Disaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods

7/30/2019 Disaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods

1/178

Strengthening the humanity and dignity of people in crisis through knowledge and practice

JULY 2013

Disaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods


2/178Feinstein International Center2

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through

the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the

responsibility of the Feinstein International Center, Tufts University and do not necessarily

reect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

2013 Feinstein International Center. All Rights Reserved.

Fair use o this copyrighted material includes its use or non-commercial educational

purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news

reporting. Unless otherwise noted, those who wish to reproduce text and image fles

rom this publication or such uses may do so without the Feinstein International

Centers express permission. However, all commercial use o this material and/or

reproduction that alters its meaning or intent, without the express permission o the

Feinstein International Center, is prohibited.

Feinstein International Center

Tuts University

114 Curtis Street

Somerville, MA 02144

USA

tel: +1 617.627.3423

ax: +1 617.627.3428

fc.tuts.edu

Cover photo: Crossing the Mohana river

ater ooding. Photo by Poshan Dahal
http://fic.tufts.edu/http://fic.tufts.edu/


3/178Disaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods 3

EXAMINING LINKAGES BETWEEN DRR AND LIVELIHOODS:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Authors

The report is the result o research carried out by the Feinstein International Center at TutsUniversity. The research team consisted o the ollowing individual: Karen Jacobsen, AnastasiaMarshak, Daniel Maxwell, Jeevan Sharma, Elizabeth Stites, and Peter Walker. All members o the

team contributed to the writing o the report.

Acknowledgements

The Feinstein International Center at Tuts University would like to thank the Oce o U.S.Foreign Disaster Assistance/USAID or its support o the Disaster Risk Reduction and LivelihoodsProgramming research. This review would not have been possible without the help o FIC ResearchAssistants Nicole Coglianese and Eric Anderson. FIC would also l ike to thank sta rom the Oceo U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance/USAID, Overseas Development Institute, Catholic RelieServices, Oxam America, World Bank, CARE, Mercy Corps, the Oce o Management andBudget, and the American Red Cross or their helpul insight into DRR.

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND FINANCIAL STRATEGIES OF THE POOR:

DEMAND FOR, ACCESS TO, AND IMPACT OF CASH IN HAITI FOLLOWING

THE 2010 EARTHQUAKE

Authors

This report is the result o a collaborative eort between the Feinstein International Center at TutsUniversity and Interuniversity Institute or Research and Development (INURED) in Haiti. Theresearch team consisted o the ollowing individuals: Louis Herns Marcelin , Hugues Foucault, and

Calixte Clrism rom INURED, and Karen Jacobsen and Anastasia Marshak rom FIC. Allmembers o the team contributed to the writing o the report.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank USAID, Oce o Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) or unding theresearch and or their support throughout the process. We would also like to express our prooundthanks and gratitude to all those who took time to talk to us in relation to the research. Thisincludes: sta o national and international NGOs in Haiti; local community leaders in Port-au-Prince; and in particular, members o the communities where we conducted our interviews. Wewould like to thank the leadership o INURED or their support: Louis Herns Marcelin, as well as

Peter Walker o the Feinstein International Center. We would also like to thank the researchassistants who assisted us in our work: Matthew Herbert and Anne Wanlund. The ollowing studentsparticipated in the eld work: Jephthey Pierre Louis, Josue Posy, Widney Fortune, Jean OnyCelestin, Fed-kedny Exantus, Theresa Guervi, Kassandra Gaelle Alexandre, Brenuma Sebien, Dana

Jean Pierre, Michel Fernie, David Jasmin, Dider Deslorge, Jean Sergo Louis, Johnny Fontaine, andMario Maisonneuve. The research also greatly beneted rom the administrative help at theFeinstein Center: Anita Robbins, Elizabeth OLeary, Rosa Pendenza, and Ann OBrien. It should benoted that all remaining errors and omissions should be attributed to the writers o this report.



LIVING IN THE MARGINS: COPING WITH FLOOD RISKS AND MANAGING

LIVELIHOODS IN NEPALS FAR-WESTERN TERAI

Authors

The report is the result o research carried out by the Feinstein International Center at TutsUniversity. The research team consisted o the ollowing individuals: Elizabeth Stites, Jeevan Sharma,Anastasia Marshak, and Poshan Dahal. All members o the team contributed to the writing o the

report.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank USAID, Oce o Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) or unding theresearch and their support throughout the process. We would also like to express our prooundthanks and gratitude to all those who took time to talk to us in relation to the research. This includesNepali government ocials at both the national and local level; other local leaders; sta o manyNepali and international NGOs, and in particular, members o the communities in Kailali District.We would also l ike to thank Mercy Corps or their support throughout the process: providing spaceor trainings, printing acil ities, and other services. We would also like to thank Rachel Gordon orher extensive work on the background and l iterature review. The research greatly beneted rom theadministrative help at the Feinstein Center: Anita Robbins, Elizabeth OLeary, Rosa Pendenza, andAnn OBrien. All remaining errors and omissions should be attributed to the writers o this report.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION:

A CASE STUDY OF KENYA

Authors

This report is the result o a collaborative eort between the Feinstein International Center at Tuts

University, the Kenya Red Cross Society, and the Nairobi Peace Initiative-Arica. The research teamconsisted o the ollowing individuals. Kenya Red Cross: Ahmed Idris and Nicholas Odoyo. NairobiPeace Initiative-Arica: Peter Maruga and Nahashon Kariuki. Feinstein International Center: DanielMaxwell, Anastasia Marshak, and Simon Richards. All members o the team contributed to thewriting o the report.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank USAID, Oce o Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) or unding theresearch and their support throughout the process. We would also like to express our prooundthanks and gratitude to all those that took time to talk to us in relation to the research. This includes

Kenyan government ocials at both the national and local level; other local leaders in Isiolo andBurnt Forest; sta o many Kenyan and International NGOs; and in particular, members o thecommunities o Burnt Forest and Isiolo. We would like to thank the leadership o the three partnerinstitutions or their support: in particular, Abbas Gullet and James Kisia o Kenya Red Cross,Florence Mpaayei o the Nairobi Peace Initiative-Arica, and Peter Walker o the FeinsteinInternational Center. We would also like to thank the research assistants that assisted us in our work:Matthew Herbert and Ahmed Idris (while still a student at Tuts, prior to returning to Kenya RedCross). The research also greatly beneted rom the administrative help at the Feinstein Center:Anita Robbins, Elizabeth OLeary, Rosa Pendenza, and Ann OBrien. It should be noted that allremaining errors and omissions should be attributed to the writers o this report.



Examining Linkages between DRR and Livelihoods: Literature Review

Introduction 141. Dening DRR 16

2. Dimensions o DRR 18

3. The DRR Framework 19

Current Gaps in DRR Knowledge and Programming 22

1. Limited National Capacity 22

2. Limited Funding or DRR Compared to Relie Eorts 23

3. Lack o Standardized Denitions, Tools, Methodologies, or Assessments 234. Limited Incorporation o Vulnerability as an Underlying Risk Driver 24

5. Minimum Coordination amongst Programs 24

6. Lack o Project Monitoring, Impact Evaluations, and Cost-benet Analyses 24

7. Limited Scope beyond Natural Hazards and Rural Areas 25

Summary and Conclusion 27

Appendix L1: DRR Topics 29

1. Migration 292. Urbanization 30

3. Financial Capital 32

4. Social Capital 37

5. Gender 39

6. Indigenous Knowledge 40

7. Overview o DRR Frameworks 42

8. Confict and the Multi-hazard Environments 43

Appendix L2: Interviews 45

Contents

continued on next page



Disaster Risk Reduction and Financial Strategies o the Poor:

Demand or, Access to, and Impact o Cash in Haiti ollowing the 2010 Earthquake

Introduction 47

1. Research Objectives 48

2. Executive Summary 48

Methodology 50

1. Limitations 50

Characteristics o the Study Sites 51

Background 52

Findings and Analysis 56

1. Impact o the Earthquake on Household Financial Resilience 56

2. Access to Financial Services 58

3. Household Financial Coping Strategies and Impact 60

Conclusions and Recommendations 63

Contents (continued)




