Framework Evaluation Paper - EM Smith

8/8/2019 Framework Evaluation Paper - EM Smith

1/28

Evaluating the use of the Ecosystem Health (ESH) and Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approaches

in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Strategies:

A background document

Prepared by: Erin M. Smith, MA

[email protected]

For:

The University of Guelph School of Environmental Design and Rural Development

And

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

2005


2/28

1

Introduction

This background paper on the incorporating of Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) and Ecosystem

Health (ESH) considerations into Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies was written for the

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to contribute to the understanding of how

both the SL and ESH frameworks function, as well as determining if using this approach

strengthens existing DRR methods. It includes three case studies to provide further insight into

the use of these frameworks. This knowledge can provide guidance for actions and policy for

development and disaster risk reduction, both significant fields in the achieving of the Millennium

Development Goals. The SL and ESH frameworks are two approaches to dealing with complex

systems (defined by Rosen [1991] in the Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook [2005] as

system[s] in which many distinct yet valid subsystem descriptions are possible), and together as

SLESH offer an effective addition to DRR frameworks with little development content.

Integrating the SLESH approach into DRRs moves us away from the mindset that there is such athing as a natural disaster by recognizing the role that communities play in their own

development and survival. It puts more power into the hands of local actors in the form of

consultation and capacity, allowing individuals, communities and governments to move away

from relying on assistance from external partners. This approach also promotes the sustainability

of livelihoods and healthy ecosystems by empowering regions and increasing levels of resiliency,

improving the use of survival mechanisms, rethinking how changes to the natural environment

affect the social system, and furthering the success of DRR mandates. The UNDPs report,

Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development states that: the erosion of livelihoods,

damage to the integrity of ecosystems and architectural heritage, injury, illness and death are

direct outcomes of disaster (2004:9), but these factors, particularly those involving lost

livelihoods and decreasing levels of ecosystem health, are also direct feeds for disaster. By

factoring SLESH into DRR methods, a better understanding of methods for development in pre-

and post disasters can be established.

The Ecosystem Health (ESH) Approach

The concept of ESH results from an understanding that health is a dynamic concept which can

apply to an individual, population, community or ecosystem. It illustrates the fact that each

system is complex and can be altered by other dynamics in the systems or within relative sub-

systems. The health of an ecosystem can be monitored, and is linked to the actions of humans

and therefore central to the concepts of sustainable development and livelihoods. Viewing

ecosystems and the natural environment as experiencing levels of health links us to them as

humans, and requires us to have an understanding of how humans liv(e) in the biosphere as a


3/28

2

home rather than the planet being the house of man as noted by Allen et al (1993) in the

Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook (2005).

Using health as a measuring concept or component for an ecosystems wellbeing demonstrates

that the strength or security of an ecosystem is in a continuously changing state, influenced by

direct (flooding) factors and indirect (migration) factors. In this way, it is a component of a socio-

ecological system which is unstable over time (Livelihoods and Ecosystem Handbook 2005).

Maintaining a strong level of ESH therefore requires adaptive management strategies which

incorporate relevant systems and understandings of larger-scale and smaller-scale events.

Coupling ESH with SL strategies is an effective way to further understand both natural and social

systems. This approach has led to the creation of the Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem

Sustainability and Health (AMESH), which is founded in the recognition of a complex situation,

analysis of ecological, social and health issues, and collaborative and participatory action (Rennie

and Singh 1996; Parkes and Panelli 2001; Livelihoods and Ecosystem Handbook 2005). TheHealth, Environment and Development Triangle identifies how ESH draws together

interdisciplinary perspectives, creating an integrated ecosystems-based approach(seeFigure 1).

The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Framework

The Chambers & Conway definition of livelihoods is considered the staple understanding of the

livelihoods approach: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (both natural and social)

and activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and

recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, both now and

Figure 1: The Health, Environment and Development (HEAD) Triangle: Links between differentdisciplinary territories

Source: Witten, Parkes and Ramasubramanian 2000 in Parkes and Panelli 2001


4/28

3

in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (1992:7). This approach infers

that disasters (shocks rather than stresses) continually threaten livelihoods, thus creating

sustainable livelihoods is a continuous process. The activity of securing assets, including social

cohesiveness, is thus an ongoing development project. Peoples capacity to survive results from

being able to cope with, recover from and adapt to stresses and shocks (UNDP 1999) and

therefore need resilient livelihoods which can sustain these changes (Singh 1996; Helmore and

Singh 2001). These shocks and stresses can occur on the level of individuals and households

(idiosyncratic shocks) or on communities and nations (covariant shocks), thus SL mechanisms

must work within varied systems with local and international actors (FAO 2005). To be

sustainable, a livelihood also needs to be efficient in ecologically and economically sound

resource harvesting and usage, and grounded in social equity. There are some key differences

between sustainable development initiatives and the integrated rural development approaches of

the 1970s, which should be considered in order to view how this framework has progressed (see

Figure 2).

The UK Department for International Development (DFID) created an SL framework which

incorporates key livelihoods elements, including a focus on people, a holistic approach, and

Figure 2: Integrated Rural Development vs. Sustainable Development

Source: DFID 2001


5/28

4

micro-macro links (see Figures 3a and 3b). The UNDP definition (developed by Singh 1996,

1998) of the SL approach is that: sustainable livelihoods is a systemic and adaptive approach

that links issues of poverty reduction, sustainability and empowerment processes (e.g.,

participation, gender empowerment, and good governance) (1999). This description dictates

that livelihoods are more than jobs they are comprised of a wide range of actions individuals

do to make a living and to sustain life. The SL approach moves development beyond focusing on

poverty and needs to see the actual livelihood systems, strategies and pressures of vulnerable

populations, as well as the wealth of the poorthe human and social capital and resilience

levels which can be utilized and built upon (UNDP 1999).

SL has the capacity to be used as a participatory process which can be applied to different

contexts and situations of uncertainty, and is flexible enough to take in the multiple tasks of those

Figure 3a: The DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: DFID 2001

Figure 3b: The Assets Pentagon

Source: DFID 2001


6/28

5

who survive outside the formal labour market. It can also deal with the adaptive job market the

more modern or urban sectors are experiencing, with an unprecedented level of job insecurity

being experienced even in traditional careers (UNDP 1999). Livelihood systems are comprised

not only of assets available, but also dynamic interactions with other systems, including

ecological, social, economic and political dynamics. The role of coping strategies and

interactions is evident in the analytical framework for SL which is used by UNDP (see Figure 4).

