiatives that are fo-cused on in this section, the Millennium Declara-tion with its MDGs, PRSP, and the German AP2015, can be improved through increasing andbroadening knowledge within the decision-mak-ing institutions on how disaster risk managementand poverty reduction are related. Making thisinterconnection clear is also a prerequisite fortreating disaster risk management as a trans-sectoral issue. In addition, the capacity to devel-op mechanisms for transforming this knowledgeinto practice must be enhanced.

Development co-operation must strengthen thecapacities of institutions in developing countriesto deal with hazards in terms of disaster risk man-agement, and to overcome the limited approachof preparedness and response, which is stillwidely practised. Already, PRSPs often reflectthis programmatic shift, but the supporting budg-

etary shift still remains to be realised. The negoti-ation capacities of the ministry or institution incharge of disaster management must bereinforced so that it is able to bring the issue tothe table, even in the face of severe economicand political constraints. New legislation is need-ed; once passed, the laws must be enforced.Such laws should include environmental regula-tions and building standards, for instance, for ap-propriate design and materials in earthquake-prone regions.

Whether the application of disaster risk manage-ment development is successful or not also de-pends on a number of factors over which devel-opment policy has little influence. These includethe general political situation, the specific context(e.g., the country’s disaster history), and theopenness of different actors towards change.

But there are numerous other points ofdepartures for our concern beyond its integrationinto high-level poverty reduction approaches. Thefollowing section looks at the role to be played byacademic research, while the final section pro-vides a broader spectrum of recommendationsfor integrating poverty reduction and disaster riskmanagement.


58

59

6.1 Introduction

Both disaster risk management and poverty re-duction are central focuses of development work.While the former can be loosely located at theinterface between development aid and reliefwork, the latter belongs squarely to the area ofdevelopment aid. Since this paper makes thecase for bringing the two focuses closer together,it appears that the main contribution that the sci-entific community can make in this regard willrefer to the limits and potential of such an under-taking. This has both advantages and disadvan-tages. The obvious advantage is that, ideally, sci-ence takes a considerable step back from prac-tice to be able to reflect upon what takes placewithout necessarily committing itself to the actualoutcomes. The disadvantages follow preciselyfrom this distance. Indeed, development and re-lief work are about people and their livelihoods.The measure of any reflection is often the impactit has on them. The academic tendency not tocommit itself to practical outcomes may be coun-terproductive if science is not prepared to thinkthrough the policy implications of its findings.

Still, we think that there is some sense in embark-ing upon an academic exercise, the immediatepractical relevance of which is not apparent.Much policy work is informed by academic reflec-tion, particularly the areas under discussion,namely disaster risk management and povertyreduction, which by and large reflect the state ofthe art in academic discussions. The purpose ofthis chapter is to reflect upon issues that, on thesurface, might not be of immediate practical rele-vance, and yet are central to anticipating potentialproblems and bottlenecks. The direction in whichwe argue here should neither be taken as the lastword in academic discussion, nor should it beheld to enumerate the only issues and approach-es worthy of scientific consideration. Rather, itreflects where the attempt at combining disasterrisk management and poverty reduction led us interms of considering the issues and conceptualframeworks most likely to stimulate scientific dis-cussion that can be useful to practice.

In chapters two and three, an attempt was madeto demonstrate how vitally important it is to bring

disaster risk management and poverty reductioncloser together. Of the reasons that were givenfor this attempt, two stand out. The first is thatneither development practice nor the scientificcommunity have seriously undertaken to explore(i) the potential such a linkage may have. Indeed,the trend has been towards viewing them sepa-rately and seeking to address them according tothe types of issues each of them raises. Develop-ment practitioners, for example, have been con-cerned with enhancing the ability of countries tocope with natural disasters by strengthening theirprevention mechanisms. The scientific communi-ty, in turn, has concentrated its attention on clari-fying the concept of risk, how it can be measured,and by whom. While useful in their respectiveareas of application, these endeavours havestopped short of drawing the implications thatseem to us necessary in order to meet the chal-lenges of development. One way in which devel-opment implications could have been drawnmight have been a concentrated analysis of (ii)the impact disaster risk has on poverty reduction,as clearly set out in chapter 5. This is in fact thesecond reason why we recognised the need todemonstrate the importance of seeing disasterrisk management and poverty reduction as a co-dependent pair.

In fact, bringing these two concepts togetherwould, in our view, allow both development practi-tioners and the scientific community to rethink thegoals of development aid in a very fruitful man-ner. As we have attempted to show, vulnerabilityto disaster can both be the result of the conditionof poverty of a country and sections of its popula-tion, as well as a major cause of it. In otherwords, vulnerability can both describe the extentof a country’s poverty and the range of problemsit must come to terms with in order to overcomeits condition.

Before delving into the research implications sug-gested by the approach favoured in this paper, itis important to bring into focus some of the morerelevant elements of the academic approach todisaster risk management and poverty reduction.For ease of presentation, our attention is directedto the conceptual approaches which have provedmore difficult to integrate within the context of

6. Identification and description of aspects

demanding further research efforts

more practical development work. As we hope toshow, these approaches contain useful elementsthat point out the potential of bringing disasterrisk management and poverty reduction closertogether, thereby further accessing the main ar-gument of this paper. The emphasis will, there-fore, be on the conceptualisations of risk as anormal and necessary feature of life as far as dis-aster risk management is concerned, and “institu-tionalisation” with regard to poverty reduction.

6.2 Disaster management and risk

The scientific study of risk has traditionally beendominated by economics and, to a lesser extent,psychology. Indeed, central to the concerns ofscience has been the attempt to understand howindividuals and societies come to terms with inse-curity. As the often cited etymology of the conceptof risk suggests, this concern dates back to me-dieval Europe, more specifically to the Italian no-tion of “risicare” (to dare). It referred to the dangerof loss associated with the hazards of sea trade.The idea of insurance developed, therefore, as aresponse to this danger and was meant as acushion for merchants in the event of loss of theirmerchandise. In other words, through insurance,merchants transferred the danger of loss to bro-kers who made a living out of taking risks on be-half of others.

What articulated risk taking and the danger ofloss was insufficient information as well as lack ofcontrol over external factors inherent in tradingactivities. To put it differently, merchants wereneither sure whether their merchandise wouldreach its destination, nor could they control suchexternal factors as weather conditions, security inhigh seas, or fluctuations in prices and consumerpreferences. Frank Knight (1964), the first mod-ern economist to devote considerable attention torisk, identified risk-taking as the driving force be-hind capitalist entrepreneurship. Only those pre-pared to take chances could also make profits. Infact, this idea has been central to economic think-ing on risk (see Bernstein 1996). It provides, in avery important sense, a societal definition which,as we will show shortly, has played a major role in

the attempts to understand disaster and risk inthe developing world. True, modern capitalist so-ciety emerges in this understanding as a type ofsociety that comes to terms with insecurity bytaking risks.

Economists have not been alone in this under-standing. Philosophers (see for example Hacking1990) and historians (Porter 1995) as well as so-ciologists (Kaufmann 1973, Nowotny and Evers1986) have reflected upon chance, probability,quantification, and science in a general sense asthe modern response of Western society to inse-curity. This view has led some (Bonß 1995, seealso Beck, Giddens, Lash, 1994, although not ina direct way) to suggest a classification of soci-eties around notions of risk. The immediate impli-cation of such a classification centres around twoclosely related notions, namely insecurity anduncertainty. The former refers to a conscious andinformed decision to take risks, whereas the latterdescribes the condition of individuals and soci-eties that lack sufficient information to take risksconsciously. Thus, risk and everything that comeswith it is held to be typical of modernity.

This view has been challenged by many scholars.One particularly relevant challenge was posed byMary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1982). Intheir work they operate with a less deterministicnotion of risk. They assume that all societies andindividuals can, and do, take risks. They differ,perhaps, in the type of risks they take as well asin the value they attach to risk-taking behaviour.These insights allowed them to identify different“risk cultures”, a concept that we do not intend topursue as it would take us too far away from ourmain concern. But Douglas’ and Wildavsky’sreservations are important because they concep-tualise risk as an anthropological constant. Thishelps us to put into perspective a very importantconceptual contribution to the risk debate whichhas direct relevance to this study.

Niklas Luhmann, a German sociologist,introduced an analytical distinction between haz-ard and risk (1991; 1990). Previous scientific dis-cussion had implied that risk-taking is modernwhile vulnerability to hazards is traditional. Luh-

60

6161

Identification and description of aspects demanding further research efforts

mann suggests that both are dimensions of thesame phenomenon. Risk, in his view, is simplythe conscious and calculated decision to face ahazard. In other words, risks are not necessarilya bad thing, but rather an essential feature of life.Indeed, most of life consists of risk-taking in thesense of translating hazards into risks. Luhmann’sanalysis is meant to shed light on the discussionthat followed Ulrich Beck’s seminal work on therisk society (1986). While acknowledging thefears of those who saw more disadvantages thanadvantages in technological developments, forinstance, Luhmann draws attention to the appar-ently contradictory fact that the price of security isnot less, but rather more risk. To put it simply, theability of societies and individuals to reduce inse-curity hinges on their ability to translate hazardsinto risks.