Living in the Margins: Coping with Flood Risks and Managing Livelihoods in

Nepals Far-Western Terai

Introduction 67

1. Executive Summary 68

Methodology 70

1. Sampling 70

Marginalization o the Research Area 72

1. Physical Environment and Geography 72

2. Isolation rom Center o Power 73

3. Legacy o the Peoples War 73

Findings 75

1. Flooding 75

2. Study Population Characteristics 76

3. Livelihood Strategies 77

4. Migration 80

5. Social Capital 82

6. NGO Activities, Presence, and Perception 84

Analysis and Discussion 86

1. Household Mitigation and Coping Strategies 86

2. Household Vulnerability and Resilience to Flooding 88

Conclusion and Recommendations 93

Annex N1: Wealth 96





Conict Management and Disaster Risk Reduction:A case study o Kenya

Introduction 99

Background on Kenya 101

1. Rationale or a Case Study Focusing on Kenya 101

2. Linkages between Livelihoods and Confict 104

3. Summary 106

Methodology 107

1. Limitations 107

Conict Management and DRR: A Programming and Policy Separation? 109

1. Separation in Confict Management and DRR Programming 109

2. Overlap in Confict Management and DRR Programming 111

3. Summary 113

Actors and Activities in Conict Management in Kenya 115

1. Examples and Impact o Activities 116

2. Constraints to Confict Management Programming 123

3. Summary 125

Case Study2013 Kenya Elections 127

1. Factors that Prevented Confict in 2013 127

2. Summary 133

Conclusion and Recommendations or Practice and Research 134

Post Script: Presentation o the Research and Round Table Discussion 138

1. Background to the Round Table 138

2. Main Points rom the General Discussion 138

Acronyms 141

Denitions and Terminology 142

Bibliography 149

End Notes 170




DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND LIVELIHOODS

Introduction

According to the Hyogo Framework or Action,disasters aect over 200 million people annually,

causing signicant loss o lives, orced migration,and disruption o livelihoods and institutions. Thetrend over the past 1520 years points to a greaterrequency o environmental, climatic, political,and economic hazards and thereore a growingrisk or vulnerable populations worldwide.Though disasters aect everyone, oten the impactdisproportionately alls on poor countries and thepoor and marginalized people within. Thus theeects o disasters are not simply a humanitarianproblem, but also a major challenge to achieving

the Millennium Development Goals.

Disaster Risk Reduction programs and policiesoer the potential to reduce the eects o adisaster or shit the burden outside the aectedcommunity, yet there exist many gaps andunanswered questions. From 2010 to 2013, the

Feinstein International Center, with supportrom the US Oce o Foreign DisasterAssistance, conducted a three-country study odisaster risk reduction and livelihoods entitledDisaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods. Thestudy sought to: Improvetheoverallknowledgeofthe

relationship between disaster risk andlivelihood strategies;

Improvetheunderstandingandgapsin

knowledge, practice, and policy; and Improvetheimpactofdonor-fundedDRR

programs carried out by implementingagencies.

In order to address these objectives, the studyidentied three case studies to capture as muchbreadth and variety o disasters as possible,including geographical areas, aected livelihoodassets, and population groups (Table 1). The rstcategory was the hazards that the case studywould address. These include environmental and

Table 1. Matrix or Case Study Selection

Country Cases Haiti Nepal KenyaHazard Climatic 4 4 4Category Tectonic 4 4 - Environmental 4 4 4

Economic 4 - -Social/Political 4 4 4

Livelihood Physical 4 4 -

Assets Natural-

4 4 Financial 4 - -Human 4 - 4Social/Political 4 4 4

Population Rural - 4 4Groups Urban 4 - - Peri-urban 4 - 4Geographic Latin America/Caribbean 4 - -

Area Arica-

-4 Asia - 4 -



climatic hazards (all), tectonic hazards (Haiti),economic hazards (Haiti), and socio-politicalhazards (Nepal, Kenya). The second criterion isthe type olivelihood assets addressed byprograms, including physical (Nepal), natural(Nepal, Kenya), nancia l (Haiti, Nepal), human(Haiti, Kenya), and social/political (Nepal,

Kenya, Haiti). The third was thepopulation group(correlated with the livelihood group), andincludes rural (Nepal, Kenya), urban (Haiti),and peri-urban (Haiti, Kenya). The lastcriterion was thegeographic region, with one caseeach rom the Latin America/Caribbean region(Haiti), one rom Arica (Kenya), and one romAsia (Nepal).

The Case Studies

The rst case study, Disaster Risk Reductionand Financial Strategies o the Poor: Demandor, Access to, and Impact o Cash in HaitiFollowing the 2010 Earthquake, ocused onnancial resilience o households in Port-au-Prince ollowing a large, covariate, sudden-onset disasterthe 2010 Earthquake. Whatmakes the study unique is the ocus on urbanpopulations. One o the gaps identied in theDRR literature was the dominance o

interventions designed or rural settings andoten inappropriately transerred to urbanenvironments. In contrast to disasters in ruralsettings, access to cash and specically a lumpsum o cash is integral or recovery in urbansettings. Our study ound that poor householdscash stocks were completely obliteratedollowing the disaster, and with l ittle to noaccess to ormal nancial institutionshouseholds were orced to rely on inormal

saving strategies. In a multi-hazard context suchas Haiti, these strategies oer little security.Households were let with little choice but toborrow; however, not suciently enough torestock their businesses, earn a prot, or or thatmatter even sustain their current livelihoods orconsumption needs. While wealthy householdswere able to recover, the poor continued tourther deplete their assets, take on debt, andspiral down into a poverty trap.

The lack o cash was urther complicated by theliquidity constraints o micronanceinstitutions, remittance transer points, and

even ormal nancial institutions ollowing inthe immediate atermath o the disaster. Wethereore oer several possibilities or shoringup not only household nancial resilience, butalso the nancial resilience o the semi-ormalinstitutions that are best placed to provide thenancial support via savings, insurance, and

credit that aected households need in order torecover rom the disaster and mitigate potentialuture risk.

The second study, Living in the Margins:Coping with Flood Risks and ManagingLivelihoods in Nepals Far-western Teraiserved as a traditional case study o DRRocusing on a rural, agrarian, and marginalizedpopulation living under an annual threat ofooding with traditional NGO DRR supportwith an emphasis on participatory methods.Households use a myriad o coping andmitigating strategies, some o which havelong-term consequences such as taking childrenout o school to work, or shorter term andreversible impacts, such as temporary reductionin household ood expenditure. However, themost common strategy included relying onsocial capital in the community by drawing onsocial networks to help prepare or fooding,

assist during the foods, and provide supportater fooding. However, these strategies lostmuch o their ecacy in the case o a large andsudden-onset food, such as the one in 2008.The most successul interventions were theconstruction o spurs or gabions and activecommunity participation in DisasterPreparedness Committees, the latter supportedby NGO DRR programming. However, weound that uptake o these community

mitigating projects relied heavily on thehomogeneity o household characteristics in thecommunity, and the more diverse the less l ikelythe community was to part icipate in theseactivities.

Households living in communities withcharacteristics unlikely to lead to collectiveDRR activities stil l require support to ensuregreater resilience against fooding. While it isnot surprising that increased individual

household wealth corresponded with a reducedfooding impact, the study was able to identiyspecic components o households wealth



associated with greater resilience to fooding:livelihood diversication, access to markets,access to cash, and nancial managementstrategies. In the case study, we oer up specicrecommendations or shoring up householdwealth and transerr ing food risk out o thecommunity.

The nal case study, Confict Managementand Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study oKenya, was chosen to address the research gapthat exists because the majority o DRRprogramming is requently discussed in thecontext o natural hazards and climate change,but not in regard to confict or politicalvulnerability. Given that the majority ohumanitar ian response goes disproportionatelyto emergencies caused by confict and themulti-causal nature o many contemporarycrises, the Kenya study was specically designedto better understand this gap in the DRRliterature. While organizations presented botharguments or and against integration, the studyound that at the more local level organizationsworking in DRR took a much more multi-hazard approach that included confictmanagement. However, despite the integration,or at least better coordination, at the local level

there was still very little livelihoodprogramming, and what existed was mostlyabout either recovery or a return to the statusquo. While there was some evidence o impactrom the confict management programming,little o it, i any, addressed the underlyingcauses.

The Kenya case study was specically plannedto occur around the 2013 elections in order to

better understand the impact or lack thereo oconfict management programs on the risk oconfict. However, given the high degree ointernational scrutiny and nationalpreparedness or the elections, there was littlepost-election violence, and thereore it was notpossible to measure the direct impact o theconfict management programs the study wasexploring. There was considerable pre-electionconfict, enabling some analysis, but the teamhad diculty in generalizing the ndings or

the implications or other, less predictableconficts.

Overview o Findings

Given the variety o hazards, populations, andlivelihood assets tackled in the three casestudies, it was dicult to draw many overallconclusions on DRR. However, it is clear thatcurrent DRR programming does not take into

account the plethora o risks that householdsresiding in dynamic contextsthat includepoverty, disasters, and confictexperience.Future programming needs to address thereality that households are vu lnerable tonumerous risks, and that disasters oten simplyexacerbate existing vulnerabilities. One suchapproach is through a better understanding othe livelihood context. Besides the impact odisasters on human li e and health, livelihoodsare most important, as they are what allowhouseholds to access the unds and cash fowsnecessary or recovery. In both Nepal andHaiti, the study ound that supportinglivelihoods was not simply important oraccumulating wealth, but was integral orreducing household risk to a disaster. Also,DRR should not be viewed as only a pre-crisisprogramming concept only but should pervadethe program cycle, especial ly since many areasare consistently at risk o multiple hazards,

both natural and man-made.