Feinstein International Famine Centre 2002s definition of SL is suited to disaster settings: the

ways in which people access and mobilize resources that enable them to pursue goals necessary

for their immediate and longer-term survival (Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2005). However, a

standard model for measuring livelihoods or integrating the SL framework into DRRs does not

exist. Still the assets and policy determinants within the framework provide opportunities for a

marriage of these concepts. Taking an assets approach in order to establish indicators for SL is

the most popular way to measure the effectiveness of SL for an individual household, or a

community. SL assets consist of five different types of capital: human (skills, knowledge,

creativity, adaptive strategies), financial, physical (buildings, roads, machinery, crops and

livestock), natural (land, water, air, forests and vegetation) and social (governance structures,

decision-making power, community and other institutions, culture, participatory processes), which

can then be divided into two categories: stores and resources, and claims and access (UNDP

1999; see Appendix 1).

Integrating the SL and ESH Approaches into the SLESH Method

Figure 4: Analytical Framework for SL used by UNDP

Source: UNDP 1999


7/28

6

The SL approach is not meant to be used in isolation from other development tools. It is in

essence an integrating device, and can indicate where other methods and techniques could be

useful to decrease vulnerability (Farrington et al1999). The ESH approach is also one which

needs to be connected to other tools, in a systems method, and therefore can effectively build

upon the SL framework. Becoming just as evident in conservation as in development literature is

the notion that each are most successful when the other is involved conservation initiatives in

particular are more effective when there is a strong local interest base in environmental concerns

that are critical to local livelihoods, well-being and industrial and commercial enterprises.

Wyckoff-Baird et al (2000) describes this as a positive integration of conservation with the

attainment of sustainable development (68). This intersection of systems approaches works

directly to utilize and increase the resilience levels of communities.

A concept evident in SL is peoples interconnectedness to the natural world around them. A key

concept of SL is that assets such as healthy ecosystems can keep households resilient againstshocks and disasters. Natural resources are not limitless in nature, and as such, cannot be

consumed and/or produced in an unsustainable manner without leaving livelihoods vulnerable.

The clear links between levels of SL, ESH and vulnerability are shown in Blaikie et als (1994)

Pressure and Release model for vulnerability (see Figure 5). Livelihoods can only be

sustainable if they do not have negative impacts on the natural environment. The SLESH

approach requires a continuous monitoring of systems to ensure that social equity, ecological

security, and economic integrity is maintained (UNDP 1999).

Figure 5: The pressure and release model of vulnerability

Source: Blaikie et al. 1994 in Twigg 2001


8/28

7

Communities without access to a healthy ecosystem can become marginalized, leading to

livelihood and environmental insecurity. Incorporating the SL approach with ESH spurs questions

such as: What natural resources are livelihoods dependant on? How are these resources

vulnerable? What policy or structures are working, or should be created, to protect ecosystem-

based livelihoods? These queries could also be used in DRRs: How do disasters affect natural

resources vital to livelihoods? How can these resources be made less vulnerable to disasters?

What DRR components could protect ecosystem-based livelihoods?

Poor people are generally more dependant on ecosystems for their livelihoods, often relying on

multiple natural resources for their livelihoods. When the ecosystem is affected, so are their

livelihoods (Reid and Alam 2005). The reliance of the poor on the environment determines that

ecosystem management should therefore be a core element of the SL strategy. For example,

regions of the coast of India which had dense mangrove plantations were less damaged by the2004 Indian Ocean tsunami than areas where the ecosystem had been cleared. Areas which

have protected ecosystems such as mangroves not only shelter coastal regions from hazards,

but also ensure the sustainability of livelihoods, including aquaculture production. This approach

is accepted by numerous organizations, including IISD, SEI, IUCN and Intercooperation: This

combination of a secured natural resource base, reduced exposure to natural hazards and

diversified livelihood activities has increased resilience to future threats, including climate change

(Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003:2).

Figure 6: Elemental Integration of Sustainable Development and Livelihoods

SCIENCE

POLICYLOCAL

KNOWLEDGE

ENVIRONMENTECONOMY

SOCIAL WELL BEING

Adapted from (Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003


9/28

8

The IISDs framework for the integration of sustainable development and livelihoods illustrates

how integral the natural environment is to livelihoods (see Figure 6). Soussan et al(2003) uses

the arguments of Rennie and Singh to enforce this integration: predominately the poor of the

world depend directly on natural resources, through cultivation, herding, collecting or hunting for

their livelihoods. Therefore, for the livelihoods to be sustainable, the natural resource must be

sustained (1996:9; see Figure 7).

Figure 7: A Model of Livelihood Dynamics

Source: Soussan et al2003


10/28

9

The Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Approach

The WCDR Secretariat defines the DRR framework as the conceptual framework of 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 of

hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development (WCDR 2005). The framework

itself encompasses the active components of risk awareness and assessment, knowledge

development, public commitment and institutional frameworks comprised of organization, policy,

legislation and community actions. It also uses the elements of environmental management and

planning measures and early warning systems. While these components seem to necessitate a

level of community involvement and partnerships, DRR strategies are often undertaken in a

separate, sectoral way by specialist departments following specific policies (UNDP 2005).

The Recent History of DRRs

Disaster prevention has not traditionally been a part of development initiatives, and vice versa, as the historyof policy reactions to disasters demonstrates. The International Decade For Natural Disaster Reduction(beginning in 1989) focused its efforts on disaster prevention. In 1994, the Yokohama Strategy and Plan ofAction for a Safer Word was launched, which stated that prevention and preparedness should beconsidered integral aspects of development policy (1994: 1.3). Yokohama also stressed risk mitigation as away of dealing with disasters, and was similar to the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction which wascreated in 1999.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 58/214, agreed upon in 2004, was a key step in integrating not onlydevelopment but sustainable development into disaster management strategies. The World Conferenceon Disaster Reduction (WCDR) held in early 2005 was strongly influenced by the actions occurring due tothe Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, and as such, had a distinct focus on the human element of disasters.This motivation is evident in the conference discussions on the need to further integrate sustainable

development principles into DRRs and methods to use SLESH elements to reduce underlying risk factors(including environmental management, community-based disaster management and sustainablelivelihoods). The WCDR produced the Hyogo Declaration and Hyogo Framework for Action for 2005-2015.The Hyogo Frameworks targets (particularly #6 and #7) illustrate a commitment to furthering theeffectiveness of DRRs by integrating key SLESH considerations. The targets also offer a direct way tocorrelate the outcomes of the WCDR with the MDGs:

Target 1: By the end of 2005, a global fund must be established for vulnerable countries to set upDRRs.