There are two conclusions which can be drawnfrom Luhmann’s conceptual clarification, both ofwhich are of enormous importance to the subjectat hand. One conclusion is that risk is an imma-nent feature of social life, and by implication, itinheres in almost everything that individuals andcommunities do. The other conclusion is that anydiscussion of risk must take into account thestructure of decisions that help individuals and

communities to take risks. As far as the first con-clusion is concerned, the central idea boils downto the need to ask how far the factors that influ-ence the lives of individuals and communities can be classified as hazards or risks in terms ofLuhmann’s analytical distinction. Developmentpractice has used a variety of concepts such asvulnerability and livelihoods analysis in order tograsp the factors which stand in the way of im-proving living conditions. One shortcoming ofsuch concepts is their reliance on a structural approach which leaves too little room for the rolethat individuals and communities play in structur-ing their own lives. Indeed, there is a tendency toportray individuals and communities as victims ofalien factors. The analytical separation of haz-ards from risks allows for descriptions which em-phasise local agency by drawing attention to indi-vidual and local understandings of problems andlocal solutions to them.

As for the structure of decisions, there are twoaspects to be borne in mind. On the one hand, itis of interest to know how individuals and commu-nities produce their risks and, on the other hand,how the efficiency of those risks is hampered byfactors beyond their control. The first aspect isrelated to what individuals and communities con-


62

sider to being hazards and, consequently, howthey translate them into risks. Life in a drought-prone region can be made bearable by the diver-sification of income sources through migrantlabour, kinship solidarity and, indeed, politicalviolence, among other strategies. An adequatedescription of the structure of decisions requiresan account of the strategies which individuals andcommunities adopt to come to terms with theirnatural, economic, political and social environ-ment. The second aspect asks questions aboutthe external environment that influences the effi-cacy of local risk producing activities. In otherwords, how useful is migrant labour as a copingstrategy vis-à-vis drought in times of economicslump or restrictions in cross-border movements?How do individuals and communities react tosuch external constraints, i.e. how do they trans-late them into risks?

It follows from this brief account of the academicapproach to risk that the notion of disaster riskmanagement requires conceptual clarification.For one thing, it sounds like a contradiction interms. Strictly speaking, i.e. in terms of the ana-lytical distinction between hazard and risk, therecan be no such thing as “disaster risk manage-ment”, but rather disaster management, whichcan be analytically translated as risk. Disastermanagement aims at producing, or enabling indi-viduals and communities to produce their risks. Inso doing it diminishes their vulnerability to natural,economic, political and social hazards. This is, ofcourse, not particularly innovative when seenagainst the background of development practice.In fact, the notion of disaster risk managementinvolves not only the appraisal of the hazardswhich individuals and communities face, but alsoa consideration of the activities which must beundertaken in order to prevent or, at least, tobuffer their impact. In this sense, then, looking atdisaster management as risk only restates whatdevelopment practice has been doing all along.What is different, however, is that this conceptualapproach does not restrict its definition of haz-ards to factors external to individuals and com-munities. Not only are droughts, floods, volcaniceruptions as well as wars and economic slumpsto be seen as hazards, but also all activities thatare undertaken in order to come to terms withhazards. We shall come back to this point later.

6.3 Poverty reduction

Academic discussion on poverty has centred onmeasurement much like discussions in develop-ment practice itself. Measurement should be un-derstood in broad terms. In fact, it refers to themain activity of science, which consists of work-ing out criteria on the basis of which empiricalreality can be described. In this very broadsense, therefore, measurement is about defini-tion. Only on the basis of definitions can the real-ity of poverty be retrieved in the form of a discus-sion of its causes as well as effects, but also theimpact of various policy-measures on poverty asa whole. Debates on measurement reflect, there-fore, basic contradictions as well as agreementsover reality. Notions such as relative and

63

absolute poverty as well as the more generalhead count index and human development indexdo offer an adequate framework for academics topursue their inquiries into the empirical reality ofthe concept of poverty. This framework, however,appears to have serious shortcomings, the mostimportant of which is the circular nature of theunderlying concept of poverty. Indeed, the tradi-tional understanding of poverty allows develop-ment practitioners to merely state the problem. Itis descriptive in nature, not analytical.

Since a major goal of academic research is theanalysis of social, economic, political and naturalphenomena it would appear that one contributionscience can make to poverty reduction is to gobeyond its descriptive content and seek to uncov-er its analytical elements. Over and above legiti-mate criticisms that academics have voiced as tothe sheer complexity of defining poverty in waysacceptable to normatively informed individual andinstitutional actors, it seems that there is one em-pirical aspect that should not be neglected. Thedefinitional difficulties have never prevented indi-viduals and institutions from tackling the problemof poverty. The starting point for analytical reflec-tion should, therefore, be precisely how the prob-lem of poverty has been tackled.

Poverty might be thought of not simply as an es-sential category, but also as a social construct.The inflationary use of social constructivism in thesocial sciences should not prevent us from ac-knowledging the extent to which poverty becomesa sociologically visible problem not when peoplesuffer or experience it, but rather when the suffer-ing it causes becomes the object of intervention.This insight goes back to the German sociologist,Georg Simmel, who argued (1999 [1908]) that,sociologically speaking, poverty was above allelse an institutional category. While this mightappear at first sight to be extremely restrictive, wethink it offers us interesting possibilities to pursuelines of inquiry that may still prove relevant. Sim-mel argued, in fact, that poverty was the object ofsocial, economic or political intervention. In otherwords, not the actual suffering of people is of in-terest to a sociological description and analysis ofthe phenomenon of poverty, but rather the way inwhich society gives visibility to that suffering. The

underlying idea in this perspective is that the rea-sons which make individuals or institutions wishto tackle the problem of poverty are essential toan understanding of the phenomenon itself.

This idea is of much relevance to poverty reduc-tion for three main reasons. First of all, it providesan approach to poverty which makes light of thedistinction between qualitative and quantitativedescriptions of the phenomenon. Indeed, oncepoverty is seen as that which lends legitimacy toinstitutions, the question of whethermeasurement should be qualitative or quantita-tive loses relevance as the main criterion for defi-nition. This does not, however, mean that meas-urement is not important, it only becomes sec-ondary to the important task of knowing what cri-teria institutions use to make sense of poverty.Secondly, the difficulties that academics and de-velopment practitioners have always experiencedin their attempts at defining poverty are partly re-lated to the concept’s heavy reliance on normativ-ity for coherence. There is, in this connection, thedanger of seeking to overcome these difficultiesby adopting extreme relativist positions. Onesuch relativist position would insist on viewingpoverty perhaps in cultural terms. Understandingpoverty as an institutional product helpssurmount these difficulties by drawing analyticalattention to the norms that inform one particularcase of poverty and the debates which give visi-bility to it. Such norms and debates are at the ba-sis of institutions which address the issue ofpoverty. In other words, one does not need to ar-gue that poverty is in the eye of the beholder, forthe one form of poverty that is of interest is thepoverty that is made visible by intervention. Inthis sense, therefore, approaching poverty fromthis perspective allows us to ask questions con-cerning how a given society or communityaddresses the problem and draw further policyimplications using available understandings asthe starting point for discussion. Finally, this ap-proach draws attention to one crucial, but oftenneglected aspect of development practice. Forintervention to be sustainable it must be firmlylocated within the society where the problem tobe tackled is. The institutional production ofpoverty implies that programmes to fight povertyare endogenous in a very important sense, i.e.


64

they reflect how a given society makes the prob-lem visible and amenable for intervention.

An interesting problem arises out of thisapproach. Indeed, if attention is brought to bearon the way in which a society or community givesvisibility to poverty, legitimate fears may arise asto those sections of any given population – eth-nic, religious or racial minorities, women, age-groups, etc. – whose poverty is not the subject of“official” attention. More often than not, this is thepoint at which international development institu-tions and programmes and local communitiesmay clash over the purpose of intervention aswell as the priorities that should be set. The inter-national development institutions by virtue of theirhumanitarian mandate have a universal approachto poverty which is larger and more ambitious inscope than the intellectual, material and politicalmeans available to local communities or develop-ing societies. Acknowledging local communities’or developing societies’ institutional definitions ofpoverty amounts to being sensitive to the intellec-tual, material and political constraints withinwhich they tackle the problem of poverty. Thissensitivity, however, does not commit the interna-tional development institutions to ignoring otherforms of suffering in any given local community orsociety. On the contrary, a focus on local institu-tional definitions may allow us to see the greyareas in such definitions and give us valuable

insights into how neglected forms of povertymight be addressed in a constructive manner withlocal communities and societies. Looking at howcommunities and societies give visibility topoverty is a preliminary to further work.

6.4 Disaster risk management andpoverty reduction

Academically, the attempt to bring disaster riskmanagement and poverty reduction together isrelatively easy to accomplish from a construc-tivist position as generally expounded here. In-deed, we have looked at both notions not as es-sential categories, but rather as processes. Froman academic point of view, the challenge in artic-ulating these notions for development practiceconsists in stressing their process character bylooking at the way in which both risk and povertyare produced. Risk production is a constitutiveelement of social, political and economic life

much like the visibility of poverty is the result ofhuman intervention through institutions. Theprocess character which these categories have isdeeply related to a much larger process, namelydevelopment itself. Indeed, there is a sense inwhich risk production and the institutionalisationof poverty can be taken as indicators of develop-ment.