The diculty o gathering evidence to inormDRR policy and practice was also madeevident in the research. In order to carry out atraditional evaluation, a study needs both accessto a control group and the occurrence o anactual shock, in this case a hazard. While theormer is dicult to identiy or ethical reasons,the latter is oten unpredictable. Both the Nepal

and Kenya study suered rom this constraint.The original methodology or Nepal had to bealtered ater the expected fooding never arrivedin the summer o 2011. Kenya as a case studywas specical ly selected in order to be able tosee the impact o the confict managementprograms ollowing the elections. However, theevent was so predictable that there were toomany interventions, ranging rom the local, tonational, to international level, making itpractically impossible to parse out to whatdegree each intervention contributed to therelatively peaceul elections.



The report is organized as ollows: rst, acomprehensive literature review on existingDRR practices is included, identiying gapsthat should be explored in uture research;second, the Haiti case study explores nancialresilience in urban settings; third, the Nepalcase study looks at traditional DRR

programming in a rural food aected area; andourth, the Kenya case study explores confictmanagement and disaster risk reduction in aconfict-prone context. Each case study isollowed by a list o recommendations or DRRprogramming in the described context.



In the disaster context emphasis has beengenerally placed on the initial humanitarian andemergency response. However, recently there hasbeen an increasing recognition o the importanceand value o disaster risk reduction (DRR)programming. This comes rom theunderstanding that though humanitarian eortsare important and required in the atermath o adisaster, a comprehensive view o risk andvulnerability are important elements inpreventing, reducing, and mitigating thenegative impacts o shocks on lives andlivelihoods. As outlined in the InternationalStrategy or Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and inthe Hyogo Framework o Action (HFA), DRR

includes early warning, improved governance,building up community and householdresilience, and reducing the underlying riskactors while strengthening disaster preparedness(ISDR, 2004). Even though DRR has beenrecognized as invaluable, it still remains asomewhat nebulous concept, and includeselements o programming that have variousdierent names: mitigation, prevention,building back better, etc. Many organizations

continue to struggle with what exactly DRRencompasses and how to incorporate it into theirmandate. This review is the rst output o athree-year research program looking at theintersection o DRR and livelihoods and isintended to clariy DRR concepts andprogramming elements, identiy good practice,and assess the impact o DRR programs onlivelihood outcomes, assets, and institutions. Thepurpose o this review is to establish baselinedenitions and trends, review existing literature,and suggest gaps in knowledge that will help toocus the content o the subsequent eld casestudies. The report was compiled via anextensive literature review and interviews withmembers o international organizations, NGOs,and government working in the sphere odisasters.

We rst give an overview o DRR and its basicdimensions, rom categories o risk to context

and populations. We then present arecommended DRR ramework thatencompasses the dierent components o DRR

and allows or better standardization omethodology as well as a clearer understandingo the possible gaps surrounding DRRprogramming. This ramework is entrenched inthe livelihood ramework1 and takes a holisticapproach to incorporating DRR intohumanitarian, relie, and development work. Itexplicitly recognizes the eects o hazards anddisasters on livelihoods. The next sectionconcludes with recommendations on issues thatshould be given greater attention in the DRRliterature, research, and programming. Finally,an appendix o several topics that are relevant tothinking about DRRmigration, urbanization,the poverty trap and nancial capital,

micronance, remittances, insurance, social andpolitical capital, gender, indigenous knowledge,DRR rameworks, and confict and the multi-hazard environmentis given, as well asrecommended respective readings. We concludewith an appendix o people interviewed or thisreport, a list o ISDR denitions or basic DRRterminology, and an annotated bibliography.

The goal o this report is to outline the existing

literature on disaster risk reduction, whichthough diverse, presently reveals little insight onthe potential livelihood dimension o DRR. Fornow, there exist more questions than solutions,and, as this report aims to show, more gaps inknowledge and programming than prescriptionsor protecting livelihoods. Our overallunderstanding o livelihoods and DRR thereoreneeds to be deepened through morecomprehensive research, in-depth case studies,and innovative evaluations in order to reduce thecosts o disasters in l ives lost and livelihoodsdestroyed.

EXAMINING LINKAGES BETWEEN DRR AND LIVELIHOODS:

LITERATURE REVIEW



INTRODUCTION

Disasters have increased in number over the pastcentury rom under 100 natural disastersreported annually beore 1975 to over 450disasters reported in 2000 (See Graph L1 below).2This only takes into account natural disasters andis partly a actor o better reporting over time.However, a r ise in population numbers,increased urbanization, building in more risk-prone areas, and climate change are allcontributing to the increased number odisasters. Depending on an aected householdsvulnerability and the systems put in place toprotect these populations, hazards can quicklycause a household to spiral down into new levelso destitution. Overall, a greater proportion o

the populationdouble what it was in theprevious decadeis now exposed to hazards,transorming hazards into disasters (DFID,2006). A disaster as dened by United NationsInternational Strategy or Disaster Reduction(UNISDR) (the most common set o DRRdenitions) is:

A serious disruption o the unctioning o a

community or a society causing widespread human,

material, economic or environmental losses whichexceed the ability o the aected community or society

to cope using its own resources. A disaster is a

unction o the risk process. It results rom the

combination o hazards, conditions o vulnerability

and insucient capacity or measures to reduce the

potential negative consequences o risk.3

Disaster risk is a global concern, but not all areasor populations experience an equal threat romhazards. Disasters are highly concentrated inpoorer countries with weaker governance, in lowand low-middle income countries with rapideconomic growth, and where the exposure opeople and assets is growing aster than risk-reducing capacities are being strengthened (UN,2009; ISDR, 2004). The poor are particularlyvulnerable to disasters given their already lowincome and depleted asset base, and thereore can

ill aord to suer increasing unemployment, cropand livestock losses, and lower wages or higherprices, especially on ood items. Small-islandnations (such as the Andamans, the Maldives, etc.)as well as land-locked developing countries areidentied as having the greatest economicvulnerability to hazards; the amount o loss is seenas a unction o decreased resilience (UN, 2009).Urban populations are becoming increasinglymore vulnerable to the impact o a hazard given

the rush o growth in large and mid-sized cities,causing an increase in shanty towns and slums inareas that are highly prone to landslides, fooding,and other hazards (UNDP, 2004).

Graph L1: Natural Disasters Reported 1900-2009

Source: EMDAT: The OFDA CRED International Disaster Database - www.emdat.be - Universite

Catholique de Louvaln Brussels - Belgium



Disasters lead to a severe destruction o physical,human, nancial, natural, and social capital,inevitably resulting in economic stagnation andthe deterioration o livelihoods as well as overalldevelopment. Disasters typically result in large-scale destruction o inrastructure, such as roads,bridges, ports, and sector-specic capital, such asactories, plantations and irrigation acilities(Collier, 1999; Cavallo and Noy, 2009). The lossophysical capital is oten exacerbated in poorand developing countries due to the use o lessdurable building materials, poor legalenorcement o regulations (i.e., building codes),and weaker prevention systems (Cavallo andNoy, 2009). Human capital can take even a

greater toll through the loss o lie, injury,disease, and emigration. Disasters lead toincreased malnutrition amongst children, poormental and physical development, and thereoreimpact education with long-term consequenceson livelihoods (Akresh et al., 2010; Bundervoetet al., 2009, Adelman et al., 2010).

Financial capital is also severely aected by adisastersavings, insurance, and access to credit

are al l potentially lost or reduced. Householdslose access to inormal nancial strategies, suchas borrowing rom a neighbor or reciprocalinsurance. Savings with inormal savings groupscan be washed away or destroyed, or lost in theprocess o people feeing rom their villages. Lostor destroyed documents and records aect ahouseholds ability to access remittances andormal banking services (Savage and Harvey,2007). In situations o protracted confict andinsecurity, ormal nancial service providerswithdraw their services (banks close), or reducethe range o their services (bank sta do notventure into insecure zones). National-levelbanking and economic planning is otensuspended or not implemented; rural institutionsare cut o rom broader markets; and insecuritydepletes the existing customer base (Hudon andSeibel, 2007).

The eects o a disaster can also have long-term

consequences on natural capital. Floods,tsunamis, and cyclones oten make large tracts ocrop land unusable or several seasons. Saltwater

intrusion is one o the biggest threats tolivelihood systemsit decreases reshwatersupply, crop production, and increases healthproblems as well as the ragility o mud homes(Pouliotte et al., 2006).

The eect o a disaster on social capital is moreambiguous (see Appendix A4). In some cases,traumatic experiences can sometimes alter normsin a positive direction with respect to collectiveaction in either post-confict (Bellows andMiguel, 2009; Blattman, 2009; Voors et al.,2010) or in post-disaster situations. Moreresearch needs to be conducted to betterunderstand the consequences o a disaster on less

tangible assets such as social capital.