Target 2: By the end of 2006, appropriate government and inter-governmental policy frameworksare developed which ensure DRR approaches are incorporated into the design of emergencyresponse and recovery and rehabilitation processes to reduce vulnerability to future disasters.

Target 3: By the end of 2006, every disaster-prone country and supporting institution has adoptedtheir policy and strategy plans for disaster risk management.

Target 4: By 2010, easily understandable information on disaster risk and protection options is

incorporated into primary and secondary school educational curriculum in disaster-pronedeveloping countries.

Target 5: By 2010, nation-wide public awareness and education campaigns on disaster risks andprotection options will be increased and available to all citizens in high-risk areas.

Target 6: By 2010, people-centred Early Warning Systems targeting at-risk communities aredeveloped.

Target 7: By the end of 2015, a 50% reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social,economic and environmental assets of communities and countries, should be achieved.

Adapted from: WCDR Framework for Action 2005 Source: Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2005


11/28

10

Levels of loss experienced during a disaster can be reduced by using methods of mitigation and

preparedness, including DRR frameworks. These frameworks increase the resiliency levels of

individuals, communities and governments, allowing them to mitigate or respond to a disaster in a

more effective manner. DRR methods guide public and private sectors using established

frameworks and standards to suit different societies (Fernandez and Britton 2004). DRR plans

are changing from reactive policies to proactive mechanisms using stakeholder participation in a

systems approach, and are used not only at a local but broader level (Weichselgartner and

Obersteiner 2002). Risk is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as

a combination of an events consequences and their probabilities (ISO Undated). Disaster

management literature defines risk as consisting of hazards and vulnerability levels minus actions

taken to mitigate a hazards effects (Wisner 2003 in UNDP 2005; Fernandez and Britton 2004).

DRR methods are identified in literature on sustainable development which connects disaster

management with development processes (Jegillos 1999; Esqueira 2001 both in Fernandez and

Britton 2004). They have also been connected to literature on environmental degradation inprojects funded by the World Bank (Linnerooth-Bayer 2004 in Fernandez and Britton 2004).

Integrating ESH into DRR Strategies

The degradation of ecosystems leaves regions vulnerable to disasters, both in urban and rural

settings. The sprawling nature of urbanization in many developing countries leads to

unsustainable clearing of land combined with dangerous building patterns in vulnerable locations.

The pressures and demands of urban populations or international trading partners on rural

natural resources can also lead to a decrease in ESH. This is the case of the mass deforestation

taking place in the tropical forests of Columbia, driven by a demand for coca cultivation and

leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of land vulnerable to flooding, draught, and landslides

(UNDP 2004).

Disasters can conversely spark negative consequences for ESH, with hazards such as droughts

or floods claiming forests or vulnerable natural resources. Often these situations feed into a

cycle, with a loss of ESH and resilience driving increased risks levels, and disasters influencing

ESH over extended periods of time. In regions of Sri Lanka affected by the Indian Ocean

tsunami, areas with poor ESH (such as those with shrimp plantations) were at higher levels of risk

than those with strong ESH (particularly regions of waterfront with little or no human

development). Even areas with high levels of ESH however, felt the affects of the tsunami

through the physical destruction of natural resources (including forests, reefs, and mangroves) as

well as the salinization of soils and water tables, but still were not as negatively affected as areas

made more vulnerable through increased human activity. The destruction of natural shock

absorbers for storms and hazards (such as dunes coastal wetlands and mangroves) increases


12/28

11

the risks of hazards, such as flooding or tsunamis (Abramovitz 2001). Research which is linking

levels of risk and ESH is demonstrating that environmental mismanagement such as the removal

of these buffers is often driven by social forces, highlighting the need for DRR and development

policies to incorporate ESH indicators and considerations.

Case Study The Indian Ocean Tsunami and Sri Lanka

Sri Lankas livelihoods have been continuously under pressure from the vulnerable state they are in due to decades of

civil war and political instability. Communities have been forced to create their own SL systems to survive, relying on localsocial and political assets and utilizing the strategy of managing personal risk to livelihoods. In the Indian Ocean Tsunamiof 2004, an estimated 400,000 Sri Lankans lost their livelihoods and the physical environment of the coastal regions of the

island also suffered devastating effects. SLESH assets including built infrastructure, livelihood-specific resources, andshared commodities such as water and electricity were all effected by the tsunami. Tsunami survivors lost most, if not all,of their physical assets and many of their social support systems.

The responses to the tsunami, by groups engaged in disaster responses and development initiatives, have generally beenmore collaborative between disciplines than previous events, perhaps due to the scale of both the disaster and the

humanitarian response. Livelihood recovery strategies are focusing on employment-intensive initiatives which pay specialattention to vulnerable groups and the need for social protection mechanisms. These efforts are found in the actions oflarge organizations (including ILO) to small grassroots movements on the island-level. For livelihood reconstruction, the

disaster-resistant SL framework illustrated by Bandu is already applicable and can be used not only in immediate recovery

efforts, but also longer term planning initiatives. Steps are being taken to increase the levels of resilience of communitiesto subsequent events of this type.

Rapid EIAs were used in Sri Lanka by CARE and the IUCN amongst other organizations to determine the effects thedisaster had on ESH levels and natural-resource dependant livelihoods. EIAs were useful in determining not only the

damage the tsunami had caused to the physical environment, but also what social impacts the event had, through thecollecting of environment and livelihoods information, and what effects the actual relief efforts would have on the island.SLESH elements are present in the DRR methods of UNDP, OCHA, UNEP and FAO for their tsunami reactions, although

there is still a strong need for increasing the flow of information between organizations, government agencies andsurvivors, to avoid unnecessary exploitation of available resources and hastily planned social survival efforts.

CIDA has chosen to rely on its previously established strengths for tsunami relief efforts, including re-establishinglivelihoods, building local capacity, and taking part in environmental reconstruction initiatives. Opportunities are stillavailable for CIDA to capitalize on programs in Sri Lanka which were started before the tsunami, including those which

work to decrease the vulnerability levels of war affected communities, in order to ensure that tsunami relief efforts reachalready marginalized and underfunded regions of the country. CIDA should also play a key role in environmentalrehabilitation efforts, particularly building on lessons learned about the strength of natural coastal buffers such as

mangroves, and how ESH mandates could be used to further SL based projects including the rehabilitation of agriculturallands.

