Conference Reports 89

Alpine countries would widen EC aid competence.

Adrian Hewitt Overseas Development Institute Regent’s College Inner Circle Regent’s Park London NW14NS

IDNDR Conference: Protecting Vulnerable Communities, the Royal Society and the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 13- 15 October 1993

This major UK conference for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) was organised by members of the UK Committee for the IDNDR, most of whom come from the engineering and scientific communities. The conference was opened by Lynda Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, who voiced the commitment of the UK government to funding disaster preparedness and mitigation activities.

The major sessions of the conference covered the following themes: Vulnerability of Communities; Forecasting and Warning; Preparedness and Protection; Lessons Learned in Recovery; Technology, Knowledge Transfer and Future Opportunities. Most papers tended to focus narrowly on technical issues. These papers were largely progress reports by scientists on developments that had been made in such fields as hazard mapping, forecasting and warning systems, and structural mitigation measures. It is obviously important that scientists and engineers have the opportunity to meet in order to discuss new developments in the subject, but since this conference was promoted as a multi-disciplinary event, there should have been a better balance of papers.

The most interesting papers for those from a nonscientific background were those that attempted to provide a context for issues of disaster mitigation. Of these, there were several technical papers that nevertheless focused on very real social concerns. A good example of this was Robin Spence’s keynote paper on assessing the vulnerability of low income communities. He reviewed recent techniques

for estimating the physical losses and human casualties that occur when earthquakes hit such communities. Such techniques allowed disaster damage scenarios to be produced which can then be used as a means of raising the awareness of risk among both community members and politicians. In another paper, J.M. Reynolds examined the strategy for power generation in the Andean region of Peru in terms of the risks it presented to local communities. The strategy has been to build high altitude hydro-electric schemes, with dams that are highly vulnerable to earthquakes. In order to reduce this risk, Reynolds stressed the importance of integrating detailed hazard mapping into regional planning for electricity production.

A major shortcoming of the conference was that there were too few papers that addressed in more detail the social aspects of vulnerability. Whether this was due to lack of programme space or lack of interest among social scientists was not clear. As Peter Walker highlighted in his opening keynote paper, no simple divisions can be made between man- made disasters on the one hand, and natural disasters on the other. If the IDNDR is to achieve its objectives, the focus needs to shift from hazards and physical vulnerability to human vulnerability.

This issue was addressed directly by Terry Cannon. His paper was directed primarily at scientists and engineers, stressing the socio- economic context underlying vulnerability to disasters. This is a theme that Cannon has explored many times, but it was worth re- emphasizing here. It would have been more interesting, however, to move beyond analysis of the problem to a focus on practical means of addressing the problem of social vulnerability, especially given the constraints imposed by political and economic structures.

One of the few papers that explored the wider context of vulnerability was Andrew Maskrey’s. He analysed the changing patterns of vulnerability in Latin America in relation to changes in the wider political economy of the region. Since the 1970s, the pattern of disasters has changed such that small and medium-sized towns have been increasingly affected by disasters. This can be related to changes in the political economy that has seen a reduction in

0 Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1994 DISASTERS VOLUME 18 NUMBER 1

90 Conference Reports

state intervention and centralisation. One consequence of this has been the rapid economic growth of these small, provincial towns. This rapid growth has created a rapid onset of vulnerability to hazards. There has also been the accompanying problem of ‘disadaption to hazard’ that was taking place in these peripheral areas of Latin America. Traditional mitigation strategies are being broken down as people become more heavily engaged with market forces.

One of the major gaps in the conference was the organisational aspects of undertaking disaster preparedness and mitigation. David Oakley’s paper on national disaster preparedness planning, and Ian Davis’s paper on data management for disaster planning, were notable exceptions here, but even these were concerned with the national level. There is a pressing need to explore the whole issue of institutional development of NGOs to enable them to undertake disaster mitigation activities more effectively. Terry Cannon did at least identlfy, without exploring in any detail, the appropriateness of organisations within civil society for involvement in disaster preparedness and mitigation activities. This is a very important issue that needs to be explored further, especially given the renewed interest in the role of civil society that is taking place in development policy and thinking.

Only three UK NGOs were represented at the conference. This may have been due to the high conference fee, or a perception that IDNDR, as a high profile UN initiative, had little relevance to the work of NGOs. However, in ignoring the conference the NGO community may have missed an important opportunity for lobbying those delegates with key positions in UK and international IDNDR committees.

Twenty-five of the delegates were part of an ODA funded study programme that was organised by the Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies’ the week before the conference. This group was made up mainly of scientists, who

presented several papers to the conference, and government officials responsible for disaster management. The latter group provided the practical perspective of decision makers which was otherwise lacking in the conference. It was particularly important to remind the UK delegates of the level of experience and scientific expertise in disaster mitigation activities that exists in the South.

The fact that issues of social vulnerability were being considered at all in a predominantly scientific conference is a step forward. Whether or not this commitment is channelled into both national and international IDNDR activities remains to be seen. It is important that social scientists take these opportunities to engage in dialogue with scientists and engineers in order to develop a more integrated approach to disaster mitigation. The activities of the UK working group on drought provides a good example of how greater cooperation can be reached between the two communities. Perhaps the most important contribution of the conference, as of the IDNDR generally, will be to act as a catalyst for the international community to give greater attention to disaster mitigation. There remains the danger, however, that this will continue to be seen as a problem for scientists rather than for politicians.

Note

1. The Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies was formed as an independent centre for research, training and consultancy in disaster management in June 1993 by the former staff of the Disaster Management Centre, Oxford Brookes University.

Andrew Clayton Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies P.O. Box 137 Oxford OX4 1BB UK

DISASTERS VOLUME 18 NUMBER 1 0 Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1994