Disasters have a strong and mostly negativeimpact on livelihood assets, leading to outcomeso increased vulnerability, reduced ood security,and more ragile institutions. There is littledissent in the literature about the overwhelmingconsequences o a disaster on communities andtheir livelihoods, but very dierent approachesand some lingering conusion over terminology

and language. Observers agree that householdsare experiencing increased vulnerability to therisks and consequences o hazards, especially thevery poor, households in growing urban areasand surrounding slums, and those living in areasmost sensitive to climate change. This has led toincreased attention to disaster risk reduction,mitigation, and preparedness. Most organizationsworking in the humanitarian, development, andclimate sphere have adopted, though notnecessarily standardized, some orm o DRRinto their practices. However, national andcommunity capacity and education arounddisaster preparedness is weak, and the eld oDRR lacks standardized denitions, tools,methodologies, and assessments. Conceptually,vulnerability needs to be incorporated as anunderlying risk driver, with better coordinationamongst climate, development, andhumanitarian programming. A ramework thatincorporates DRR at all stages o the program

cycle (preparedness, mitigation, response, andrecovery) and uses the livelihood ramework asan analytical base o analysis is necessary to



understand the impact o DRR on householdvulnerability, assets, and outcomes. As with allprogramming, better understanding o the localcontext, particularly markets and traditionalcoping methods, should be prioritized. Mostunding is still allocated to relie and emergencyresponse, with DRR seen and unded as a smal l

component o this. We discuss these gaps inurther detail in subsequent sections.In the ollowing sections we rst discussdenitions o DRR and then some dimensionso disaster, including risk and risk reduction. Wethen present a DRR ramework to help thinkabout the objectives, scope, and priorities orDRR programming and its eect on livelihoods.

1. Dening DRR

Both the benet and problem o the mostcommon denition o disaster risk reduction

The conceptual ramework o elements considered

with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and

disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid

(prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness)

the adverse impacts o hazards, within the broad

context o sustainable development.4

is that it is too all-encompassing a concept orspecic programming. It potentially includesbuilding up government capacity, resilience othe local and national economies, community-based preparedness, improved inormationsystems, better analytical models and emphasison analysis, improved partnership relations,building codes, savings groups, conservationagriculture, etc. Hence there are a broad range oprograms that are currently labeled DRR, and

the presumption on the part o some actors isthat anything that, or example, improvesincome also reduces risk. Many organizationsacknowledge that even though DRR anddevelopment are two separate concepts,sometimes the distinction between DRR anddevelopment programming is very smal lprograms that enhance a households well- beingeither via provision o nancial or physicalcapital, enhancement o human or social capital,or protection o natural capital could also makethe household more resilient in the event o adisaster, though this is not always the case. Forexample, some ways o improving income (i.e.,

increased savings) do reduce risk, but othermethods that are standard approaches todevelopment (i.e., increased credit) can greatlyexacerbate risk and hence emphatically do not tunder a DRR rubric.

Each organization adopts its own take on DRR

or programming purposes. For example, oneorganizational approach is to incorporate theconcept o risk reduction into developmentprogramming. This approach to DRRemphasizes improved disaster preparedness and isthereore about better readiness or responding toshocks, in addition to preventing shocks ormitigating their impact. On the other hand,DRR is sometimes incorporated as part o theirdisaster management cycle. However, theconcern expressed with this approach is that,given that the goal o DRR programming is tobuild saer and more resilient communities, thisraises the issue o whether DRR should be a parto all programming and not just in the context odisaster. Some organizations only label programsas DRR i they have a preparation andmitigation approach to a specic hazardcomponent, including a hazard or risk analysis.For some, risk management is the critical issuebecause the organization believes risk reduction

ocuses too narrowly and misses opportunities toimprove livelihoods and outcomes. In thismodel, the D in DRR is let out, al lowing abroader ocus on risk management as ahumanitarian and development issue rather thanbeing pigeon-holed as something or only thehumanitarian sector to worry about.

One approach organizations have taken toreducing exposure and increasing a households

or communitys ability to cope with hazards is toadopt the principle o building back better(ALNAP, 2009). Though building back betteris mainly about recovery, it can enhance DRRby creating opportunities or transormationand the reduction o uture risk. However, thereare oten large cost implications. For example,when building transitional shelters in Indonesiaater the Tsunami, the smart thing to do wouldhave been to use sustainable wood such asbamboo, cane, mango, or maple in order to not

urther devastate the environment, leading toincreased disaster risk. However, this would haverequired going o-shore, with drastical ly



increased costs and the provision o ewershelters. To date building back better has nothad the eect the name implies, because mostprojects have been centered on inrastructurerather than livelihoods. Furthermore, it isimportant to consider who the players are inconsidering what is better.

In some cases the destruction o local governancemechanisms by disasters requires an internationalintervention to prevent the subsequentdestruction o livelihoods by internationalcapital. Ater the 2004 Tsunami, a portion o SriLankas east coast was transormed through thegovernments reconstruction program under itsplans to build back better, paid or by aidmoney. A buer zone was imposed onvil lagers who previously inhabited the beach (orsaety reasons), but this zone was not enorced orthe resort industry, which was seen to use theland more protably. Households relying onshing as their main orm o sustenance andincome were displaced several kilometers inlandwhile their coast was transormed into a resortindustry (Klein, 2007).

Much o DRR programming comes under therubric o natural resource management. Some

organizations do much o their DRR work onsoil and water conservation, conservationagriculture, healing environmental hot-spots,drought mitigation, livestock asset protection,irrigation, drought-resistant seeds, and agro-orestry. Given that these types o interventionsare specically ocused on increasingly scarcenatural resources, unding can be easily linkedwith climate change initiatives. Natural resourcemanagement part ly addresses the consequences

o the changing distribution o weather patternsand, given the current popularity oprogramming that alls under the umbrella oclimate change, DRR proposals in this realmseem to get the most traction with donors.

Most o the successul programming that hasoccurred in the realm o DRR has been aroundconservation agriculture and holisticmanagement o arming, livestock, andagriculture. The use o ecological approaches to

arming together with livestock and agriculturalcare has yielded positive results. For instance, theOce o Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)

programs in South Arica have increased harvestyields in good years, and reduced losses in badyears. This includes cultivation practices, smallscale irr igation, and introduction o drought-resistant or short cycle seeds. This type oprogramming ts nicely with DRR and mostorganizational mandates on capacity building

and natural disaster response.

An area o DRR that has been relatively highlyinvested in is inrastructure and building codes.However, the overall useulness o theseprograms is sometimes disputed. In order orbuildings codes to be strictly adhered to inpracticeas opposed to mere regulations that areoten ignoredthere needs to be greaterinormation and understanding on the patternso loss and damage likely to emerge rom ailureto adhere to such codes in high-risk areas. Thiswill require providing DRR training toengineers, creating public awareness to createboth better supply and demand o DRR service,and creating a system o incentives or adheringto codes and repercussions when codes areignored. Similarly, with inrastructureinvestment, there has to be a clear andsustainable plan on up-keep and maintenance.Oten governments get unding in order to

achieve higher building standards or buildnecessary inrastructure without establishingwhat would be needed or longer termmaintenance o the structures (World Bank,2006). Through evaluation and analysis o casestudies, one assessment ound that building codeswere not sucient or DRR (UN and WorldBank, 2010).

Another intervention that has been prominent is

insurance within the agricultural sectors,specically index-based weather insurance. Theocus on repairing saety nets via insuranceschemes is meant to transer risk outside o thecommunity as well as encourage armers toengage in higher potential, but higher risk,arming technologies (Christoplos, 2010).However, most evaluations o insurance are stil lin their pilot phase; thereore little can beconcluded about their eectiveness besidestheoretical speculation. This is certainly one

component o DRR that needs signicanturther exploration and proper evaluation.



Due to the small distinction betweenconducting programs in the name o DRR,development, or climate change, someorganizations eel that they have to constrainwhat can al l under the mandate o DRR.DRR programs are oten l imited to risk-pronegeographic areas and working with risk-prone

populations, while most developmentprogramming is in high-potential risk areas.Confict, though highly correlated to increasedrisk or and rom disasters, is usually treatedseparately rom DRR by the majority oorganizations. Most disaster risk approaches aredeveloped in a stable setting, with donors andmultilateral initiatives prioritizing DRR innatural disasters rather that in confict zones.This is largely because o the more highlypoliticized nature o confict prevention andmitigation, the needat least in some circlesto isolate humanitarian response rom confictresolution, and diering spheres o expertise inconfict mitigation compared to preventing ormitigating natural hazards. Although manydonors and agencies address both confictmitigation/resolution and DRR, they are otenaddressed separately by very dierent parts othe organization, and requently there is little

joint analysis o the combined risks in a given

operational context.