Sources: Korf 2004; Bandu 2005; Benfield Hazard Research Centre 2005; CIDA 2005; ILO 2005; CARE 2005

Integrating SL into DRR Strategies

Livelihood strategies are not homogenous over individuals or households. They are influenced

by socially-constructed conditionalities including gender, age, class, religion and ethnicity (Lautze

et al 2003). They are also not homogenous over time disasters can force changes in

strategies. For example, after the Indian Ocean tsunami, families in Sri Lanka took children out of

school to assist in households, and women were forced to enter labour positions originally filled

by men. Assets were also used in a different manner, with an increase in the harvesting of

natural resources such as wood for fuel. These changes within livelihoods often occur with

disturbances, and can result in increased tensions and conflict within households and among

communities (Pain and Lautze 2002). How development and DRR strategies are integrated

between, determines whether either process fails or succeeds, as illustrated by DFID (2004; see

Figure 8).


13/28

12

For development agencies, NGOs and research institutes, integrating the SL framework into

DRRs offers the opportunity to enhance disaster reduction while increasing the effectiveness of

development programming. This approach is already being harnessed by UNDP, Oxfam, CARE,

DFID, IDS, ILO and IISD amongst others (Sanderson 2000; Farrington et al1999; id21 2001; ILO

2005). The International Labour Organization (ILO) in particular is using an integrated response

strategy with employment intensive infrastructure reconstruction components as well as using

local economic development (LED) strategies to create social safety nets and start up livelihood

programs for vulnerable groups (ILO 2005). Media reports after disasters have highlighted the

need for risk reduction strategies in saving livelihoods, therefore there is already a public

awareness of the linkages between DRR strategies and SLs and a demand for this incorporation

to occur: nothing less than aggressive action will do as we face the beginning of a new era of

disasters (AlertNews Reuters 2004:2).

Some of the key concepts of SL, including its ability to link micro to macro issues and highlighting

access to resources as a vital need, feed directly into DRR actions. Others, including the

demonstration of the complexity of livelihoods of the poor, should be considered as DRR

strategies are being developed. Still, federal-level policy and actions do not reflect this trend: In

most countries it is extremely rare to find risk analysis to take account of the social, economic,

institutional and cultural aspects of vulnerability (Maskey 1997: 47). Perhaps more concerning to

planners is the amount of planning policy which is ignored, particularly in the case of construction

of buildings, for reasons of corruption or weak enforcement such situations demonstrate a need

Figure 8: The virtuous spirals of risk reduction

Source: DFID 2004:32


14/28

13

for social capacity to be increased, such as community-based and implemented risk reduction

measures (Blaikie et al1994).

It is important for DRRs not to underestimate the importance of securing SL assets, particularly

including social resources and resilience levels. There are numerous examples identifying

community coordination as a vital resource to both SL and DRRs, one of which is clearly

demonstrated by Manuel Larreal of Ecumenical Action-ACT, regarding flooding in Catuche,

Venezuela: as the flooding progressed, community members mobilized to assist one another.

Neighbours who knew each other and had worked together for years communicated swiftly the

news of the rising water. Older residents were helped from their homes by younger neighbours.

When a few were reluctant to leave because they didnt believe the threat or because they were

afraid their few possessions could be stolen, neighbours broke down doors and carried people

forcibly to safetyperhaps as few as 15 people died, a very small figure compared to other

similar neighbourhoods where hundreds lost their lives (Jeffrey 2000). Catuche was acommunity where SL activities such as implementing community sanitation systems had been

ongoing for over three years, therefore securing the social assets of coordination and

communication through the region (Sanderson 2001).

Ensuring the provision and support of SL strengthens DRRs by directly including local coping

strategies and systems (Lautze et al2003). Enhancing livelihoods is a measure of increasing

resilience to disasters while increasing an individuals and communities wellbeing a fact not lost

on those who are working to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). MDG attainment

is being hindered by the increasing impact and occurrence of disasters, leading development and

disaster management practitioners to search for ways to strengthen DRR strategies through

sustainable development frameworks. Enhancing DRR methods by adding core SL concepts

Figure 9: The disaster management cycle

Source: Wisner and Adams (Eds.) 2002 in DFID 2004: 17


15/28

14

(including people-centered, holistic and dynamic approaches) compliments this effect, as a

decreased vulnerability to disasters increases the strength of SLs, particularly since being able to

recover from disasters has already become an essential livelihood strategy (DiMP 2003;

Holloway 2003; Pereira and Betts 2005; UNDP 2005). This process (of disasters impacts being

mitigated by development) is illustrated in Wisner and Adams (2002) Disaster Management

Cycle (See Figure 9).

Integrating the SLESH Approach into DRR Strategies

The integration of DRR methods into development discussions with SLESH components has

been called an important step in the evolution of the sustainable livelihoods and development

approaches (DFID 2001). Entire local organizations have been created to combine DRR and

SLESH approaches for development, including The Sustainable Environment and Ecological

Development Society (SEEDS) of India. The UNHCR and other large organizations have

attempted to integrate environmental and livelihoods strategies into emergency responses. Thisaction has been taken in part to further the general development mandate that assistance

measures should do no harm to ecosystems as well as social systems and that environmental

assistance and international humanitarian assistance are closely intertwined (Brooke 2005). The

UNs Office of the Coordination of Human Affairs (OCHA) reports that their current projects

involving the Indian Ocean tsunami are trying to emphasize the need for sustainable

environment restoration efforts that support rapid livelihood recovery, longer-term poverty

alleviation and environmental protection goals (2005:4).

In order to ensure that SLESH methods are effectively integrated into DRRs, rapid environmental

impact assessments (EIAs) can be used to identify environmental demands and concerns, and

local factors and risks that should be considered by both development and disaster management

initiatives (Kelly 2001). These collaborations are most effective when undertaken with community

organizations and networks, particularly in identifying ways to incorporate SLESH into locally-

based DRR strategies (see Appendix 2). Women in particular are a vulnerable group who

respond differently to disasters than men (for more information on this reaction, see Briceo

2002). This difference should be reflected in DRR methods, and could be included in the

vulnerable groups identified in the SL framework. Women can play key roles in community

involvement, as their capacity as a social force can be a strong asset in creating and sustaining

successful DRR plans with SLESH components. UNIFEM is already working to incorporate

womens interests into livelihood and disaster dialogues resulting from the Indian Ocean tsunami

(OCHA 2005).


16/28

15

Programs such as CARE Internationals Household Livelihood Security (HLS) model work with

livelihoods approaches to decrease the level of risk from disasters in urban regions (Sanderson

2000). Of particular concern to HLS is the rapid urban growth cities are currently experiencing,

often being undertaken with little planning and having negative impacts on surrounding

ecosystems, therefore increasing risk of disasters such as flooding. Despite the fact that disasters

perpetuate poverty, destroy national and international infrastructure and built capital, risk

reduction strategies are rarely considered in regional development plans. Furthermore, DRRs

rarely consider urban settlement strategies, focusing instead on demands and needs in rural

regions (a key case here would be Indias National Centre for Disaster Management, which is

under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, as are all other national disaster response

measures in India). Integrating the SLESH frameworks into DRRs may work to alleviate this

issue. Indicators for this integration could be taken from the UNDPs Disaster Risk Index (DRI),

which associates both urbanization and rural livelihoods as key variables to risk (UNDP 2004).