The purpose of disaster risk management andpoverty reduction is to make development possi-ble. While development can be understood inmany different ways, two stand out which clearlyarticulate present concerns regarding relief andhumanitarian interventions. One can understanddevelopment, on the one hand, as the promotionof well-being or, on the other, as the creation ofconditions which are conducive to such well-be-ing. In both cases, risk and poverty offer usefulanalytical elements. Disasters, in particular – butthe same can be said of poverty – show the fis-sures within the social, economic and politicalstructures of societies which stand in the way ofdevelopment. When risk production fails and dis-asters strike, these fissures develop into crackswhich disrupt the normal structure of everydaylife. In a way, then, and contrary to a widely heldview, it could be argued that disasters do not put

65

development at risk. As a matter of fact, disastersbring to full view the very problem of developmentin these societies. One consequence of this issurely that disasters, as indeed poverty alsodoes, provide an entry point to understanding andtackling the problems of development.

The combination of disaster risk managementand poverty reduction in the sense suggestedhere can be understood as a plea to insist on anotion of development that places emphasis onenabling aid recipients to formulate their own so-lutions. This insistence does not commit anyoneto the view that local communities know betterand that they are best left alone as a naïve “peo-ple’s first approach” might feel tempted to emu-late. It means solely that disaster risk manage-ment and poverty reduction stand a better chanceof success if they are based on local processes ofrisk production and poverty institutionalisation.

The idea of risk production can be expanded tocover not only natural, economic, political andsocial hazards, but also foreign humanitarian anddevelopment intervention. Indeed, developmentinitiatives from abroad reflect processes of riskproduction in the countries in which they wereformulated. In local African contexts, such initia-tives are not risks, but hazards, which local com-munities have to tame in order to be able to goabout their lives. In a nutshell, development aidand humanitarian intervention can be majorsources of insecurity in local contexts. An evenmore important point that could be made, onethat ties up nicely with the conceptual distinctionsmade further above, is that both humanitarian aswell as development policy would be well advisedto approach the problem of vulnerability as onethat has a global complexity. Features of capital-ist industrialisation may contribute towards anunequal distribution of risks to the disadvantageof developing countries, as Ben Wisner (2003)persuasively argues. Nonetheless, policy makersshould resist the temptation to reduce the com-plexity therein involved by assuming simplecausal relationships of the type implied in theidea that capitalist industrialisation causes pollu-tion and, thereby, the vulnerability of people indeveloping countries. Capitalist industrialisationis the response of specific societies to their per-

ception of hazards. Through industrialisation theynot only seek to reduce their vulnerability to haz-ards, but also, and more importantly, they pro-duce risks, which structure their social, economicand political institutions. Pollution appears in twoconceptually different lights. As far as developedsocieties are concerned in their relationship withless developed regions, pollution can be seen asa risk, whereas for developing societies on thereceiving end of technology it can be construedas a hazard. In other words, while it is true thatthis view may be flawed by a certain homogenis-ing perspective – after all, pollution affects peopleeven in developed countries differently (see Gee-nen 2004) – the latter lack the institutionalarrangements necessary to tame its consequences.The challenge to policy makers lies precisely indevising mechanisms through which developingsocieties can be assisted in their attempts to turnthe hazard of pollution into a risk. Disasters allowus to appreciate the extent to which developmentcan be understood as a process which consistsof enabling countries to produce their own risks.

As far as research questions and gaps are con-cerned, the need to bring the focus to bear on therelationship between disaster risk managementand poverty reduction allows for the identificationof some crucial areas. These can be summed upas (a) conceptual clarification, (b) tools for themeasurement of the impact of disaster risk man-agement on poverty reduction and for the meas-urement of the impact of poverty reduction ondisaster risk management; a central element ofboth should be an analysis of vulnerability, partic-ularly as far as its causes, structure, and conse-quences are concerned; finally (c) the politicaleconomy of the relationship between disaster riskmanagement and poverty reduction. These areasobviously do not cover the whole range of issuesthat should merit the attention of the academiccommunity. However, they are useful to the ex-tent that they stand at the interface between prac-tice and research. Only in so far as research re-sults can be brought to bear on the practice ofdevelopment do they deserve pride of place inthe range of issues identified as worth furtherprobing into. These are further developed at theend of chapter 7 in the form of recommendations.

66

As has been shown in this study, the GermanGovernment and many international organisa-tions acknowledge the strong relationshipbetween disaster risk management and povertyreduction. Daily political practice demonstrates,however, that there is still much room forimprovement. True, for Germany, poverty reduc-tion lies at the core of BMZ’s development pro-gramme, but given the serious nature of disasterissues and their potential impact on the targetedgoals of reducing poverty, there is need for aneven stronger political commitment to disasterrisk management. In fact, the latest study by theGerman Advisory Council on Global Change(WBGU) stated: “… the German poverty reduc-tion strategy currently being pursued must beadapted in anticipation of the likely regional im-pacts of global environmental changes.” (WBGU2004, p. 3). And further: “Disaster Preventionshould also become a new sectoral priority in de-velopment co-operation.” (WBGU 2004, p. 3).From this viewpoint, too, it is imperative to main-stream disaster risk management into develop-ment work. This section contains recommenda-tions that can help with developing implementa-tion strategies.

These recommendations are set out in three sub-sections: Proposals in 7.1 are directed specifical-ly at German development co-operation and, sim-ilarly, the development co-operation activities ofother donor countries. Subsection 7.2 makes rec-ommendations relevant to co-operation with part-ner countries and multilateral partners such asrelevant United Nations, European Union bodies,and development banks. Finally, subsection 7.3sets out recommendations concerned with thework of universities and research institutions. Thechapter closes in 7.4 by highlighting the nextsteps to be taken by the different German actors.

7.1 Recommendations for the Germandevelopment co-operation system

In the context of the German development co-operation system, there are four main, interrelat-ed tasks involved in integrating disaster risk man-agement and poverty reduction: (a) the dissemi-nation of knowledge about disaster risks and its

relation to poverty; (b) the inclusion of disasterrisk management in relevant sector and countrystrategies; (c) making disaster risk managementcentral to relevant programmes; and, finally, (d)the systematic application of disaster risk man-agement tools to poverty reduction programmes.Below, we provide the rationale for taking upthese issues and then list the activities that wedeem appropriate in achieving the targeted re-sults.

7.1.1 Dissemination of knowledge

Disaster risk management is firmly anchored inthe BMZ Sector Department “Emergency – andTransitional Aid”. However beyond the respon-sive approach disaster risk management is clas-sified as a trans-sectoral task due to an increasedemphasis on preventive aspects. In spite of thisknowledge about it among those in charge of co-operation policy, projects, and programmes is notwidespread enough. Thus spreading such knowl-edge is an important first step towards the suc-cessful integration of disaster risk managementand poverty reduction throughout the Germandevelopment co-operation system.

Four recommendations on how to disseminatethe knowledge gap are:

> Encourage dialogue amongst the BMZ depart-ments on disaster risk management, the con-cerned regional departments, and the depart-ments on poverty reduction and social develop-ment, as well as with the implementing organi-sations and the scientific community throughthe introduction of this topic into the existingsystem of project design.

> Use the introductory seminars on poverty re-duction for senior personnel of developmentagencies to disseminate knowledge about dis-aster risk management. To this end, brief andpersuasive guidelines could be produced foruse by trainers.

> Provide special training programmes for peoplewho will come into closer contact with the dis-aster risk management issue, either because

7. Towards a better integration of disaster risk management

and poverty reduction: Some recommendations

67

they will work in a high-risk country or in a sec-tor that is vulnerable to hazards, taking care totreat disaster risk as part and parcel of ongoingdevelopment activities. Experience has shownthat such training programmes can help in moti-vating experts and decision-makers and inmaking the topic more amenable to them (GTZ2002, p. 32). Experiences from efforts to main-stream gender have shown that it is not difficultto offer a general training programme on a spe-cial cross-cutting topic. What is needed insteadis a programme that is tailored to the specificneeds of project or programme managers, andone which helps them to learn step by step howto integrate the two issues into their daily work.

> Undertake political lobbying in a multi-discipli-nary and cross-sectoral manner at all relevantministries and levels in order to become effec-tive. To this end, DKKV, as the German networkfor disaster reduction, can be utilised as a co-

ordinating forum for such initiatives and activi-ties.

The dissemination of knowledge should be fos-tered by the entities responsible for disaster riskmanagement and poverty reduction at BMZ andthe implementing organisations of BMZ-fundedGerman development co-operation. For broadereffect, BMZ sector departments and BMZ/GTZadvisory projects for poverty reduction and disas-ter risk management should play a special role.Also, non-governmental organisations are impor-tant partners in development co-operation, andtheir support will be crucial to the successful dis-semination of knowledge. DKKV as the multi-stakeholder UNISDR platform in Germany pro-vides a network interlinking all relevant agenciesand institutions dealing with disaster reduction.Within its mandate, DKKV could take the lead inpolitical lobbying, public awareness, and co-oper-ation with scientific institutions.

7.1.2 Inclusion of disaster risk management

into the relevant strategies

Equally important as the dissemination of know-ledge is the inclusion of disaster risk manage-ment into relevant sector and country strategies.One of the strategic goals of the January 2005World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WC-DR) in Kobe was stated as: “The more effectiveintegration of disaster risk considerations intosustainable development policies, planning andprogramming at all levels …” (ISDR 2005, p. 3).Indeed, such sector and country strategies areused by the BMZ and the implementing organi-sations to guide the content of co-operation. Forthe integration of disaster risk management intopoverty reduction measures to be successful, itneeds to begin at an early planning stage. Sectorand country strategies provide a framework with-in which this early integration could take place. Inorder to achieve this integration, BMZ sector de-partment “Emergency and Transitional Aid”should should, as a first step, initiate and coordi-nate foster the dialogue with the relevant sectorand regional departments.