2. Dimensions o DRR

The rst place to start is to dene risk. Herewe use the ISDR denition:

The probability o harmul consequences, or

expected losses (deaths, injuries, property,

livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or

environment damaged) resulting rom interactionsbetween natural or human-induced hazards and

vulnerable conditions. Conventionally, risk is

expressed as some unction o hazards and

vulnerability R = (H, V).5

Hazards, in this ormulation, are any event orphenomenon that may cause death, injury, ordamage. Vulnerability is usual ly ormulated toimply exposure to a hazard, and the ability (orinability) to cope with its consequences.

Risk is a unction o the relationship betweenthe hazards to which a household is exposed

and the households vulnerability to thatspecic hazard (Dil ley and Boudreau, 2001).For example, the risk (R) o a amine due todrought is a unction o the magnitude andlocation o the drought (H) and the householdand community vulnerability (V): lack oincome diversication or drought-resistant

seeds, limited access to a remittance sender, etc.Hazards can be dened as climatic, geo-physical, pandemic, economic, political,environmental, and technological. Vulnerabilityis dened in slight variation in the literature,but usually in terms o exposure, sensitivity, aswell as a unction o capacity to anticipate, copewith, and recover rom a hazard (Thomalla etal., 2006). Though the hazard par t o theequation is well developed, vulnerability hasproved more elusive because o the lack oagreement over how to translate theterminological denition into an analyticallyrobust one.

A key distinction is whether a hazard aectsindividuals or households separately or entirecommunities or wider regions. These dierenttypes o risk wi ll have varying consequences.Idiosyncraticrisks relate to individual householdsbut not necessarily to the whole community.

This includes events such as illness, the death oa wage earner, res and accidents, thet, etc.Individual households assets and capabilitiesmay be severely aected, while neighboringhouseholds may not be disturbed at al l.

Covariaterisk arises rom hazards that tend toaect entire communities, such as drought,foods, earthquakes, and armed confict. Suchshocks involve entire areas or sub-regions,

destroying or depleting a range o livelihoodassets, including natural and physical capital.Nevertheless, individual households wil l bemore or less exposed to covariate shocksdepending on their own asset base.

The implication o the equation R =(H, V) isthat in order to reduce risk, either action has tobe taken to prevent a hazard rom occurring, toreduce a households exposure to that hazard, orto increase the households abil ity to cope with

the hazard. One example o a risk reductionapproach is via the Disaster ManagementCycle, which includes prevention, mitigation,



preparedness prior to a disaster, and response/relie, recovery, and rebuilding ater thedisaster. Another methodthe HaritaConceptual Frameworklooks specically at amore holistic approach to risk managementconsisting o risk reduction, risk transer, andprudent risk-taking (Oxam, 2009). There are

several other variations o these two models thatalso take into account risk prevention,mitigation, and coping.6

At the core o reducing risk is an understandingo the intersection between risk, interventions,and livelihoods. Thereore, we use thelivelihood ramework as our analytical base oanalysis. The livelihood ramework wasdeveloped by the Department or InternationalDevelopment (DFID) to help understand andanalyze the household economic systems o thepoor and assess the eectiveness o povertyreduction programs. The ramework consists oassets or resources held by households andcommunities, generally categorized as physical,natural, nancial, human, and social. Theeectiveness o these assets is ramed byprocesses, institutions, and policies (PIPs) thatdene the households and communitysvulnerability context by shaping, enabling, and

constraining what people can achieve with theirassets. Households apply dierent livelihoodstrategies; these are ways in which assets arecombined and deployed to achieve livelihoodoutcomes, which in a sustainable, well-unctioning community match the goals thehouseholds are trying to achieve (Chambers andConway, 1992). In order to reduce risk, aprogram can either intervene to protect humanlie and status (outcomes), protect assets (the

asset ramework), or create a less r iskyenvironment or more protective policies (thecontextual PIPs environment).

A nal dimension o DRR is the context andpopulations in which risk reduction isoccurring. An important distinction is thedierence between rural and urban populationsand their livelihoods. These settings arevulnerable to dierent hazards and in verydierent ways, and these variables signicantly

impact the choice and likely eectiveness o anintervention. It is also important to understandhow risk diers amongst dierent social groups,

such as women, youth, the elderly, and thedisabled. For example, sexual exploitation canbe a component o who does or does not getrelie at the distribution level, where emale-headed households are most vulnerable (Barrettet al., 2009). O course, another importantdistinction is what livelihood systems are used

by the hazard-prone or aected household andcommunity: agricultural, pastoral, labor-based,trade-based, etc. The ability o DRRprogramming to be aware and address theseissues signicantly impacts the degree to whichrisk can be reduced.

3. The DRR Framework

Given the above considerations, we havedeveloped a DRR ramework (see Figure L1below) by which we can better think about theobjectives, scope, and priorities or DRR andhow it intersects with livelihoods. Thisramework can both assist with identiying thegaps in previous research, literature, andprogramming and with programimplementation itsel. This ramework attemptsto summarize and share current thinking onDRR. It does not oer denitive answers andguidelines, but is meant to elucidate the process

o DRR and put risk at the core oprogramming and analysis.

The term disaster or hazard is conspicuouslyabsent rom the ramework. The reason or thisexclusion is the belie that risk can be ound inany context; it is not simply an extension o oraddition to humanitarian response and recoverywork. The omission o a disaster al lows theramework to be used as a lens or all r isk-

reducing programming and is not limited solelyto disaster response. This ramework enables aview o DRR that is part o a collaborative,multi-hazard, cross-sectoral program designthat incorporates development, climate change,and recovery, in addition to humanitarianresponse, in an eort to reduce household andcommunity vulnerability to both covariate andidiosyncratic shocks. The point is thatprogramming at any point o the program cyclecan be r isk-reducing or risk-enhancing,

depending on the characteristics o theprogramming.



The oundation o the ramework thereore isrisk identication and reduction through properrisk management. While most rameworksidentiy risk as a primary concept in disastermanagement, they ail to explicitly include thedimensions o risk, which can be categorized asboth idiosyncratic or covariate and identied interms o vulnerabilities and hazards, as speciedby the risk equation: R =(V, H). This equationappeals to risk management directly byspeciying the need to both reduce theoccurrence o hazards and address household andcommunity vulnerability in the context o theseevents. Vulnerability, as understood rom alivelihoods perspective, is a refection oindividual and collective assets, strategies, andPIPs, while hazards encompass the whole gamuto adverse events, including natural, political,economic, and technological ones. Both hazardsand vulnerabilities should be identied with thehelp o community involvement and technical

assistance (ISDR, 2004) with a real ocus in thepreparation stage on identiying contextual issuesand nuances o the community.

Political and government support o DRRprogramming is an important component, alongwith that o the community, Civil SocietyOrganizations (CSOs), NGOs, agencies, and theprivate sector working in the same geographicvicinity or addressing similar vulnerabilities.Thereore, any institution that aims to put inplace a program with a DRR ocus needs toraise awareness with the relevant groups in orderto both avoid unnecessary replication andimprove sustainability. For example, in Kenya,several dierent organizations created their ownLocal Peace Councils within the same distr ict,creating problems that lead to the ineectivenesso this confict-reducing program (Odendaal andOlivier, 2008).

Perhaps one o the largest exclusions amongstDRR rameworks is the notion o holistic riskmanagement. Our ramework incorporates riskreduction, risk transer, prudent risk taking, and

residual risk. This concept is drawn heavily romOxam Internationals Harita ConceptualFramework (Oxam, 2009). Within our

Figure L1: The Disaster Risk Reduction Framework



ramework, risk reduction includes thepromotion o resilience via physical interventionsand social processes. The next component istranserring covariate risk rom the household orcommunity to an institution or agency that isbetter equipped to handle it, such as thegovernment via social saety nets or an insurance

agency. In both cases, some elements o risk areeectively shited rom the vulnerablepopulation. Prudent risk-taking allows a riskmanagement strategy to both reduce theexposure to risk and improve the productivity oaected or hazard-prone communities. Thisallows risk reduction to be easily incorporatedwith development programming and shows howDRR does not have to be limited to mitigationand coping strategies, but can be an opportunityor growth and wealth accumulation. Some ormo residual risk always remains, and thereore theprocess in eect is a eedback loop, one thathowever ollows a very specic process rom riskreduction, to risk transer, and nally prudentrisk-taking.

Assessment o program eectiveness and theidentication o new vulnerabilities are essentialor the process o risk management.Vulnerabilities, especially in the light o climate

change, will change over time, as will the natureo hazards. Incorporation o the livelihoodramework into the DRR ramework as well asthe elements o vulnerability analysis givesclarity to the ocus o the impact assessment onlivelihood outcomes, assets, and institutions asrelated to the intervention. An evaluationcomponent to any ramework is necessary tocontinually monitor the specication o thecontext and eectiveness o programming. A

proper impact assessment can lead to either acontinuation o an intervention or the need toreassess risk, starting the process all over.