Case Study Ethiopia and the degradation of essential agricultural lands

In the case of Ethiopia, livelihoods are strongly based in gender, age, caste and even ethnicity lines. This can makeapproaches to SL more difficult to implement and particularly sustain through disasters and risk mitigation efforts. ESHlevels have been difficult to establish and maintain due to recurrent droughts and a generally declining level of

environmental health. The impacts of low ESH levels are felt in the attempt to create SL systems droughts areparticularly harsh to Ethiopian livelihoods due to their effects on vulnerable pastoral lands vital to the success of numerouscommunities. In a country where 52 percent of the GDP is created in agriculture, and 83 percent of the population are

subsistence farmers, constant hazards keep the country in a consistent state of crises, where over 7 million peopleexperience chronic food insecurity. Recurring disasters have kept the resilience levels of communities extremely low.

Ethiopia is also experiencing social crises involving HIV/AIDS prevalence in adults and children, low levels of education,and extremely poor levels of gender development. Efforts to improve the standards of life in Ethiopia, including elementsof the SLESH framework, must be closely incorporated with DRR strategies to mitigate the effects of the constant threat of

disasters. CIDA policy within this region could integrate environmental protection plans with SL initiatives to create more

responsible and effective ways of using livelihood assets. They could also focus on integrating plans for dealing with thesocial hazards of HIV/AIDS, low levels of education, and gender-specific issues into DRR strategies.

Sources: Ahmed, Ahmed and Doeleman (1995); Sharp 1997; WFP 2002; Lautze et al 2003

Integrating SLESH into DRRs allow us to more effectively integrate disaster management into

development, stopping crises from occurring, and eliminating the resulting humanitarian aid

reaction. Ensuring that the SLESH approach is integrated is also the financially and socially

responsible action to take. The organization id21 states that In the next 20 years, the global cost

of climate-related disasters could be 10 times the value of aid flows. Two-thirds of India is struck

regularly by disasters: each year, around 25 million Indians are killed, injured or have their lives

blighted by them (id21 2004). One of the reasons disasters are taking such a toll on populations

is that DRRs without a SL consideration are top-down and that they do not take a systems

approach (which includes the role of SLESH) to reducing risk.


17/28

16

DRRs with a SLESH component automatically integrate communities into plans. This allows for a

learning process from previous disasters, which is vital to current and future disaster mitigation

initiatives. This process is reflected within international policy on disaster mitigation, including the

Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World, which demonstrates that ESH is an imperative pairing to

SL: Environmental protection as a component of sustainable development consistent with

poverty alleviation is imperative to the prevention and mitigation of disasters (1994:1.9). Blakie

et alalso dictates that a safe environment is the goal, [] but it is also the means. Reducing

vulnerability to disasters will be shown to be tied up with increased resource access and

empowerment of marginal groups (1994:37).

This approach also demonstrates how utilizing local partners to implement SLESH frameworks

strengthens DRR methods by linking governments, international organizations, local actors, and

civil society. Once these partners are identified and integrated into DRRs, strategies can be

created to incorporate their perspectives into policies, DRR methods, and development practices.This tactic can strengthen the reconstruction, prevention and preparedness phases of DRRs

(FAO 2005). Once DRRs contain SLESH components, the role of practitioners and policy-

makers becomes one of fostering resilience and adaptive capacity so that ecosystems and

people are prepared for change (Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook 2005:17).

SLESH frameworks can be integrated into both key types of DRR strategies. Prospective

Disaster Risk Management plans can be included in sustainable development strategies.

Compensatory Disaster Risk Management frameworks also work within sustainable

development plans, and are strengthened by the inclusion of SLESH components in their disaster

preparedness and vulnerability assessments and actions (UNDP 2004). SLESH can also make

use of a primary DRR tool the UNDPs DRI, which highlights correlations between development

and disaster risk. The DRI can be used to identify vulnerable regions and populations who can

use the SLESH framework to identify and then combat the development factors and underlying

processes which keep them at risk. The resiliency of social and ecological systems must be

enhanced, therefore DRIs can be used to ensure that a systems approach is being taken to DRR

and development initiatives (Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook 2005).

A strong body of literature is available which details the roles of SL and ESH in vulnerability

assessments (VAs), particularly in the field of mitigating risks of disasters resulting from climate

change (UNDP 1999; Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation

2003). SLESH attempts to manage risks by enhancing coping mechanisms, therefore reducing

vulnerability. VAs take into consideration that different groups are at varied levels of risk from

disasters, and enhancing the SL assets for these groups is a systemic process not a one time


18/28

17

fix. DRRs can therefore use SLESH to decrease vulnerability by influencing adaptive strategies.

For example, the vulnerability of a subsistence farmer during drought could be reduced if they

had anticipated the drought and prepared for it accordingly, thus maintaining a SL approach and

adapting to the changing ESH.

A strong dependence by vulnerable populations (such as the poor) on ecosystems can also result

in a decreasing quality of natural resources. Not only does this affect livelihoods, but also

increases the level of the negative effects of climate change which are felt by the population.

Indicators for SLESH (assets in particular) could be used with VA assessments to determine the

level of vulnerability an individual or community faces over time, and then be employed to identify

communities which would be particularly vulnerable to climate change. The most vulnerable

populations should therefore incorporate capacity development, resiliency building, and DRR

strategies which embrace sustainable ecosystem management and livelihood practices (Task

Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003).

Bandu (2005) demonstrates this notion by presenting the concept of Disaster Resistant

Sustainable Livelihoods (DRSL), which focuses on the relationship between livelihoods and

disasters. The two main linkages are found to be ESH based those of natural resources (water,

biodiversity) which are both livelihoods assets and disaster security buffers, and that of natural

hazards (drought, flooding, tsunamis, landslides) which lead to increased levels of disasters and

decreased levels of livelihood security (see Figure 10). The DRSL model can be used in

vulnerable regions to strengthen community systems and protect from future hazards, as well as

being used in recovery methods of previous or current disasters. It could be particularly useful in

integrating the SLESH approach into climate-change based DRR strategies and furthering the

MDGs.