68

Towards a better integration of disaster risk management and poverty reduction

The most important kinds of planning documents are:

> The Country Strategy Papers (Länderkonzepte) and the Sector Strategy Papers (Schwerpunkt-strategiepapiere, SSP), two important BMZ planning, management, and steering instruments.It must be ensured that both take the national poverty reduction strategies as a basis and considerdisaster risk management measures adapted to the identified hazards and vulnerability.

> The Program of Action 2015. Here it is of particular interest to use the progress reports to addressdisaster risk management in a systematic manner.

able development, it needs to be integrated intoreconstruction processes in the aftermath of dis-aster and also as a cross-sectoral issue in co-operation programmes in disaster-prone regions.Disaster risk management can offer insights intopeople’s livelihoods. This, in turn, can assist withunderstanding why people are vulnerable andhow broader strategic thinking can support theplanning and implementation of poverty reductionprogrammes. Making disaster risk management acentral issue in programmes that seek to reducevulnerability is a major contribution towards fur-ther improving German development co-opera-tion and achieving its goals.

To ensure that disaster risk management is prop-erly viewed as a cross-sectoral issue, BMZ andthe implementing organisations of BMZ-fundedprojects and programmes should seriously con-sider the following seven recommendations:

> Combine the two issues right at the outset ofnew co-operation programmes in order to avoiddisaster risk management being treated only asan add-on issue.

> Liaise with specific country groups and depart-ments of the development organisations thatare concerned with countries where high risk isprevalent. Provide them with applicable con-cepts, materials, and information about the spe-cific risk problem in their country, how it con-nects with the poverty issue, and the possiblesolutions.

7.1.3 Disaster risk management as a central

topic for all BMZ-funded programmes in

disaster-prone regions

This paper presents disaster risk management asnot just another project, but rather as a develop-ment goal. While it might still make sense to applythe single project approach, especially in coun-tries with a specific risk problem that needs to betreated independently from other programmes orprojects, this approach could, indeed, be usefulfor introducing disaster risk management into acountry. However, in order to link disaster riskmanagement with poverty reduction and sustain-

6969

> Develop a strategy for drawing attention tothese issues within the German implementingorganisations. Such a strategy should include amechanism for disseminating new knowledgeand experience in projects and programmesthroughout the organisations.

> Document best practices and make thembroadly available to the relevant public.

> Include disaster risk sensitivity to poverty re-duction in a set of minimum standards for goodprogramme design.

> Together with the executive personnel of theimplementing organisations, develop a strategyfor the integration of the two issues. Based onthe experience with mainstreaming gender, weknow that this enables broader impact of theknowledge gained in projects and programmes.

> Extend co-operation beyond the traditional sec-tors, such as rural development and housing, tothose of good governance and related areas,because such programmes aim at improvingthose state organisations that also play majorroles in disaster risk management.

7.1.4 Systematic application of existing tools

Capacity development within German develop-ment co-operation, the integration of the issue inrelevant strategies, and lobbying for the topic areimportant tasks that comprise the groundwork forpoverty-oriented disaster risk management at theconceptual stage. At the operational stage, thefollowing steps and approaches are recommend-ed to link poverty reduction and disaster riskmanagement:

> Conduct risk analysis during project and pro-gramme preparation, especially for countriesand regions with high levels of vulnerability todisasters or sectors that are capable ofcontributing to improving disaster risk manage-ment. Risk analysis instruments should be sen-sitive to income level, age, education, gender,and ethnicity, and the results should be used in

designing new programmes. Carefully examinedisaster mitigation activities in light of the factthat inequality often worsens in the aftermath ofdisaster. The integration of risk analysis intopoverty reduction policy is an evolving process;

therefore, ensure that human and institutionalcapacity is appropriately strengthened and in-volve the public and civil society organisationsin supporting the information and decision-mak-ing needs of individuals.

> Apply the concepts of sustainable livelihoodsas the framework for discussions on povertyreduction in the partner countries and for plan-ning poverty reduction programmes, as thisapproach considers several forms of vulnerabil-ity, as well as types of “capital” that poor peoplepossess.

> Supplement the monitoring of poverty reductionprogrammes with indicators that relate to thesuccess of disaster risk management at thelocal, regional, and national levels.

The BMZ/GTZ advisory project on disaster riskmanagement in development co-operation hasalready formulated guidelines for risk analysisand presented other tools that have been used indifferent regions of the world. It currently is work-


70

ing on impact indicators and other instrumentsuseful for poverty reduction. The project isresponsible for producing and disseminating thisinformation amongst German development co-operation actors, whom we urge to use the tools.

7.2 Recommendations for the Germancontribution in partner countriesand the international community

In co-operating with partner countries and thegreater international community on developmentactivities, the following six German initiatives canprovide the entry points for fruitful exchange: (a)raising awareness of and developing capacitiesfor poverty-oriented disaster risk management;(b) integrating disaster risk management intoPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers; (c) support-ing institutional reforms for a better integration ofdisaster risk management and poverty reduction;(d) attaching more value to community-baseddisaster risk management approaches; (e)strengthening capacities and promoting the tak-ing of responsibility at the international, national,regional, and local levels; and (f) supporting inter-national organisations in their formulation of poli-cies.

German development co-operation is in an ad-vantageous position for firmly anchoring disasterrisk management and poverty reduction in devel-opment work. The responsibility for fosteringthese approaches lies with the BMZ departmentsfor poverty reduction and disaster risk manage-ment. The implementing organisations must thenensure the integration into projects. While someof the following recommendations relate to theappropriate use of the available communicationchannels, others encourage German develop-ment co-operation to apply its technical expertiseto the further entrenchment of the issue in devel-opment activities.

7.2.1 Raising awareness and

developing capacities

In order to strengthen the capabilities of individu-als, organisations, and institutions, German-sup-ported measures should meet the following chal-lenges:

> The current levels of human resources, localknowledge on disasters, and civil society’s cop-ing strategies must be considered inawareness-raising and capacity development

71

activities. Strategies for transferring knowledgeabout the specific threats presented by differentkinds of disasters and about coping strategiesthat can prevent or mitigate the disaster impactneed to be developed within the context pro-moting self-help. It is important that the specificlocal and societal perceptions of risk and itsunderlying causes be taken as the basis forcapacity development. In this context, aware-ness-raising activities should focus on the pos-sible origins of disasters, the relevance of dis-aster risk management for poverty reduction,and the links between poverty and vulnerability.

> German co-operation with the partner countriesshould increase capacity development for non-governmental organisations that deal with is-sues of poverty reduction and disaster, or thatwork in disaster-prone areas. Local NGOs haveknowledge that is critical to developing poverty-sensitive disaster risk management approach-es that are suited to the specific region. Theyshould be trained on methodologies that com-bine these two issues in local projects and pro-grammes, and about the costs and benefits ofdisaster prevention strategies. Above all, theorganisations should be supported in improvingtheir networking capacities and in evolving intodecision-making institutions. Local NGOs oftenneed to learn how to lobby and negotiate withdecision-makers in order to advocate poverty-oriented disaster risk management. Also, Ger-man development co-operation and organisa-tions that research disaster risk managementissues in the partner countries should increaseand deepen their exchange of knowledge aboutand experience with poverty-oriented disasterrisk management.

> Institutional capacity development for disasterrisk management must address the formulationof relevant policy, the development of a con-ducive legal and administrative framework, andthe performance of risk assessment, disasterprevention, mitigation, and disaster prepared-ness activities. Knowledge about mechanismsfor transforming disaster risk management the-ory into practice needs to be increased. Suc-cessful disaster risk management also requiresefficient and trusting co-operation between

state institutions, the private sector, and civilsociety. All stakeholders need to be shown theadvantages of this co-operation, and their ne-gotiation skills need to be improved.

7.2.2 Integration into Poverty Reduction

Strategy Papers (PRSPs)

PRSPs are an ideal vehicle for addressing institu-tional changes, financial aspects, economic pro-cedures, and questions of sustainability in thedevelopment process. For this reason, they arean important starting point for disaster risk man-agement. German development co-operation cur-rently supports 26 partner countries in variousstages of their PRSP processes, from the povertyanalysis that feeds into the formulation of theStrategy, on through implementation and monitor-ing. We have six recommendations for the BMZand the implementing organisations that relate toeach step of PRSP planning and implementation:

> Offer advice to partner governments about howto make disaster risk an important element ofPRSP poverty analysis through the adoption ofrisk analysis. Because risk analysis is a partici-patory instrument that provides detailed infor-mation about the given disaster risks, it canyield valuable information on people’s vulnera-bility and their exposure to natural hazards,thereby providing a basis for decisions aboutrisk-reducing measures that contribute, in turn,to poverty reduction.

> Incorporate disaster mitigation and preventionin the formulation phase of the strategy, takinginto account each relevant issues such as eco-nomic development and the environment. Tothis end, minimum standards and guidelinesshould be developed.

> Assist partner countries in the prioritisation ofinvestments, bearing in mind advice from inter-national development agencies can sometimesbe problematic, as it interferes with delicatepolitical processes. PRSP advisors should pointout repeatedly how disaster risk managementcan support sustainable development.