Though the model we have just discussed is notimplicitly incorporated into the program cycle(preparedness, mitigation, response, andrecovery), it does include programming as part othe overall DRR ramework. Future DRRprogramming needs to be incorporated into alllevels o the project cycle (ISDR, 2009) and

thereore does not ollow a specic lineartrajectory. Risk identication and managementneeds to happen prior to a disaster, but also has

to continue to happen throughout the disastermanagement cycle in the orm o building backbetter and reducing the potential or uture risk.Thereore, to place DRR simply in the pre-crisisstage would be to limit the potential and long-term success o programming.

Our ramework encompasses many o the keyactors or a generalizable model o DRR. Theseactors include: anassessmentofvulnerabilitiesandhazards,

and, by extension, risk; learning:i.e.,sharingknowledgewithother

stakeholders and raising awareness; managingrisk;and

asystemformonitoringandevaluation.

The eedback loop allows or constant re-evaluation o risk identication and impactassessment. The ramework permits a conceptualand practical understanding o DRR to ensurebetter risk reduction in the uture and highlightspossible gaps within the literature andprogramming.



DRR is a relatively new eld, and a number ogaps in knowledge and programming areevident: NationalcapacityforimplementingDRRis

limited compared to international capacity. Thereisalackofadequatefunding

modalities. The unding available or DRRis ocused too narrowly on natural hazardsand the rural sector. Confict, multi-hazardenvironments, and economic shocks areoten judged as being political and thusbeyond the scope o DRR ramework, eventhough they are important contributors toand catalysts o disasters.

Nationalandinternationalactorslack

consensus on a DRR ramework andstrategy or implementation, andcoordination amongst the dierent sectors isweak, limiting cross-disciplinary insightsinto risk reduction.

Vulnerabilityisoftenoverlookedasan

underlying risk driver in programming andanalysis.

Thereisalackofanevidencebaseofwhat

works and what doesnt and why within the

eld o DRR. The absence o monitoring,impact evaluations, and cost benet analysescontributes to limited political commitmentand weak unding rom donors andgovernments. Without an evidence base, itis hard to determine which DRR practiceswork and which may be more cost eectivethan other types o programs. For instance,are programs more eective (in regard tosaving lives and livelihoods and minimizingunds spent) when they target vulnerabilityand ocus on drivers o risk or when theyprovide ex-post disaster relie?

In the next sections we explore these gaps inmore detail.

1. Limited National Capacity

The capacity and understanding o DRR in theinternational community has increased. Almost

all international organizations, NGOs, andnational governments have some kind oprogramming around disaster risk reduction.

These programs are not always eective orwell-unded, but the prolieration o theseprograms does indicate greater awareness andincreased discourse. There is now betterinstitutional policy or dealing with risk andrecovery and increased hazard and risk mappingability. Improved early warning systems havebeen adopted throughout the globe. However,increased agreement and interest amongst theinternational community and nationalgovernments does not always translate to thecommunity or project level. Nationalgovernments have limited enorcement andgovernance capacity when it comes to turningDRR policy into reality.

In order to increase capacity o national actors,inormation, education, and unding wil l need tofow rom an international discussion to nationalgovernments and community organizations.This requires work on multiple levelscommunity groups, local and nationalgovernments, regional initiativesand breakingdown red tape between the levels so thatemergency inormation, such as fash food

warnings, can lter down quickly. Without this,DRR programs such as risk and hazard mapping,earthquake-resistant inrastructure, and advancedearly warning systems will not be utilized andexpanded in poor and risk-prone communities.

The majority o the unding or DRR stillcomes rom international aid rather thangovernment coers, and this limits programsustainabil ity (Christoplos, 2010). Ater a disaster,the institutional inrastructure or response maybe mobilized, but the general approach torecovery and risk reduction remains primarilyoriented towards analyzing natural hazardswithout looking careully at actors ovulnerability likely to contribute to uturedisasters. This approach ignores the underlyingrisk actors that make a specic community orhousehold more vulnerable to the consequenceso a disaster. Furthermore, attention is stillgeared towards how to respond to a natural

disaster rather than how programs can treat thesocioeconomic actors that determine who canavoid, mitigate, or cope with these risks.

CURRENT GAPS IN DRR KNOWLEDGE AND PROGRAMMING



2. Limited Funding or DRR Compared to

Relie Eorts

Disaster response and awareness has increased,

with unprecedented donations and internationalaid ater Hurricane Mitch in 1998, the Tsunamiin 2004, and the Haiti earthquake in 2010.However, the majority o this aid sti ll goestowards relie eorts. Most bilateral donorsearmark only 510% o their annualhumanitarian budget or DRR activities(German Committee or Disaster Reduction,2007). To create greater balance betweenspending on relie and spending on DRR,emergency response needs to be linked directly

to disaster risk reduction programs. For example,WFPs budget or early warning is tied totonnage o ood aid, and DRR unding romnational donors is a percentage o theirhumanitar ian budget rather than based on DRRneed or that year.

There are several reasons or the discrepancy inunding between DRR and response. One is theobvious urgency o relie. The humanitarian

imperative combined with the high prole odisasters means that more and greater unds willalways be al located to emergency relie thanDRR. The relie phase is oten dominated bylarge donations and urgency regardingdisbursement, and aid agencies sometimesbypasses important national structures todistribute the aid. In this process, the need torefect on disaster risk and how it can beincorporated into humanitarian action andsustainable development is oten bypassed(Christoplos, 2010).

Furthermore, unding or relie operations isusually a one-o payment as compared tomitigation and preparedness, which requiresustained unding on a recurrent basis to besuccessul. Most organizations report that it isimpossible to get unding or programs that lastlonger than ve years, and, more requently, onlythree years. This has orced current DRR work

to limit long-term, potentially higher-impactplans in lieu o a ocus on short-term planninghorizons. The opinion o some disaster experts is

that DRR programming should aect uturedevelopment decisions (i.e., where will a amilybuild their house ater they move out o thistemporary shelter, and what will they havelearned rom this program about how to build apermanent house better?) and not simply dealwith the current consequences o the disaster. Inother words, DRR needs to identiy, manage,and plan or uture risk and, in order to do so,would need to be part o a multi-sector, multi-

year, and multi-country plan. For example, someorganizations are working hard to implement aprogram approach, which species longer-term objectives or a particular place orgeographic area, and then uses specic projects

to work towards those goals, rather than justimplementing short-term programs.

I more unding is to be unneled towardsprevention and mitigation, DRR programs wil lhave to demonstrate that they are cost-eectivein terms o uture emergency response. A DFIDstudy contends that or every dollar spent onmitigation, approximately two to our dollars aresaved in reduced disaster impacts (DFID, 2006).

A similar nding was made in India in a costbenet analysis o DRR programming infood-prone areas (Venton and Venton, 2004).However, this type o research is limited inquantity and scope. To increase unding towardsDRR, we need solid evidence that investment inDRR reduces economic and human losses aswell as the cost o uture response.

3. Lack o Standardized Denitions, Tools,

Methodologies, or Assessments

In order to better incorporate DRR alongdierent elds and practices there is a need orstandardized denitions, tools, methodologies,and assessments. The humanitarian communityhas no single operational ramework or DRR.7One consequence o having numerousoperational approaches is the lack o both acomprehensive summary o DRR approaches,and a coherent strategy or addressing livelihood

security. Although ISDR does provide broaddenitions, terms like vulnerability, resilience,risk, disaster, hazard, and shock are used loosely



in the literature (Webb and Harinarayan, 1999).

The term vulnerability reers to therelationship between poverty, risk, and eorts tomanage it. It is essential or a consistentdenition to emerge in order to set appropriatevulnerability assessment methods. Vulnerability

connotes exposure, sensitivity, and reliance(Thomalla et al., 2006). In most denitions,vulnerability is a unction o capacity toanticipate a hazard, cope with it, resist it, andrecover rom its impact. Both vulnerability andits antithesis, resilience, are determined byphysical, environmental, social, economic,political, cultural, and institutional actors(Benson and Twigg, 2007), but there is no oneclear and widely used denition.

4. Limited Incorporation o Vulnerability

as an Underlying Risk Driver

Risk remains associated with hazards andresponse, at the expense o concerns related tovulnerability. Less ocus on the event itsel andmore ocus on the underlying causes ovulnerability by policymakers increase theresilience o communities and avoids some o theimpacts generated by disasters. Vulnerability is

determined by social and political components,rather than a physical characteristic on its own.Given certain risks and hazards, a betterunderstanding o vulnerability would allow ordierent outcomes or a given population(Handmer and Dovers, 2007). I adequatelypredictive, this denition o vulnerability servesto protect livelihoods, reinorce copingstrategies, and support existing institutions indisaster prevention (Cannon et al., 2003).