Figure 10: Disaster Resistant Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Poverty

Vulnerability

Governance-International

NationalLocal

LivelihoodSystems

Natural

ResourcesManagement

Hazards

Source: Ada ted from Bandu 2005


19/28

18

SLESH and DRR Integration: Moving the Concept Forward

As an outcome of the Kobe WCDR, a conceptual framework for risk reduction is being refined

and developed (WCDR 2005). This strategy includes components of a hazard assessment,

vulnerability assessment, elements of risk understanding, and a capacity assessment. It contains

five categories of analyses to also include livelihood capital assessment (see figure 11), thus

making it (once it is operational) a direct example of a DRR with SLESH input.

During the WCDR, the organization Tearfund demonstrated some of the key difficulties with

integrating SLESH into DRR methods (La Trobe and Davis 2005; WCDR 2005). Among them

were three particular reasons that this incorporation had not occurred:

1. There is a lack of knowledge in the field of development on risk management, and vice

versa. This resulted in a lack of understanding of key issues in concept and practice, and

a realization of why these frameworks were relevant to each other.

2. There was a lack of ownership of the risk management concept amongst development

agencies, resulting in the reaction that DRRs should be done by outside agencies. This

notion that someone else will be watching out for these strategies, and conducting them

effectively, is particularly dangerous to development.

3. There is a feeling that rather being integrated into current measures and initiatives,

disaster management must instead compete with other issues for the attention of the field

of development, such as those of AIDS and conflict. There is also the feeling that

disasters compete with each other for funding and attention, leading to a lack of

involvement or responses to development personnel.These situations have led to recommendations being put forward for ways to avoid such

problems, and are discussed quite well in Tearfunds Mainstreaming DRR: A tool for

development organizations publications (La Trobe and Davis 2005). There is a need for a sister

publication to come out of disaster management organizations, illustrating how their activities can

further integrate SLESH approaches. Key recommendations such as the incorporation of

developmental language into DRR strategies could be reversed and made applicable to

Figure 11: Five Categories of Livelihood Analysis

Source: WCDR 2005


20/28

19

development publications calling upon popular DRR discussions. This approach would allow for

the highlighting of the synergies between disasters and development, and result in the creation of

effective assessment tools and opportunities for collaborative publications which would be key in

convincing donor organizations of the need for such linkages to occur.

DFID is one organization working to overcome these barriers by assessing the significance of

DRR methods to their development work (2004). They note that it is clear that disasters hold

back development and the MDGs, and that increased levels of risk can be indicators of a failure

of development initiatives (see Figure 12). The reasons cited for development not taking into

consideration DRR strategies are similar to those put forward by Tearfund, and include a lack of

incentives for the incorporation, including a feeling within institutional and funding structures that

disaster relief is a separate responsibility than development initiatives.

DFID also notes that there is an assumption amongst both disaster and development projectsthat each know what the other is doing, and assume that there is someone else taking care of

issues outside of their own traditional interests and actions. Most importantly, there appears to

be a lack of exposure to information on relevant issues involving SLESH and development

initiatives or DRR methods between organizations. This problem could be solved by more closely

coordinating relief initiatives and a sharing of information of the type suggested by Tearfund

with accessible language and an illustration of where linkages amongst agencies could occur.

Case Study Ghana and the reality of climate change

The productivity of the resources of Ghana have been in decline since 1990 a trend that is sure to worsen as the effectsof climate change are more evidently felt across the country. Increasing temperatures are driving a loss of precipitation

levels which in turn is depleting the supply of water resources. From any angle, the state of Ghanas ESH is poor, and asa result, their SL levels are also plummeting. The actual climatic regions of the nation are shifting, resulting in changes incrop yields and stresses on agricultural-based livelihoods and food security levels. If these conditions are not dealt with

through DRR strategies, further socio-ecological devastation will occur.

In Africa, the relationship between SL and ESH is already stressed due to an almost consistent level of hazard which,

exacerbated by the effects of climate change, is to the breaking point, resulting in the presence of unsustainableharvesting and livelihoods practices being conducted for the sake of survival. If SL and sociological changes are notbrought about which betters the way humans are able to treat the natural landscape, ecosystem degradation will continue

to occur, bringing with it increasingly vulnerable communities, more tenuous ties between SL and ESH, and a decreasedlevel of human security.

CIDA must ensure that development and DRR policies concerning Ghana consider the unique adaptation methodsGhanian communities have adopted to survive in highly vulnerable conditions. Of particular importance is the need for asustainable method of using natural resources in communities made more weak by the effects of climate change, and

ensuring that if ecosystems are moving within national boundaries, social systems are also able to adapt to the changinggeographies of the landscape.

Sources: Vordzorgbe 2002; Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003; UNDP 2004


21/28

20

Figure 12: Examples of Disaster Impacts on Efforts to Meet the MDGs

Source: WCDR 2005

A solution such as this would eliminate the key error of compartmentalizing policy and actions as

human orenvironmental, a practice which limits both capacity and mandates and results in a

demand for cooperative initiatives (Brooke 2005). An example of such a project which has

succeeded would be the joint UNEP/OCHA environmental unit formed in 1994, resulting in

Unified Humanitarian-Environmental International Assistance initiatives responding to primarily

industrial hazards (such as chemical disasters or oil spills), but which has the capacity to be used

for other DRR strategies.


22/28

21

Conclusions

This document reflects the wide range of discussion on DRRs and the SLESH approach. While

some DRRs are implementing different parts of the SL and/or ESH approaches (although the

terms sustainable livelihood and ecosystem health may not be used), the strategies focus on

different geographic and political landscapes and vary in scale and scope. As a result, identifying

how SL and ESH are used within the strategies, if these approaches effectively contribute to the

DRRs, and whether they were deliberately included or occurred in a more happenstance manner,

is a difficult task. It is also difficult to demonstrate how the SLESH approach has been used,

since the combining of these two frameworks is a very new development. Still, this report has

been able to offer a new and useful perspective into the current use of SLESH frameworks in

DRRs, SLESH offers a big-picture view of how the two systems are interacting as well as the

niches where this approach could be particularly practical.

Over 85 percent of the worlds population that is continuously exposed to disasters live incountries with low and medium levels of human development (UNDP 2004). More than ever,

policy needs to integrate sustainable development initiatives into DRR strategies, and vice versa.

If an organization is able to grasp an understanding of the concepts and importance of SLESH

and utilize it in their development initiatives they will strengthen existing mandates, increase the

resiliency levels of communities, and more effectively work towards meeting the MDGs. The

identified constraints of a lack of information on these frameworks as well as misinformation on

whose responsibility it is to create and implement DRR strategies can both be ameliorated

through continuing to invite diverse groups and organizations from various disciplines to attend

workshops and conferences on disaster management and SLESH thinking.