72

> Ensure that adequate funds are allocated todisaster risk management in the budgeting ofPRSP. At the same time, raise awareness onthe far-reaching economic consequences ofdisasters on the one hand, and the positive re-turns of measures that prevent disasters on theother. German development co-operationshould provide methodology for cost-benefitanalysis and foster awareness of low-costmeasures and the in-vestment character ofdisaster risk manage-ment.

> During the implemen-tation phase, advisesectors that significant-ly support the reduc-tion of poverty levelsthrough disaster riskmanagement, rural development, decentraliza-tion, environmental and resource management,health, housing, and education. Central to thisadvice should be how to remove barriers to theadoption of a disaster risk managementapproach.

> Offer advice on the formulation and integrationof indicators in the monitoring system that as-sess the effectiveness of policy measures es-sential to disaster preparedness, prevention,and mitigation.

7.2.3 Supporting institutional reforms

Advice related to institutional reform, therefore,must focus on the following issues:

> An effective cross-sectoral organisation of dis-aster risk management and poverty reduction isneeded. The institutional setup must reflect thelink between disaster risks and development. Ithas to take into account the shared responsibil-ity and the need for co-ordination between theconcerned departments and sectors. These areprimarily the departments of the environment,disaster management, planning, finance, andeducation.

> Support ongoing decentralisation processes inpartner countries with particular attention paidto linking the national level more strongly withthe local or municipal level, because knowledgeabout the specific poverty and disaster situationis available at the local level. Also, people’s ca-pabilities to prepare and protect them self needto be strengthened. It should be noted that de-centralisation does not mean simply delegatingcompetencies and resources to local organisa-tions, because two problems could ensue: (a)central governments might abdicate their re-sponsibilities to local governments that couldthen be over-extended when trying to meet thistask, and (b) the delegation of too muchresponsibility to the local level could de-politi-

“Disasters are unsolved problems of development, which

means they are therefore problems of governance, in its

broadest sense. Good governance needs to be placed at

the heart of risk management.” (IFRC 2002, p. 36).

73

cise disaster risk management. People at thislevel often are not in the position to addressbroader aspects of vulnerability, but most oftencan react only with the single-project approach,which is not necessarily integrated into thebroader poverty reduction approach. In order tominimise these potential problems, adviceshould be given to partner governments regard-ing the setting up of a coherent institutionalframework, the need to strengthen institutionalcapacity, and the development of a strategy thatdelineates the competencies and responsibili-ties of each actor concerned with disaster-sensi-tive poverty reduction (GTZ 2003a, p. 13-15).

> Support partner governments and civil societyin formulating an agreement that sets the stan-dards of a coherent disaster risk strategy, andthat spells out the responsibilities for whicheach key actor will be held accountable. This isnecessary because a shift of responsibilitymost often is accompanied by a shift in power,influence, and resources. The standards alsocould be used to monitor performance, whilebearing in mind that a longer-term objective isthe empowerment of the public and civil societyto hold government accountable. Experiencewith such a contract could lead to the creationof legal regulations for disaster prevention, miti-gation, preparedness, and response.

> “Adopt, or modify where necessary, legislationto support disaster risk reduction, including reg-ulations and mechanisms that encourage com-pliance and that promote incentives for under-taking risk reduction and mitigation activities.”(ISDR 2005, p. 6)

> Strengthen the organisational capacities andimprove the knowledge of NGOs, grassrootsorganisations, and representatives of civil soci-ety so that they can participate more fruitfully inexchanges with governments on disaster-relat-ed poverty reduction. Based on the experiencewith Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSP), we have learned that civil society’sinfluence on governments’ plans is more effec-tive when its representatives sit on technicalcommittees. German development co-opera-tion should support such forms of participation

to ensure that vulnerability, capacities, and pri-orities are properly assessed and considered.

7.2.4 Valuing community-based approaches

“Despite international initiatives, the front lineagainst disasters is held by at-risk communitiesthemselves, which are often the main actors indisaster mitigation and preparedness. Especiallyin developing countries, where the state’s capaci-ty to protect its citizens may be limited, communi-ties rely on their own knowledge and copingmechanisms to mitigate against disasters, asthey have done for generations.” (IFRC 2002, p.22). Similarly, the World Conference on DisasterReduction (WCDR) in Kobe agreed on the strate-gic goal to: “Promote community participation indisaster risk reduction through the adoption ofspecific policies, the promotion of networking, thestrategic management of volunteer resources,the attribution of roles and responsibilities, andthe delegation and provision of necessary author-ity and resources.” (ISDR 2005, p. 7 (h)).

Strengthening the power of individuals and communities at the local level can be achievedthrough the following four steps:

> Identify successful traditional forms of manag-ing disaster-related problems and combinethem with “modern” forms. Local expertise onliving with disaster complements work at thenational level.

> Foster government appreciation and valuing oflocal actors’ capabilities. Local approaches areoften superior in that they are less costly, lessprone to corruption, more rapid, and more ef-fective in providing help in an emergency. Goodpractice examples need to be shared with deci-sion-makers.

> Introduce and encourage capacity buildingmeasures where knowledge about the causesof vulnerability, and about disaster risk andways to reduce them is lacking. Advice shouldfocus on increasing awareness about potentialsources of vulnerability within societies.


74

> Because over-stating the case can lead toparalysis, provide a realistic appraisal ofresources and the range of local measures forplanning purposes.

7.2.5 Strengthening capacities and

responsibilities at all decision-making levels

The challenge posed by the task of reducing peo-ple’s vulnerability consists in linking disaster riskmanagement and poverty reduction at all levels.Additionally, as Pelling notes: “For best effect weneed to understand not only how actors operateat each level, but how local-level, bottom-up par-ticipatory approaches articulate with internationaland national top-down agendas.” (Pelling 2003a,p. 238).

German development co-operation should offeradvice at the different levels involved, in consid-eration of the interlinkages, as follows:

Regional/cross-border level

“It is crucial that there is understanding that leadsto the acceptance of countries in the same regionsharing both information and their concerns invarious forums, so that they may collaboratemore effectively in their activities.” (ISDR 2004,176). In other words, the exchange of informa-tion, knowledge and experiences across coun-tries should be encouraged, takingCEPREDENAC (Co-ordinating Centre for the

Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central Ameri-ca) and PREANDINO (Andean Regional Programfor Risk Prevention and Reduction) as models.The common tasks for German development co-operation and partner countries are:

> Integrate the poverty issue into the existingrisk-reduction strategies for specific sectorsand regions,

> Increase research on the different aspects ofvulnerability,

> Build national and international capacities,

> Promote the exchange of information and expe-rience between comparable institutions inneighbouring countries,

> Promote region-wide disaster risk managementprogrammes that include poverty reduction as-pects,

> Attempt to ensure strong commitment to theissues at the highest decision-making levels ofthe public sector.

National level

“It is generally agreed that national governmentsbear the prime responsibility for protecting theircitizens against disaster.” (IFRC 2002, p. 24). Toperform this responsibility well requires a shiftfrom an event-driven approach to a process-ori-ented one, which could in turn require a changein government functions. It follows that govern-ments should be encouraged to serve as co-ordi-nating bodies for the broad spectrum of actors.Governments’ (new) tasks within a disaster-sen-sitive poverty reduction approach are as follows:

> Integrate disaster concerns into the formula-tion, implementation, and budgeting of PovertyReduction Strategies,

> Integrate poverty concerns into the nationalaction plans for disaster risk management,

> Support the establishment and/or strengthening

75

of national platforms for disaster reduction asmulti-sectoral and multi-stakeholder arenas foraddressing all aspects of disaster reduction (ascalled for by the Hyogo Framework for Action),

> Clarify the roles of the different partners withinthe disaster-sensitive poverty-fighting strategies,

> Create legal provisions and financialframeworks for effective disaster risk reduction,

> Develop institutional capacities to assess andrespond to risk,

> Organise locally to reduce vulnerability: initiatelocal partnerships amongst networks, commu-nity organisations, and advocacy groups,

> Encourage joint risk reduction measures bygovernment agencies, technical specialists,and community and local residents,

> Disseminate basic public information on haz-ards and on measures to reduce risk,

> Ensure public understanding and theimplementation of standards and codesdesigned to protect private and public assetsand critical infrastructure,

> Promote and encourage public participation inthe design and implementation of risk and vul-nerability-reducing measures as part of povertyreducing strategies at local and national levels(adapted from: ISDR 2004, p. 81).

Regional level

The role of departmental or provincial institutionsin disaster risk management is often neglected inthe papers on the issue. This level however,plays an important role in reducing disaster riskand should therefore be a main partner in Ger-man advisory projects and programmes. Rele-vant tasks are:

> Apply the national strategies, programmes, andgoals for poverty reduction to the specific re-gional situation, and put them into action,

> Co-ordinate the various, individual projects ofthe local level and integrate them into thebroader poverty reduction approach,

> Encourage the association of the municipalitieswithin larger disaster regions,

> Provide the national level with specific informa-tion concerning regional vulnerability.