Vulnerability analysis promotes a more preciseunderstanding o truly vulnerable populations,and urther integrates development work anddisaster recovery (Cannon et al., 2003).Development programming can thus beimproved to target vulnerability in relation toshocks, hazards, and threats as well as outcomes.Interventions stand to be greatly improved interms o timing, location, target population, andother similar characteristics (Dilley andBoudreau, 2001).

5. Minimum Coordination amongst

Programs

One o the largest gaps in DRR programming isthe need or collaboration amongst dierentsectors involved in risk reduction ormanagementdevelopment, poverty reduction,

climate, and humanitarian programsin orderto encourage cross-disciplinary insights intorisks, vulnerability, and household responses. It isessential to ensure that the developmental processdoes not unwittingly create new orms ovulnerability or exacerbate existing ones (Bensonand Twigg, 2007).

A central theme o the literature is theimportance o incorporating DRR acrosssectors. ISDR, the ProVention Project, theUnited Nations, the World Bank, and otherorganizations have emphasized the need tomainstream disaster risk reduction intodevelopment, and to support developmentorganizations that are adjusting operationpractice accordingly (Benson and Twigg, 2007;ISDR, 2004). According to a United NationsDevelopment Program (UNDP) report, there aretwo main types o disaster risk management.The rst is prospective disaster management

policies that are integrated into sustainabledevelopment programming and planning, andthe second is compensatory disaster management,involving disaster preparedness or response.Prospective disaster management is intended ormedium to long term risks and warrants programmonitoring to ensure that a developmentintervention is not exacerbating risk.Compensatory disaster management is to be usedor contemporary risk to ameliorate existing

vulnerabil ities (UNDP, 2004). Both arenecessary to successul ly prepare and respond todisasters. Much o the literature seeks to changethe thinking o disaster as an interruption indevelopment to one o a necessarily discussedrisk to development approaches o both countriesand international institutions (World Bank,2006).

6. Lack o Project Monitoring, Impact

Evaluations, and Cost-benet Analyses

One o the other major gaps in the collectiveknowledge is the lack o a globally accepted set



o criteria or measuring the eectiveness oDRR (ISDR, 2004). In order to streamline relieand developmental responses, and achieve acomprehensive needs assessment mechanism, anappropriate combination o indicators andanalytical methods are needed, as well as acomprehensive intervention strategy, fexible

planning, and, o course, unding. Suggestedtools and methods or covering these needsinclude inormation mapping, case study analysisand universal datasets to monitor trends, amulti-tiered system o disaster reporting, the useo poverty reduction papers to acilitate theincorporation o disaster management andenvironmental sustainability into developmentprograms, building on existing systems, andevaluating local coping strategies. In addition topreviously mentioned strategies, hazard mapping,decentralization, monitoring and evaluation,incorporating disaster risk management into theproject cycle, and transparency are identied asessential or carrying out these methods. Currentissues standing in the way o these indices andanalytical targeting methods include multiplescales o analysis leading to aggregationproblems, the absence o objective benchmarks,and dynamic systems that involve dierentcombinations o explanatory variables over time

and place (Thomalla et al., 2006).

A stronger emphasis needs to all on monitoring,impact evaluations, and cost-benet analysis inorder to determine the overall eect omitigation and preparedness interventions. Anounce o prevention is worth a pound o cure,but, i there are no data to conrm this, thenunding will not be geared towards DRR. Agreater ocus on both qualitative and quantitative

data is necessary to determine whether theintervention actually reduces risk, providing auseul evidence-based tool or analysis o DRRand demonstrating an economic argument orthe intervention (Venton and Venton, 2004).The literature review has ound scant evidenceon the impact o DRR, with little empiricalevidence one way or another on the claims and

justications made on behal o it.

In regards to evaluations, most tend to be

project-specic and limited to project outputs. Inorder or organizations to ully understand thevalue o an intervention, impact (lives lost,

aected, assets lost, reduction in response cost,etc.) has to be measured, as well as theunderlying drivers behind it. Otherwise projectlessons are less likely to be institutionalized andinterventions might be completely inappropriateor the context, or, worse, exacerbate disasterrisk. Another important distinction that needs to

be made is the dierence between outcomeindicators, those that measure the broader resultachieved through the provision o programgoods and services (i.e., inant mortality rate,nutrition), versus process indicators, those thatmeasure ways in which the program services andgoods are provided (i.e., error rates). Evaluationsneed to ocus on the ormer so that they do notsimply evaluate the process o implementingprograms without understanding their actualimpact on the community level. Properevaluation could both make a stronger case ormore DRR unding as well as determine best-practices without requiring repetition o thesame mistake. Though long-term impact mightbe dicult to measure or short-term projects,programs can establish and measure short-termexpectations. Another important concern is thatthe eect o DRR cannot be ul ly measureduntil an actual hazard strikes, and then it isdicult to separate out the real eect o the

DRR intervention i a good counter-actual isnot availablethereore a dierent kind oassessment is likely required to measure theimpact o DRR (Maxwell et al., 2009).

7. Limited Scope beyond Natural Hazards

and Rural Areas

DRR is requently discussed in the context onatural hazards and climate change, but not in

regard to confict or political vulnerability.Given the challenges o remaining neutral due tothe nature o international unding, securityprotocols, and political allegiances orassociations, it is rare that intervention in aconfict is not tarnished with a political brush.This makes programming (o any sort)potentially complex and problematic whenviewed through humanitarian codes o conduct.Although these problems cannot be avoidedentirely in any context, many organizationspreer to work in natural disasters and inresponse to natural risk rather than to engage inmore overtly political arenas. DRR programs



oten all into this seemingly more apoliticalarea, with programs addressing confict siloed ina dierent part o the organizations.

Besides confict, there are numerous otherhazards that are under-represented in the DRRliterature. Biological and economic hazards and

multi-hazard environments receive little to noattention, particularly when reviewing themissions o the various organizational bodies inthe DRR domain (ISDR, 2004). These topicswarrant greater research i we are to begin tobetter understand the capacities o aectedcommunities and better design programming.

Another area o ocus that requires increasedattention is urban DRR. The majority oproessionals in the eld have experienceworking on amine and poverty in rural areas.The consequences o this dearth o urbanknow-how are that oten DRR programmingdeveloped or rural contexts are simplytranserred to urban environments. Due tosignicant dierences in livelihoods, socialcapital, access to markets, and inrastructure, thisapproach is oten inappropriate and ineective.An example o this is the OFDA temporaryshelter construction project in Port- au-Prince,

Haiti, ater the January 2010 earthquake. In linewith Sphere standards, designs were toaccommodate ve people in eighteen squaremeters. Urban assessments, however, indicatedthat most urban dwellers in Port-au-Prince hadaccess to signicantly smaller pieces o land uponwhich to build temporary homes. Refecting, inthe view o one urban expert, the bias towardsrural systems, the architectural submissions orthe shelters were all one story. This commonality

ailed to consider adaptations or an urban area inwhich space is at a premium. Given the increasedvulnerability o households in urban areas,particularly slums, greater emphasis needs to allon urban-specic DRR programming andeducation.



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Disaster risk is highly concentrated in middle-and low-income countries and is elt most acutelyby people living in poor rural areas and urbanslums. Hazards such as foods, droughts, confict,storms, earthquakes, economic crises, and otherevents, when combined with greatervulnerabilities, can lead to a loss o lie andcollapse o livelihoods. Reducing disaster riskcan play a role in reducing poverty, saeguardingdevelopment, and adapting to climate change,with benecial eects on broader global security,stability, and sustainability. In order to moveorward in DRR, programs and research need tobegin to address the gaps in DRR knowledgeand programming and the increased

vulnerability o certain populations andlocations. Based on the literature review andinterviews, below is a summary orecommendations.

1. Increase ocus on poor, urban areas and island

nations, in addition to chronically risk-prone

areas

Growing urban populations and environmentalchanges make both urban inormal settlementsand small island nations increasingly susceptibleto hazards. Thus, a new ocus on urbanvulnerability and island nations is called or.

2. Standardize denitions, tools, and

methodologies

Agreed-upon denitions, tools, andmethodologies will help bridge dierent eldsand types o programming and reduce conusion.A cross-sectoral ramework that refects howlives, livelihoods, and assets are preserved wouldallow or a globally accepted set o criteriaagainst which to measure the eectiveness oDRR, and could guide action and steermonitoring.

3. Focus on reducing vulnerability

Risk remains overly associated with hazards andresponse, at the expense o concerns related tovulnerability, which is seen as too ambiguousand overwhelming. We lack tools to integratevulnerability analysis into development planning.A better set o tools or vulnerability analysis canlink humanitarian and development responsesand bring those responses in line with thesustainable l ivelihoods approach.