Opportunities to further this work include a CIDA policy dialogue where the SLESH concepts can

be discussed, and current mandates reviewed to see if they accurately reflect an understanding

and implementation of SLESH in DRR strategies. Most importantly, case studies from within

CIDA can be discussed which might highlight issues where SL or ESH components have been

used but not identified as such. CIDA can use this information to further harness opportunities

not only in the fields of disaster management and sustainable development, but also in the

emerging field of SLESH-based DRR methods for MDG fulfillment.


23/28

22

References

Abramovitz, J. (2001) Unnatural Disasters. Worldwatch Paper 158.

Ahmed, I., Ahmed, J. and Doeleman, A. (Eds) (1995) Beyond Rio: the environmental crisis andsustainable livelihoods in the Third World. St. Martins. New York.

Alertnews Reuters (2004) Asia floods a wake up call. Reuters. July 29th

, 2004.

Ambrose-Oji, B. (2004) Key determinants of poor peoples livelihood strategies and naturalresources-related management opportunities. Livelihoods Synthesis Study. DFID NaturalResources Systems Programme.

Bandu (2005) Disaster Resistant Sustainable Livelihoods. WCDR: Framework Presentation.World Conference on Disaster Reduction.

Benfield Hazard Research Centre (2005) Disaster Studies: Rapid Environmental lmpactAssessments. Available at:www.benfieldhrc.org/siteroot/disaster_studies/rea/rea_index.htm.

Blaikie et al(1994) At Risk: Natural hazards, peoples vulnerability and disasters. New York, NY.Routledge.

Briceno, S. (2002) Gender mainstreaming in disaster reduction. Panel Presentation: Commissionon the Status of Women. UN/ISDR. March 2002.

Brooke, R. (2005) Bridging the gap between human and environmental disasters. Environment &Poverty Times. March 2003, Page 17.

CARE, OCHA and Benfield Hazard Research Centre (2005) Draft Field Report: RapidEnvironmental Impact Assessment Sri Lanka Tsunami. Sri Lanka REA OrganizationalLevel Assessment. February 1

st, 2005.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 26. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

CIDA (2005) Sri Lanka tsunami reconstruction strategy. Tsunami Disaster Response. CanadianInternational Development Agency. March 17

th, 2005.

DFID (2001) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. UK Department for InternationalDevelopment. October 2001.

DFID (2005) Disaster Risk Reduction: a Development Concern.A scoping study on links betweendisaster risk reduction, poverty and development. DFID and Overseas DevelopmentGroup.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2005) Summary of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction: 18-

22 January 2005. ENB 26:9. January 24th, 2005.

FAO (2005) The role of local level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and insustainable livelihood development. SD Dimensions. FAO Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment. February 2005.

FAO and ADPC (2003) The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent naturaldisasters and in sustainable livelihoods development in high risk areas. Case Study.Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre.


24/28

23

Farrington et al(1999) Sustainable livelihoods in practice: Early applications of concepts in rural

areas. Natural Resources Perspective. ODI. 42: June 1999.

Fernandez, A. and Britton, N. (2004) Dealing with disasters from the risk perspective: Practicesfrom India, Japan and New Zealand. Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre.National Institute of Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Kobe, Japan.

Galster, S. and Bowman, M. (2005) Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Operations in Aceh andtheir Implications for Leuser Ecosystem and Local Communities. WildAid Memo on AcehReconstruction and Environmental Impacts.January 20

th2005.

Helmore, K. and Singh, N. (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods: Building on the wealth of the Poor.Kumarian Press Books. Bloomfield.

Holloway, A. (2003) Disaster risk reduction in Southern Africa: hot rhetoric, cold reality. AfricanSecurity Review. Institute for Security Studies. 12:1.

id21 (2001) Fighting disaster: Reducing risk in cities. id21 Society & Economy: CommunicatingDevelopment Research, Research Highlight. May 11

th, 2001.

id21 (2003) Stopping crises from becoming catastrophes. id21 Society & Economy:Communicating Development Research. October 10

th, 2003.

ILO (2005) ILO calls for integrated employment strategy for Tsunami recovery. ILO MediaRelease. January 19

th, 2005.

ISO (Undated) International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Available athttp:www.iso.org/iso/en/.

Jeffrey, P. (2000) Lives saved in Caracas slums. ReliefWeb.

Kelly, C. (2001) Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment: A Framework for Best Practice inEmergency Response. Disaster Management Working Paper 3. Benfield Greig HazardResearch Centre, University College London.

Kelly, C. (2003) Quick Guide: Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. Version 0.Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London and CARE International.

Korf, B. (2004) War, Livelihood and Vulnerability in Sri Lanka. Development and Change. 35(2):275-295.

La Trobe, S. and Davis, I. (2005) Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: A tool for developmentorganizations. Tearfund. January 2005.

La Trobe, S. and Venton, P. (2003) Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice ofselected institutional donors.A Tearfund Research Project. Tearfund. July 2003.

Lautze, S. et al(2003) Risk and Vulnerability in Ethiopia: Learning from the past, responding tothe present, preparing for the future. A report for the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment. June 2003.

Liew, J. (2002) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction. Poverty Eradicationthrough Sustainable Livelihoods Creation. UNDP/UNOPS Pacific Sustainable LivelihoodsProgramme.


25/28

24

Maskey, R. (1997) Sustainable agricultural development in less developed countries. Outlook on

Agriculture. 26: 39-45.

Pain, A. and Lautze, S. (2002) Addressing Livelihoods in Afghanistan. Issues paper series.Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit. September 2002.

Palakudiyil, T. and Todd, M. (2003) Facing up to the storm: How local communities can cope withdisaster: lessons from Orissa and Gujarat. Christian Aid.

Parkes, M. and Panelli, R. (2001) Integrating catchment ecosystems and community health: Thevalue of participatory action research. Ecosystem Health. 7:2, 85-106.

Pereira, M. and Betts, J. (2005) The development of environmentally and socially sustainablelivelihoods for independent smallholder cotton farmers in Gujarat, rural India. TradeStudy. Traidcraft Exchange. May 2005.

Reid, H. and Alam,M. (2005) Millennium Development Goals. Tiempo. 54: January 2005.

Rennie, J. and Singh, N. (1996) Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods: A guidebook

for field projects. IISD.

Roy, M. and Turner, J. (1996) Sustainable Livelihoods. Selected sources. International Institutefor Sustainable Development Information Centre.

Sanderson, D. (2000) Cities, disasters and livelihoods. Environment & Urbanization. 12:2, 93-102.