76

Local level

In the end, disaster affects the fate of individuals.Therefore, organisations closest to the affectedpeople (such as municipalities, local NGOs, andcivil society organisations) have a crucial role toplay in reducing disaster risk. This is why mucheffort has been put into strengthening their rolesin disaster risk management in recent years. Nowthe focus must be shifted to linking the two issuestogether – and also must be expanded to adaptcommunity-based disaster risk managementknowledge to cities, because urban vulnerabilitytends to be greatly underestimated in disasterrisk management. The tasks for the different insti-tutions at the local level are too numerous to listhere, and the interested reader is referred to theGTZ-paper on community-based disaster riskmanagement (GTZ 2003a, p. 32-33) to review themore practical tasks, here we concentrate on themore political ones:

> Recognise the importance of disaster risk re-duction as being central to the economic andsocial well-being of the municipality,

> Anchor disaster risk management firmly in long-term community poverty reduction plans,

> Find the right mix between tangible short-termand long-term measures, even though the long-term ones cannot be exploited for politicalends,

> Apply the criterion of social equity in decision-making,

> Encourage public support and responsibility forpoverty reduction measures,

> Present disaster risk management as a matterof tangible and immediate value to local resi-dents,

> Relate current, local needs to other levels ofdecision-making,

> Allow for local control and widespread partici-pation throughout the complete process of riskassessment, planning, implementation, andmonitoring of disaster-sensitive poverty reduc-tion measures,

> Foster trust between the municipality and thepeople at risk (adapted from: ISDR 2004, p.142-143).

7777


7.2.6 Supporting international organisations

International organisations should take the leadin internalising disaster risk management issuesin their poverty work by ensuring that poverty re-duction programmes can remain robust duringdisasters. “This would require development oftools and methodologies, training and awarenessraising of senior management and staff, and thepossible modification of their own institutionalprocess to ensure that […] vulnerability isaddressed with due diligence.” (African Develop-ment Bank et al. w. d., p. 29).

The BMZ should improve its disaster risk man-agement advisory capacity to enhance its impacton the following international organisations:

> WFP (World Food Program) which has themandate to decide on new policies for food aidthat are carried out by ECOSOC (Economicand Social Council of the UN) and FAO. As amember of this board, the Ministry should de-velop strategies and use its influence tostrengthen awareness of the significance ofdisaster risk management for sustainable foodaid.

> UNDP and further UN organisations involved inthe International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-tion (ISDR), which should be encouraged toseek greater coherence among their policiesconcerning disaster risk management andpoverty reduction. The BMZ can target UNDPcountry co-operation frameworks to shifttowards a greater poverty orientation in disasterrisk management. Furthermore, BMZ shouldstrengthen its potential by building up strategicalliances with partner countries or developmentbanks to design recommendations toECOSOC, who can influence the UN GeneralAssembly.

> European Union (EU), through (a) projects andprogrammes that are financed through the Eu-ropean Development Fund (EDF) and (b) proj-ects and programmes directly financed by theEU budget. Furthermore, EU Country StrategyPapers offer room for the articulation of poverty

oriented disaster risk management. These pa-pers are co-ordinated between the partnercountries’ representatives and the EU delega-tions in the countries along with the develop-ment co-operation official in charge in the Ger-man embassies. Also, the BMZ can influencethe papers’ content regarding the poverty orien-tation in disaster risk management within theappropriate EU committees.

7.3 Recommendations for the scientific research community

7.3.1 Research issues

The major challenges as far as research is con-cerned centre around (a) conceptual clarification,(b) the development of tools to measure the im-pact of disaster risk management and povertyreduction, and (c) the political economy of disas-ter risk management and poverty reduction. “Dis-aster risk management” and “poverty reduction”do not necessarily mean the same things to theindividuals and institutions that operate with themacross different cultural, social, economic, politi-cal and organisational environments. For this rea-son, it is all the more important that the academiccommunity helps with conceptual clarification inorder to make communication and interventionmore manageable. The same goes for the toolsthat are required to measure the impact of inter-ventions on the problems they are meant tosolve. In other words, instruments are neededwhich can produce knowledge on how disasterrisk management impacts on poverty reductionand vice versa. Finally, disaster risk managementand poverty reduction take place within institu-tional frameworks. In development and reliefwork, there is a tendency to consider the contentof the practical work in isolation from the institu-tions which actually do the work. More often thannot, criticisms bear either on the work or on theinstitutions. In other words, the impact of the workis assessed against the background of the ap-praisal of the institution or vice versa. In fact, inmany instances a proper understanding of both


78

institutions and work is not possible without amore integrated approach, i.e., one that looks atthe political economy of relief, humanitarian, anddevelopment work.

Several German research institutes, universities,and research networks deal with natural disaster.These institutes, universities, and networksshould foster research on the above issues. Rela-tionships with German implementing organisa-tions are important for linking science and prac-tice, and to consider the broad body of practicalexperience. The National Platform, DKKV, ofwhich most of the actors are members, can playan important co-ordinating role in this context.

7.3.2 Conceptual clarification

Work is needed on the following:

> Clarification of the concepts “disaster risk man-agement” and “poverty reduction”, taking intoaccount different areas of intervention (i.e., de-velopment work or humanitarian action) with aview to establishing the potential as well as thelimits of their analytical and empirical combina-tion;

> Identification of further areas into which thecombination of “disaster risk management” and“poverty reduction” can be extended; thisshould include the focussed study of currentprojects and programmes with particular rele-vance to the underlying concepts.

7.3.3 Tools for the measurement of the

impact of disaster risk management on

poverty reduction and for the measurement

of the impact of poverty reduction on disaster

risk management

These tools should make the following possible:

> An assessment of the ability of individual coun-tries to manage disaster risk and reduce pover-ty as a result of programmes focussing on thecombination of the two. In particular, studiesshould be conducted on the constraints andopportunities that the social, political, and eco-nomic conditions obtaining in a given countryoffer for the successful combination of disasterrisk management and poverty reduction;

> Analysis of how countries, communities andorganisations translate “disaster risk manage-ment” and “poverty reduction” into practice

79

against the background of their individual as-sessment of vulnerability, deprivation, and in-security; this should be coupled with studies ofhow local notions of disaster and poverty artic-ulate with the suggested attempt at combiningthem;

> The description and analysis of the contextwithin which decisions on disaster manage-ment and poverty reduction are taken, whotakes them, on what authority, and the kinds ofconflicts that ensue thereof;

> The description and analysis of the experienceof disaster, risk perception, potential for action,and willingness to act, all of which should beconsidered against the background of the micro,(i.e., population), meso, (organisations), andmacro level (the whole society, the articulation ofdifferent societal elements), as well as globally.

7.3.4 The political economy of disaster risk

management and poverty reduction

In order to understand how institutions and inter-ventions are changed by practical work on theground, investigation is needed into the following:

> How the practical work on the problems of dis-aster and poverty reduction shapes the institu-tional set-up;

> How current experiences of disaster and pover-ty reduction influence institutional set-ups;

> What other factors – social, economic, politicaland natural – are relevant to the design of insti-tutional responses to disaster and poverty;

7.4 First steps to take

Chapters 7.1 to 7.3 present a broad range of pos-sible measures for improving the integration ofpoverty reduction with disaster risk management.We consider the most urgent issue to be the rais-ing of awareness and the development of capaci-ties for poverty-oriented disaster risk manage-ment within German development co-operation.

The first steps to be taken are:

> The BMZ should develop a road map forincreasing and disseminating knowledge aboutthe issues. This road map should be formulatedjointly by the implementing organisations andthe National Platform for Disaster reduction(DKKV), and supported by the two BMZ/GTZadvisory projects: the GTZ-MainstreamingPoverty Reduction Project and the GTZ-SectorProject on Disaster Risk Management.

> The implementing organisations (governmental,semi-governmental and non-governmental)should carry out disaster risk management train-ing programmes for personnel involved in pover-ty-reduction measures in disaster-prone regionsas soon as possible. The GTZ-Sector Project onDisaster Risk Management currently is preparingspecial training sessions that will be offered to allconcerned organisations in Germany.

> The academic community should support theraising of awareness with conceptual clarification.This will guarantee that the complex concepts ofpoverty reduction and disaster risk managementwill be understood and intelligently applied.

This action-oriented approach of raising aware-ness must be carried out in parallel with the


80

strategic approach of integrating poverty-orienteddisaster risk management into relevant nationaland international policies:

> The two BMZ Sector Departments should de-velop and co-ordinate a strategy for integratingthis issue into relevant papers that areconcerned with the poverty reduction topic.

> The GTZ-Mainstreaming Poverty ReductionProject, should focus on PRSPs and take thelead in integrating disaster risk managementconcerns into selected PRSP advisory process-es on a pilot basis.

> The GTZ-Sector Project on Disaster Risk Man-agement, on the other hand, should foster theintegration of disaster risk management con-cerns into selected BMZ poverty-oriented coun-try and sector strategies.

> NGOs and other implementing organisationsare encouraged to integrate disaster risk man-agement into selected poverty reduction pro-grammes. Pilot experience should be analysedand exchanged.

> DKKV should take the initiative in promoting thefurther integration of disaster risk managementinto international policy papers. It should sup-port the BMZ in contributing to the formulationof poverty-oriented development policies withinthe EU and UN.

We believe the other measures listed aboveshould follow these first steps of raising aware-ness and formulating policies.

