|
Meeting
Summary
Rt Hon John Battle MP opened the meeting, noting the
general discussions taking place around sustainability and
climate change. However, he pointed out that we had not yet
integrated environmental sustainability and development agendas,
despite years of trying. He called for a sense of urgency
to be injected into the discussions and stressed that the
purpose of this meeting was to debate, not to try to provide
all the answers.
Jack Jones, Humanitarian Programmes Manager, CHASE, DFID
Mr Jones began by contrasting the dramatic, visual impact
of major disasters - the tsunami, earthquakes - with less
visual reconstruction and development, and noted how often
the dramatic initial humanitarian relief effort to such disasters
resides in the public consciousness more than long-term development
work. He also noted the neglected emergencies and 'creeping
epidemics' of poverty, avoidable disease and malnutrition.
The response to recent natural disasters highlights the need
to make the link between humanitarian response and longer-term
reconstruction and development. After both the tsunami and
Pakistan earthquake, the initial relief effort has been followed
by a difficult transition to reconstruction and development.
Relief work must consider future recovery and development
or risk weakening local support mechanisms, and aid workers
must plan ahead to reduce risks of future disasters and the
vulnerability of disaster-prone communities. The emergency
relief priority is to save lives but we must do our best to
'do no harm' and not to undermine later recovery efforts.
What are the main barriers to successfully linking relief
and development and what is DFID doing about it?
Funding - He stressed the need to avoid splitting
emergency work into phases - relief, recovery, development
- as these often have to be done at the same time, and always
need to be planned at the same time. DFID, he noted, always
seeks to extend humanitarian response funds to bridge the
gap between the immediate response and the longer-term programmes
of their country offices, and stressed their commitment to
livelihoods programmes as key to this. DFID is committed to
spending 10% of the amount allocated for emergency response
to programmes to reduce the risks and impact of future disasters,
where appropriate activities can be identified.
Roles and coordination - Coordination in an emergency
is challenging as different agencies are responsible for relief
and development efforts. DFID supports initiatives such as
the cluster system (with its early recovery cluster) and CERF
to combat this. Good Humanitarian Donorship principles also
commit donors to providing humanitarian assistance in ways
that support recovery and long-term development.
Disaster risk reduction - Mr Jones again highlighted
the difference between the highly visible, attention-grabbing
initial disaster response and longer-term, lower profile disaster
risk reduction activities. This discrepancy is brought into
relief when it is considered that £40 billion spent
on DRR would have prevented the loss of £280 billion
from natural disasters in the 1990s. DFID's goal is to contribute
to sustainable development through reducing the burden of
disasters on the poor and most vulnerable.
Media - Finally, Mr Jones stressed the positive role
that the media can play in raising awareness of poverty and
neglected emergencies, and in holding government and international
agencies to account. Any distortion or exaggeration in the
media is generally outweighed by serious, sincere reporting
and campaigning.
In conclusion, Mr Jones asserted that donors, international
agencies and NGOs must work together to put disaster risk
reduction at the heart of humanitarian response and development
work, particularly in disaster-prone countries and funding
must support this link.
Terry Cannon, Reader in Development Studies and Fellow
of the Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich
Terry Cannon began by setting out the need for a clear, predictive
definition of vulnerability to inform preparedness policies.
He then outlined some of the challenges; namely, the problem
of people's own priorities and risk culture, how to connect
the local with the national and international agendas, and
how to scale up from the affected communities. The role of
livelihoods and governance are crucial for risk reduction
through the reduction of poverty and vulnerability.
Natural hazards are not always prioritised by local communities.
Communities will often prioritise immediate needs, such as
food and cash for school fees, rather than disaster preparedness.
Communities' own perceptions of risk do not yet place natural
hazards as a priority and global statistics also support their
perception. 12 million children under 5 die each year from
preventable deaths (WHO). In comparison, during the whole
of the 20th century, 11 million people of all ages died from
sudden onset hazards.
Mr Cannon asserted that changing people's perceptions of
risk - and their behaviour - to take account of natural disasters
is crucial. He argued that reducing a community's vulnerability
to disasters requires strengthening livelihoods and social
protection. Long-term recovery issues after a disaster must
also look at these issues: what were the pre-existing vulnerabilities?
Does relief include asset and livelihood recovery? Is hazard
preparedness built in to recovery? And is the aim to restore
the status quo, or to reduce vulnerability further?
Finally, he posed the question, is vulnerability reduction
the same as development? It involves work to protect and strengthen
the livelihoods of the vulnerable, improve baseline conditions
and improve the quantity and quality of assets available for
income-generating activities.
Discussion
Points raised during the ensuing discussion included:
- Whether the focus on the community and livelihoods emphasis
holds true when faced with the predictions of the impact of
climate change.
- Whether technological solutions are really needed, as opposed
to proven low-tech and locally-based livelihoods interventions.
It was stressed that an understanding of the local context
was needed more than a standardised response.
- If disaster preparedness is trying to promote 'things that
people don't want to do' (as they do not see them as a priority),
how does one tackle political and social incentives, and disincentives,
to preparedness or risk reduction activities?
- There is a need to invest in quality of understanding and
assistance, as well as response, to engage more with community
development.
- Whether disaster risk reduction philosophy and action is
plagued by the same problems of early warning, in that they
need to show results in order for their usefulness to be accepted.
However, proving the avoidance of disasters is extremely difficult.
|
