Advancing integration: A flexible approach over the long-term, a
structured approach in the interim?
The ‘Disaster Risk Reduction community’ has been trying hard to see
disaster risk management ‘integrated’ in the
post-2015
Development Agenda. To achieve the poverty goals by 2030, resilience
to disasters must be effectively achieved. There is a consensus on this.
However, the bigger challenge before us is on reaching an agreement on
the ‘how to’.
In most institutions, development programming and
disaster risk management (including prevention, mitigation and
preparedness) remain separate and often detached practices. In my
personal engagements with local public officials, arguments for
integration or mainstreaming do not find easy acceptability. The
standard defense is that there is limited capacity. Sometimes I find
there is an assumed position of over-confidence based on a rather
simplistic view of how disaster risk is understood and interpreted. The
longer term context and projected scenarios are usually not considered
at the local level. The availability of information is scarce, and
mechanisms for integration are not available. The good news is that
there is a progressively increasing awareness of the need for
integration. Widely documented and reported cases especially through
increased citizens’ voice and accountability have hugely contributed to
this trend.
Within the larger practitioner community, the route
to integration is generally presumed to begin from a ‘reflection’
process using modified monitoring and evaluation tools. Well-designed
tools can provide high resolution disaggregated data that can help
taking informed decisions on integration. These may, however, only
provide a short term structured solution to the challenge. In Asia,
where countries are experiencing double digit growth figures, a learning
perspective is urgently needed, to ensure long term development
investments are protected. In
Vietnam a scholarship programme aimed at promoting such learning has
been successful in building interests and awareness.
Effective
development requires long-sighted leadership. It is the duty of decision
makers towards citizens to maximize the value of public resources.
Ignoring possible impacts of hazard events, for example, should ideally
play on the accountability the duty bearer has towards its citizens. In
my personal conversations with a field level Public Development Officer,
I was lead to understand that disaster risk reduction was not in his job
description, and hence had apparent indifference towards such issues. A
problem like this has its roots in the nature institutional leadership
and the policy environment. Unless we overcome the ‘reluctance’ to state
our goals, and spell out clear topline messages, the mechanisms that we
put in place too would lack pragmatism and would never get translated,
for example, into job descriptions of people on the ground.
Some
of the successes in other sectors, particularly in combating AIDS,
provide interesting lessons on leadership that brought an ‘outside’
issue well within the existing policies and programs of the Government.
Strong research support made all the difference. In discussion on the
place of Disaster Risk Reduction in development, there is still limited
research on investigating (let alone acting upon) on underlying causes
that lead to disasters. There are vague and dated arguments on
investments in prevention compared to expenditure on relief. Economic
arguments are weak, and hence often do not merit annual budget
considerations of institutions. Inaccurate and sketchy projections of
future scenarios make matters worse. There is need to bring in greater
objectivity, with sufficient information and arguments made available on
effectiveness of development investments. Overseas development
assistance should have a strong role to play in pushing this agenda. In
Vietnam, the Australian aid push towards climate-disaster ‘proofing’
of the Cao Lanh Bridge Project is a strong case. Since, integration
requires higher initial investments, it makes sense for aid agencies and
lending institutions to drive this agenda. Donors can or already have
access to the necessary materials to drive risk management forward, such
as risk assessments and feasibility studies. When considered in the
design stage of an intervention - integration efforts have maximum
positive impact.
Communities can no longer deal with disasters
and their impact in isolation of other development challenges. We need
to step out of the
preparedness and emergency syndrome, and target longer-term
development investments that prevent risk creation in the first place.
This calls for review of current mandates of institutions that deal with
disaster management and climate change, strong policy pronouncements to
be leveraged appropriately to guide development investments. To support
this review, sound research clearly establishing linkages between
development and disasters at the operational level is needed, supported
by a learning approach that incorporates a forensic analysis of risks
that currently exist.
The 2015 cross-roads is an important time
to enable such a change. In the interim, an objective oriented approach
utilizing existing indicators derived from established domains of
climate change, environment sustainability and disaster risk reduction
would potentially address immediate concerns.