81

Abbreviations

AP 2015 Program of Action 2015BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Inter-American Development Bank)BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development

(Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung)CEPREDENAC Co-ordinating Centre for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America DAC Development Assistance CommitteeDFID Department for International Development of the United KingdomDKKV German Committee for Disaster Reduction

(Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V.)DMF Disaster Management Facility DRI Disaster Risk IndexECHO European Community Humanitarian OfficeECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the CaribbeanECOSOC UN-Economic and Social CouncilEDF European Development FundEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture OrganisationGDP Gross Domestic ProductGIS Geographic Information Systems GTZ German Technical Co-operation

(Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung GmbH)HDI Human Development IndexHIPC Heavily Indebted Poor CountriesIDA International Development Association IDB Inter-American Development BankIDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster ReductionIDS Institute of Development StudiesIFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesISDR International Strategy for Disaster ReductionKfW Kreditanstalt für WiederaufbauMDG Millennium Development GoalsNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationOCHA Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian AffairsODA Official Development AssistanceODI Overseas Development InstituteOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPREANDINO Andean Regional Program for Risk Prevention and ReductionPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPSIA Poverty and Social Impact AnalysisSEWA Self-Employed Women’s AssociationSLGS Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance SheetsUNDMTP United Nations Disaster Management Training ProgramUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNEP United Nations Environment ProgramUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesWB World BankWBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change

(Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderung)

82

WCDR World Conference on Disaster ReductionWFP World Food ProgramWHO World Health OrganisationWMO World Meteorological OrganisationWSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development ZENEB Centre for Nature Risks and Development (Zentrum für Naturrisiken und Entwicklung)

List of Pictures

Page 7: Rural population as a vulnerable group in Bolivia (Photo: gtz)

Page 8: Target group oriented development in rural Bolivia, local partners (Photo: gtz)

Page 10: Costal zone with destroyed houses after the Tsunami 1992 on Flores island /Indonesia (Photo: gtz)

Page 20: The people as an important „factor“ of a warning chain within the early warning system (Photo: gtz)

Page 23: Children have been especially hit hard by the drought (Photo: IFRC)

Page 24: Severe earthquake damages on building stock in Peru (Photo: gtz)

Page 29: Women, children and elder people are a high vulnerable population group (Photo: gtz)

Page 31: Human capitals are an essential part of the sustainable livelihoods approach – skilled farmer in Bolivia (Photo: gtz)

Page 33: The situation of children has an impact on the long-term trends in the society - Arequipas youth is addressed by livelihood strategies (Photo: gtz)

Page 34: Destroyed harbour after the 2004 Tsunami in Banda Aceh. The reconstruction process has to be carried out disaster preventive (Photo: gtz)

Page 37: Desert locust threat in Mauritania (Photo: FAO)

Page 39: Emergency shelters after the 2004 Tsunami in Aceh (Photo: gtz)

Page 41: Community near Caia flooded by the Zambezi river (Photo: IFRC)

Page 42: Flooding in central Mozambique, 2001 (Photo: IFRC)

Page 44: Damage assessment by the Jamaica Red Cross after Hurricane Ivan 2004 (Photo: IFRC)

Page 40: Alpaca shelters to avoid the high loss of animals during cold periods (Photo: gtz)

Page 46: Field training for technical staff at a volcanic observatory station in Indonesia (Photo: gtz)

Page 47: Chain of Early Warning Systems: Sirens for tsunami warning (Photo: Yuichi Ono, PPEW)

Page 50: Sustainable environmental conditions ensure a safe and reliable husbandry – agricultural training in rural Bolivia (Photo: gtz)

Page 52: A responsible use of natural resources can prevent environmental degradation and disasters – sustainable husbandry in Bolivia (Photo: gtz)

Page 53: Discussion between politician, development organisations and scientists after the flood disaster in Asia at the GTZ headquarter (Photo: gtz)

Page 55: Temporary shelters in Banda Aceh, Indonesia (Photo: gtz)

Page 57: Reducing vulnerability, Philippines (Photo: IFRC)

Page 58: Expert mission after tsunami 2004 (Photo: Yuichi Ono, PPEW)

Page 61: Community planning and implementation of disaster mitigation strategies in Arequipa, Peru (Photo: gtz)

Page 62: Reducing poverty and build a safer future for the children in developing countries (Photo: gtz)

Page 64: Organic fertilization to increase the income of highland farmers in the Andean regions (Photo: gtz)

Page 67: The Central Desert Locust Command Centre in Rabat, Morocco (Photo: FAO)

Page 68: Relief distribution by the Red Cross Society of Eritrea (Photo: IFRC)

Page 69: Early warning gage on Coldwater Lake, Mount St. Helens (Photo: USGS)

Page 70: Drought in Eritrea: The coping mechanisms of the population have been severely reduced (Photo: IFRC)

Page 72: Provisional working place of government officials in Aceh. Most of the offices and equipment was destroyed (Photo: gtz)

Page 74: Water shortages are a perennial problem in many parts of Eritrea (Photo: IFRC)

Page 75: On regional and local level these members of the Directorate of Geology in Indonesia promote the community

based disaster risk management approach (Photo: gtz)

Page 76: Natural disasters effect the live of a municipality severely - drought in India (Photo: gtz)

Page 78: Together with the population, a detailed risk analysis was conducted in flood- and tornado prone districts in Mozambique (Photo: gtz)

Page 79: Risk maps and municipal plans are prepared participatory by the village community (Photo: gtz)

Page 80: Farmers lose their harvest and therefore their income, as paddy fields and other farmland are flooded with increasing regularity (Photo: gtz)

83

Bibliography

> Adger, W. N. and Brooks, N. (2003): Does Global Environmental Changes cause Vulnerability to Disaster?

In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: Routledge, p. 19-42.

> African Development Bank et al. (w. d.): Poverty and Climate Change. Reducing Vulnerability of the Poor

through Adaptation.

> Annan, K. (1999): Facing the Humanitarian Challenge.Towards a Culture of Prevention. Report on

Work of Organization. New York: United Nations (UN).

> Annan, K. (2003): Do we still have universal values? Lecture on Global Ethics. Tübingen, December 12.

> Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999): Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience.

London: Department for International Development (DFID). (Available at: www.livelihoods.org).

> Beck, U. (1986): Risikogesellschaft - Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

> Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994): Reflexive Modernization – Politics,Tradition and Aesthetics

in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

> Bernstein, P. L. (1996): Against the Gods – The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

> Biermann, F. (2001): Umweltflüchtlinge. Ursachen und Lösungsansätze. In: Politik und ZeitgeschichteVol. 12, p. 24-29.

> BMZ (1996): Entwicklungsorientierte Nothilfe des BMZ. BMZ aktuell 065. Bonn: German Federal Ministryfor Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ).

> BMZ (1997): Entwicklungspolitik zu Vorbeugung und Bewältigung von Katastrophen und Konflikten.

BMZ spezial 082. Bonn: German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ).

> BMZ (2001): Poverty Reduction – a Global Responsibility. Program of Action 2015.

Bonn: German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ).

> BMZ (2002): Auf dem Weg zur Halbierung der Armut. Zwischenbericht über den Stand der Umsetzung

des Aktionsprogramms 2015. Bonn: German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (BMZ).

> BMZ (2004): Auf dem Weg zur Halbierung der Armut. 2. Zwischenbericht über den Stand der

Umsetzung des Aktionsprogramms 2015. Bonn: German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (BMZ).

> BMZ (2005): Materialien. Zwölfter Bericht zur Entwicklungspolitik der Bundesregierung.

Bonn: German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ).

> Bollin et al. (2003): Desastres Naturales. Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres por Comunidades y

Gobiernos Locales. Washington, D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Dearrollo (BID).

> Bonß, W. (1995): Vom Risiko – Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in der Moderne. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.

> Booth, D. (2003): Introduction and Overview. In: Booth, D. (Ed.): Are PRSPs Making a Difference? The

African Experience. Development Policy Review Vol. 21, No. 2. London: Overseas Development Institute(ODI), p. 131-159.

84

> Bradshaw, S. (2004): Socio-economic impacts of natural disasters: a gender analysis. Santiago deChile: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), German Technical Co-opera-tion (GTZ) and Italian Co-operation.

> Cannon, T. (1994): Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of ‘Natural’ Disasters. In: Varley, A. (Ed.):Disasters, Development and Environment. Chichester: Wiley and Sons, p. 13-30.

> Cannon, T. et al. (2003): Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters.

London: Department for International Development (DIFD).

> Carney, D. (Ed.) (1998): Sustainable rural livelihoods:What contribution can we make?

London: Department for International Development (DFID).

> Carney, D. et al. (1999): Livelihood approaches compared – A brief comparison of the livelihoods ap-

proaches of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), CARE, Oxfam and the United

Nations Development Program (UNDP). London: Department for International Development (DFID).

> Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992): Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st cen-

tury. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS), p. 7-8.

> Christie, F. and Hanlon, J. (2001): Mozambique and the Great Flood of 2000. Oxford: James Currey.

> Christoplos, I. et al. (2001): Re-framing Risk: The Changing Context of Disaster Mitigation and Prepardness.In: Disasters 25(3), p. 185-198.

> Christoplos, I. (2003): Actors in Risk. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Globaliz-ing World. London: Routledge, p. 95-109.

> Clausen, L. (2003): Reale Gefahren und katastrophensoziologische Theorie. Soziologischer Rat bei

FAKKEL-Licht. In: Clausen, L., Geenen, E. M. and Macamo, E. (Eds.): Entsetzliche soziale Prozesse. Theo-rie und Empirie der Katastrophen. Münster: Lit-Verlag, p. 51-76.