Sanderson, D. (2001) Livelihoods, disaster risk reduction, urban poverty. Secondary informationresource document: selected web based information. CARE International UK. September2001.

Sharp, K. (1997) Targeting Food Aid in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Save the Children UK.

Singh, N. (1996) Community adaptation and sustainable livelihoods: Basic issues and principles.Working Paper. IISD.

Singh, N. and Lawrence, J. (1997) Promoting sustainable livelihoods. A note submitted to theexecutive committee. UNDP.

Singh, N. and Wanmali, S. (1998) Sustainable Livelihoods Concept Paper. SustainableLivelihoods Strategy Paper. UNDP.

SOPAC (2005) An Investment for Sustainable Development in Pacific Island Countries. DisasterRisk Reduction and Disaster Management: Building the resilience of nations andcommunities to disasters A framework for action 2005 2015. Draft for Consideration

at 12

th

Regional Disaster Management Meeting. June 6

th

8

th

2005.

Soussan et al (2003) A model of sustainable livelihoods. Improving Policy-LivelihoodRelationships in South Asia, Briefing Note 3. Stockholm Environment Institute. January2003.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) IncreasingCommunity Resilience to Climate-Related Disasters through Sustainable Livelihoods: AConceptual Framework for Climate Change. Livelihoods and Climate Change: CombiningDisaster Risk Reduction, Natural Resources Management and Climate Change


26/28

25

Adaptation to Reduce Vulnerability and Poverty.International Institute for SustainableDevelopment Information Paper 1: December 2003.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) Livelihoods andClimate Change. Conceptual Framework Paper. International Institute for SustainableDevelopment.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) Adapting toClimate Change: Natural resource management and vulnerability reducion. BackgroundPaper. IUCN, Worldwatch Institute, IISD, SEI-B.

Twigg, J. (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. Disaster ManagementWorking Paper 2. Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre, University College London.

UN OCHA (2005) Indian Ocean Earthquake-Tsunami. Mid-Term Review. Consolidation AppealsProcess. June 7

th, 2005.

UNDP (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: concepts, principles and approaches to indicatordevelopment. UNDP Sustainable Livelihoods Unit. November 3

rd, 1999.

UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development. A Global Report. UnitedNations Development Programme.

UNDP (2005) Statement by Mr. Subinay Nandy, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative at the 5th

Meeting of the ADPC Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management(RCC5). United Nations Development Program. Ha Noi May 18

th 20

th2005.

UNDP (2005) UNDP and the Indian Ocean Tsunami Recovery. Post Disaster Recovery: MainCharacteristics. UNDP Disaster Reduction Unit. Available at: www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/

University of Guelph (2005) Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook. University of Guelph andCIDA.

Vordzorgbe, S. (2002) Risk Management and Adaptation: Reflections with implications for Africa.Presented at the UNDP Expert Group Meeting Integrating Disaster Reduction and

Adaptation to Climate Change.June 2002.

WCDR (2005) Kobe Report Draft: Turning practice into policy: Supporting community riskreduction through government and institutional policy. Report of Session 1.4, ThematicCluster 1. World Conference on Disaster Reduction.

WCDR (2005) WCDR Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nationsand communities to disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction. InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction. January 18

th 22

nd2005.

Weichselgartner, J. and Obersteiner, M. (2002) Knowing sufficient and applying more challenges

in hazards management. Environmental Hazards. 4: 73-77.

WFP (2002) Country Strategy Outline Ethopia. Agenda Item 4. World Food ProgrammeExecutive Board. May 2002.

Wyckoff-Baird et al (2000) Shifting the power: decentralization and biodiversity conservation.Biodiversity Support Program. WWF.


27/28

26

Appendix 1: SL Assets and Tentative Indicators

Stores and Resources Assets:

Asset Indicators

Land -Tenure

-Fertility-Quality

Savings & Investment -Jewelry-Access to credit

-Cash savings

Dwelling / Shelter -Ownership

-Quality

Traditional Knowledge -Institutions

-Traditional education

Infrastructure -Wells

-Roads-Health clinics / primaryhealth care

-Electricity-Flexibility in usingtransport mode / housing

Food Security / Insecurity -Fluctuation of foodprices

-Number of fooddistribution centres

Livestock -Type/mix

Natural Resource Base -Common property

resources

Claims and Access Assets:

Asset Indicators

Health -Overall health-Life expectancy

Intra-Household Relations -Household size-Division of labour-Educational status of

Women

Time -Daily tasks

-Learning-Time spent with otherage groups

-Leisure time as afraction of free time-Community time

Belief Systems / Attitudes/ -Happiness

Lifestyle -Awareness-Experimental innovation-Aspirations(short/medium/long term)

Social Capital -Robberies-Civil/social violence

-Physical mobility,especially for women-Patronage/corruption

-Networks of reciprocity:activities donecollectively

-Number of CBOs-Length of school days-How many neighbours

do you know?-Percent of electionsinvolved with, and vote

for politicians liked

Source: Adapted from UNDP 1999


28/28

27

Appendix 2: The role of regional organizations and networks in strengthening capacities fordisaster reduction

Regional organizations and networks are playing an increasingly important role in strengtheningcapacities for disaster reduction in different regions around the world. There are a number ofdifferent types of regional organizations:

Regional intergovernmental organizations with a specific disaster reduction mandate, such asthe Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA) and the Coordination Centrefor the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America (CEPREDENAC)

Regional intergovernmental organizations that have included aspects of disaster reductionwithin a broad mandate, for example, the Organization of American States (OAS), SouthernAfrica Development Community (SADC), the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission(SOPAC) and the Stability Pact for Southern Europe

Academic or governmental organizations with a regional focus on disaster reduction, forexample, the Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) and the Asia Disaster ReductionCentre (ADRC)

Regional disaster reduction networks of academics and NGOs, such as the Network forSocial Studies on Disaster Prevention in Latin America (LA RED), PeriPeri in southern Africaand Dduryog Nivaran in South Asia

Such regional organizations and networks are currently involved in a number of tasks andfunctions, which vary widely from one case to another. These include:

Strengthening national capacities through training, programme support, technical assistanceand resource mobilization

Information sharing, documentation and comparative analysis of issues on a regional andsub-regional basis

Coordination of regional or sub-regional disaster reduction projects

Development of common regional or sub-regional policy platforms and the advocacy ofregional policy initiatives in global forum.

Source: UNDP Expert Group Meeting on the Roles of Regional Organizations and Networks inStrengthening Capacities for Disaster Reduction 2002, in UNDP 2004:80).

Documents

Framework Evaluation Paper - EM Smith