4. Integrate DRR with development, climate

adaptation, and humanitarian programming

DRR is too oten treated programmatically as astand-alone activity. Development,humanitarian, and climate initiatives have toincorporate DRR programming in order tomake their projects more sustainable and betteraddress al l community and household riskdrivers. The challenge is to incorporate climatechange, poverty reduction, and risk reduction ina way that can bring local and sectoral

approaches into the mainstream. This willaddress the goals o both the Hyogo Frameworkor Action and the Millennium DevelopmentGoals.

5. Understand and incorporate the project cycle in

programming

Given that the majority o unding is still

channeled towards disaster response, themethodological ocus needs to be broadened andmade more comprehensive, incorporating riskreduction with mitigation and preparedness,response, and recovery. Frequently, relie eortscontribute to increased vulnerability due toconficting program objectives.



6. Improve monitoring, impact evaluation, and

cost-benet analysis

A stronger emphasis on monitoring, impactevaluations, and cost-benet analysis is needed todetermine the overall eects o DRRinterventions. Quantitative analysis o the cost

and benets o DRR programming can provideevidence and a clear economic argument or oragainst DRR interventions. Lack o hardevidence makes the case or unding DRRdicult, particularly because it is hard todetermine whether targeting vulnerability andrisk drivers prior to a disaster cuts down on lossesand traditional disaster relie costs.

7. Broaden ocus to incorporate confict, economic,

biological, and multi-hazard environments

Most natural disasters now occur in a confict orpost-confict setting (Sudan, Haiti, Somalia,Nicaragua, and many others) or as a mix omultiple hazards (Ethiopia, Philippines, etc.). Atthis writing (November 2010), the globalnancial crisis is still resh in our memory, andwe recognize the importance o economic criseson livelihoods, institutions, policies, and

processes.



1. Migration

Out-migration is an inevitable result o disaster,and it oten serves to exacerbate the impact

(Hunter, 2005). However, migration can alsomitigate impact by reducing the number opeople that need to be assisted in the aectedarea. Communities that are part o (pre-disaster)existing migration systems benet romremittances sent ater a disaster (see section 3b:remittances).

How much a disaster increases or decreasesmigration fows depends on the existingmigration context. Hallidays research in El

Salvador ollowing the 2001 earthquakes showedthat El Salvador had well- established migratoryfows to the United States and Canada (migrationwas used as an ex-ante risk management copingstrategy), but that earthquake damage had nodiscriminatory eect and was associated withdecreased net migration across all wealthcategories (Halliday, 2006). Flight romhazardous areas appears to be more related toamily composition, community ties, and job

status than to concern or the risk posed by agiven hazard. Ater a disaster, or in hazard-proneareas, not all households are able to migrate. Thecosts o migration are a deterrent, but residentsalso choose not to migrate because o lack oinormation or expectations about loss (Hunter,2005).

There is some evidence that patterns omigration fows respond to environmentalchange such as desertication. In the Sahel, thecomposition o migrants and types o migrationhave changed, with more internal migration,characterized by short distance movements,shorter migratory cycles, and a greaterproportion o women and children. Research inNepal also ound environmental degradationassociated with short-distance movements, butwith little eect on longer distance migration(Adamo, 2009). Short-term migration caused byenvironmental shocks is linked to a households

seasonal coping strategy.

Large-scale displacement caused by a disaster can

create protection issues. The sel-settlement odisplaced populations can expose both themigrants themselves and the communities thatabsorb them to increased risk (UNHCR, 2006).The speed at which migration takes place canalso be a determinant o the overall impact. Themore sudden and orced the displacement, themore disruptive it is likely to be to lives andlivelihoods (Adamo, 2009).

Health, both mental and physical, can benegatively aected by relocation or orcedmigration. Research conducted ollowing the1988 earthquake in Armenia ound thatrelocation ollowing the disaster was associated

with higher levels o depression as compared tohouseholds who remained in situ. Loss o socialties, interruption o livelihood activities, andother disruption actors caused by out-migrationcan al l aect vulnerability (see section 4: socialcapital). A displaced population is also susceptibleto disease outbreaks and epidemics, as is evidentwith the spread o cholera in post-earthquakeHaiti today (Watson et al., 2007).

A growing l iterature on the impact o confictdisplacement exists, exploring how livelihoodsand entitlements play a key role in householdresilience ater displacement. For example, astudy in Sri Lanka explored the impact odisplacement upon IDPs by livelihood type.Despite the covariate nature o the displacementand the loss o income experienced across theentire sample, important distinctions betweengroups were identied. Livelihoods werecategorized by skilled and unskilled labor, civilservants, and entrepreneurs. Entrepreneursexperienced the most substantial losses as a resulto displacement, while skilled and unskilledlaborers losses were less dramatic(Amirthalingam and Lakshman, 2009).

Livelihoods programming suggests thathouseholds can be aorded some level oprotection i they are prevented rom liquidatingtheir productive assets and are permitted to use

those assets to cope with shocks (see section 3:nancial capital). In the event o disaster-inducedmigration, asset stripping is common, and

APPENDIX L1: DRR TOPICS



attempts to protect these assets have been theocus o interventions. Oxam GB programmingin Colombia has worked with IDPs to provideproductive packages containing contextuallyappropriate goods to improve productivecapacity o those aected by displacement.These packages have been benecial or those

targeted, but mid- to long-term impacts wereless clear. Most beneciaries ailed to maintainor improve the livelihood assets over the mediumterm, and or those who had achieved assetaccumulation, pre-displacement skills or trainingwere likely responsible or the sustainedproductivity (Hil l, 2004). The importance opre-disaster skills training and interventions toprovide vulnerable populations with basic skil lscan provide resilience against uture shocks andsuggest that transerable human assets are adeterminant o successul displacement anddisaster coping.

Recommended Readings

Halliday, T. 2006. Migration, Risk, andLiquidity Constraints in El Salvador. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change54:893925.

Hunter, L. 2005. Migration and

Environmental Hazards. Population andEnvironment26(4): 273302.

UNHCR. 2006. State o the Worlds Reugees.New York, NY: Oxord University Press.

2. Urbanization

Arica is urbanizing aster than any other continent

and the Arican urban populations will more thandouble its 2007 level o 373.4 million as early as

2030, when 51% o its population will be urban.

There will be close to 800 million Arican urban

dwellers by that year, which will be more than

todays total number o city dwellers in the entire

Western hemisphere. In act, it is conceived that by

2050 there will be more people living in Arican

cities than the combined urban and rural populations

o the Western hemisphere.

Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Director,UN-HABITAT, 2009.

Rural-to-urban migration, in addition to naturalpopulation growth and sudden movement into acity (in response to war or amine) contributes tourban growth and the concomitant growth oinormal settlements or urban slums. These areassuer rom overburdened health care systems,inadequate and insucient drinking water, and

substandard sanitation acilities andinrastructure; lack aordable and adequate land;and experience requent ood shortages (UN-HABITAT, 2009). Poor quality andovercrowded housing is a common characteristico inormal settlements, where there is little tono zoning, regulation, or building codesbut inmany large cities in developing countries, poorquality, overcrowded housing is common inplanned areas too. Legal title and otherownership records on the households in thesettlements seldom exist. Inormal settlements(slums) are at more risk or hazards, however,and this section ocuses on them.

Risk actors in inormal settlements

Inormal settlements are characterized by highrisk or the ollowing reasons. Invisible groupslack protection. Large numbers o unnoticedat-risk individuals and groups, such as theelderly, street children, recent migrants, and

IDPs, lack protection and access to saety nets(ALNAP, 2009). Local authorities are unpreparedor unwilling to address the needs o the growinginormal urban population. Lack oinrastructure and basic services such as drainageand emergency response increases risk. Poorurban governance exacerbates the risk throughineective risk-reduction policies and programs.People living in inormal settlements usuallywork in the inormal economy, resulting in

inrequent and irregular income and a limitedcapacity to pay or housing, purchase insurance,and develop savings or asset accumulation (seesection 3: nancial capital).

Building collapse is a major issue in the course omost disasters. Inormal settlements are bydenition unplanned, and are oten built onhazardous sites prone to foods, landsl ides, andearthquakes (Pelling and Satterthwaite, 2007).These areas are highly exposed to urban

pollution and hazardous materials.



These areas have recently begun to ace increasedviolence and insecurity as a result o thesedeprivations in resources. They are oten also thehardest hit by a disaster given the poorinrastructure, limited inormation on aectedhouseholds, and oten precarious oundations,making them oer little resilience against

earthquakes, foods, landslides, and otherhazards.

Risk mitigation approaches

Risk mitigation approaches includeunderstanding and mapping risks, building onlocal capacities, engaging communities in riskreduction, and collaborating with localauthorities and non-state actors to included

Documents

Disaster Risk Reduction and Livelihoods