> Dams, T. (2001): Die entwicklungspolitsche Dimension der Katastrophenvorbeugung.

In: Plate, E. J. and Merz, B. (Eds.): Naturkatastrophen. Ursachen, Auswirkungen, Vorsorge. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, p. 247- 272.

> Dams, T. (2002): Armutsbekämpfung und Katastrophenvorsorge in Entwicklungsländern. Diskussion-spapier. Freiburg: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität.

> Davies, S. (1996): Adaptable Livelihoods. Coping With Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel.

London: Mac Millan.

> DFID-SLGS (2000): Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development (DFID). (Available at: www.livelihoods.org).

> Dörfler, T., Graefe, O. and Müller-Mahn, D. (2003): Habitus und Feld-Anregungen für eine

Neuorientierung der geographischen Entwicklungsforschung auf Grundlage von Bourdieus „Theorie

der Praxis“. In: Geographica Helvetica 58(1), p. 11-23.

> Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982): Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

85

> Douglas, M. (1992): Risk and Blame. Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

> ECHO (2004): Protecting the Humanitarian Space, ECHO 2003. Brussels: European Community Humani-tarian Office (ECHO).

> ECLAC/BID (2000): A matter of development: how to reduce vulnerability in the face of natural disas-

ters. Mexico: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and Banco Interameri-cano de Desarrollo (BID).

> Elliesen, T. (2001): Importierte Abhängigkeit. Die Nahrungsmittelhilfe für Äthiopien schafft mehr

Probleme, als sie löst. In: E+Z – Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit No. 9, September 2001, p. 265–267.

> Fordham, M. (2003): Gender, Disaster and development: The Necessity for Integration. In: Pelling, M.(Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: Routledge, p. 57-74.

> Geenen, E. M. (2003): Kollektive Krisen - Katastrophe,Terror, Revolution - Gemeinsamkeiten und

Unterschiede. In: Clausen, L., Geenen, E. M. and Macamo, E. (Eds.): Entsetzliche soziale Prozesse. Theorie und Empirie der Katastrophen. Münster: Lit-Verlag, p. 5-24.

> Goldman, I. (2000): Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Origins, Applications to Aquaculture

Research and Future Directions. Background Paper for FGRP/FGP Workshop on Practical Strategies forPoverty Targeted Research. Vietnam, November 6.

> GTZ (2002): Disaster Risk Management.Working Concept. Eschborn: German Technical Co-operation(GTZ).

> GTZ (2003): Capacity Development for Sustainable Development. Policy Paper No. 1. Eschborn: GermanTechnical Co-operation (GTZ).

> GTZ (2003a): Community-based disaster risk management. Experiences gained in Central America.

Eschborn: German Technical Co-operation (GTZ).

> GTZ (2003b): Perú – Proyecto de reconstrucción con inclusión de la gestión de riesgo.


> GTZ (2003c): El Salvador – Proyecto de reconstrucción con inclusión de la gestión de riesgo.


> GTZ (2004): Guidelines: Risk Analysis – a Basis for Disaster Risk Management.


> GTZ (2004a): Katastrophenrisikomanagement im ländlichen Raum in Lateinamerika und der Karibik.

Ausgewählte Instrumente der GTZ. Eschborn: German Technical Co-operation (GTZ).

> Hacking, I. (1990): The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

> Haug, R. (2000): Forced Migration, Environmental Change and Long-term Development Livelihood

Security Among Patoralists in Northern Sudan: Post-Hunger Development in a Country at War.

In: Noragric Working Paper No. 19. Centre of International Environment and Development Studies. Norway:Noragric Agricultural University of Norway, p. 1-33.

86

> Holloway, A. (2003): Disaster risk reduction in Southern Africa: hot rhetoric, cold reality.

In: African Security Review Vol. 12, No. 1. Cape Town, p. 1-12.

> IDB (2000): Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview of Risk.

Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

> IFRC (2002): World Disaster Report 2002. Focus on reducing risk. Geneva: International Federation ofRed Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

> ISDR (2002): Living with Risk – A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Preliminary Edition.Geneva: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).

> ISDR (2003): Disaster Reduction and Sustainable Development - Understanding the links between

vulnerability and risk to disasters related to development and environment. Geneva: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).

> ISDR (2004): Living with Risk – A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Geneva: InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).

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

Communities to Disasters. Geneva: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR).

> Kaufmann, F.-X. (1973): Sicherheit als soziologisches und sozialpolitisches Problem - Untersuchun-

gen zu einer Wertidee hochdifferenzierter Gesellschaften. Stuttgart: Enke.

> Kermani, N. (2004): Stadt der Decken.Vier Monate nach dem Erdbeben in Bam: Der Iran tut kaum

etwas für den Wiederaufbau. In: Die Zeit No. 21, 13.05.2004, p. 20.

> Knight, F. H. (1964): Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Century Press.

> Lavell, A. (1994): Prevention and Mitigation of Disasters in Central America:Vulnerability to Disasters

at the Local Level. In: Varley, A. (Ed.): Disasters, Development and Environment. Chichester: Wiley andSons, p. 49-63.

> Longley, C. and Maxwell, D. (2003): Livelihoods, Chronic Conflict and Humanitarian Response: A Syn-

thesis of Current Practice. Working Paper 182. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

> Luhmann, N. (1990): Gefahr und Risiko. In: Luhmann, N.: Soziologische Aufklärung, Vol. 3, Opladen: West-deutscher Verlag.

> Luhmann, N. (1991): Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: De Gruyter.

> Luhmann, N. (1991): Die Moral des Risikos und das Risiko der Moral. In: Bechmann, G. (ed.): Risiko undGesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

> Macamo, E. (2003): Nach der Katastrophe ist die Katastrophe. Die 2000er Überschwemmung in der

dörflichen Wahrnehmung in Mosambik. In: Clausen, L., Geenen, E. M. and Macamo, E. (Eds.): Entsetzliche soziale Prozesse. Theorie und Empirie der Katastrophen. Münster: Lit-Verlag, p. 167-184.

> Norton, A. and Foster, M. (2001): The Potential of Using Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches in Poverty

Reduction Strategy Papers. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

87

> Nowotny, H. and Evers, A. (1986): Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

> OECD (2001): The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD).

> Özerdem, A. (2003): Disaster as Manifestation of Unresolved Development Changes:The Maramara

Earthquake, Turkey. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. Lon-don: Routledge, p. 199-213.

> Pelling, M. (2003): Paradigms of Risk. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Global-izing World. London: Routledge, p. 3-16.

> Pelling, M. (2003a): Emerging Concerns. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in aGlobalizing World. London: Routledge, p. 233-243.

> Porter, T. M. (1995): Trust in numbers – The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

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

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

> PRSP Honduras (2001): www.worldbank.org/prsp/

> PRSP Nicaragua (2001): www.worldbank.org/prsp/

> Sainath, P. (1999): Everybody loves a good drought. Stories from India’s poorest districts. New Dehli.

> Schafer, J. (2002): Supporting Livelihoods in Situations of Chronic Conflict and Political Instability:

Overview of Conceptual Issues. Working Paper 183. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

> Scoones, I. (1998): Sustainable Rural Livelihoods – A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working paper 72.Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

> Simmel, G. (1999 [1908]): Soziologie – Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung.

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

> Spittler, G. (1989): Handeln in einer Hungerkrise.Tuareg in der Dürre 1984/85.

Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

> Tearfund (2003): Natural Disaster Risk Reduction.The policy and practice of selected institutional

donors. Middlesex: Tearfund.

> Trommershäuser, S. and Kausch, I. (2004): Armutsbekämpfung und Beschäftigung. (Available at: www.bmz.de).

> Twigg, J. (2001): Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness among NGOs in Gujarat State, India. London:Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London.

> Twigg, J. (2001a): Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. Disaster Management WorkingPaper 2. London: Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London.

> UNDP (1994): Disasters and Development. Disaster Management Training Program. Module preparedby Stephenson R. S.. New York: United Nation Development Program (UNDP). (Available at:http://undmtp.org/english/disaster_development/disaster_development.pdf).

> UNDP (2002): Human Development Report 2002. New York: United Nation Development Program (UNDP).

> UNDP (2003): Human Development Report 2003. New York: United Nation Development Program (UNDP).

> UNDP (2004): Reducing Disaster Risk. A Challenge for Development. New York: United Nation Develop-ment Program (UNDP).

> United Nations General Assembly (2004): Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration.

Report of the Secretary-General. New York: Unite Nations (UN).

> WBGU (2004): Fighting Poverty through Environmental Policy. Summary for policy-makers. Report of theGerman Advisory Council on Global Change. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung GlobaleUmweltveränderung (WBGU), p. 1-15.

> Wisner, B. (2003): Changes in Capitalism and Global Shifts in the Distribution of Hazard and Vulnera-

bility. In: Pelling, M. (Ed.): Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: Routledge, p.43-56.

> Wolfensohn, J. and Cherpitel, D. (2002): Why we need to do what we are doing. (Available at:www.proventionconsortium.org/articles/whyweneed.htm).

> World Bank (2001): World Development Report 2000/2001. Attacking Poverty. Washington D.C.: WorldBank (WB).

> Yorque, R. et al. (2002): Toward an Integrative Synthesis. In: Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (Eds.):Panarchy - Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

88

Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management › fileadmin › user_upload › ... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Linking Poverty Reduction and Disaster Risk Management › fileadmin › user_upload › ... ·...