Risk Wise

[

] 83

From grassroots to global:

people-centred disaster risk reduction

Margaret Arnold, Bruno Haghebaert and Ben Wisner, ProVention Consortium

he disaster risk reduction (DRR) agenda continues to build

momentum, spurred by tragic catastrophes, active lobby-

ing, and global attention garnered by the issue of climate

change. The past couple of years have witnessed important

developments related to global policy and support for DRR,

including the creation or revision of DRR policies in several bilat-

eral donor agencies and international financial institutions

(IFIs), the establishment of the World Bank’s Global Facility for

Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), structural changes

to strengthen the United Nations International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) system, and the adoption of the

Bali Action Plan at COP-13. A critical challenge remains to trans-

late these global commitments into changes on the ground.

There is a growing perception that although progress has been made

within the macro-level public policy domain; the current system is

not as yet bringing about the required change at the sub-national and

local level. While all agree that time is needed for these global efforts

to filter down, the lesson of waiting decades for ‘trickle-down econom-

ics’ to alleviate poverty should teach us that waiting is not enough.

The effectiveness of these DRR investments and efforts at the higher

spatial levels will ultimately need to be measured by noticeable

changes in terms of lives saved, people protected, losses avoided and

livelihoods secured in a local context. Since the early nineties, the

global number of disaster fatalities has gradually decreased mainly

due to enhanced disaster preparedness and early warning in a number

of high-risk countries such as Bangladesh and drought-prone African

states. However, over the last decade the total number of people

affected and the economic losses as a result of disasters continue to

increase.

These impacts fall overwhelmingly on the poor.

Some observers highlight that the lack of progress in terms of

vulnerability reduction is partly due to the limited resources allo-

cated and policy attention paid to more people-centered DRR

approaches. They identify three substantial flaws in current DRR

strategies.

One flaw is a strong focus on system and institution building with

no clear evidence yet that this is being translated into the improve-

ment of safety and protection levels of at-risk communities. While

the creation of frameworks, platforms and networks may provide

more conceptual cohesion and facilitate knowledge exchange among

different constituencies there is a risk that the systems and frame-

works become a goal unto themselves. Reference to and compliance

with frameworks are no guarantee for effective DRR. Legal frame-

works, if not enforced, do not necessarily lead to better protection.

Risk assessments, if not followed by concrete risk reduction

measures, have limited effectiveness. Awareness raising

campaigns, if not translated into behavioral change, may

only have marginal effects on people’s safety. The current

input oriented approach that assesses compliance with

frameworks should be shifted towards a more output or

results oriented assessment of the effectiveness of all the

current system building efforts.

While governmental and intergovernmental actors

undoubtedly play an important role in vulnerability and

risk reduction, the challenges ahead compounded by a

changing climate will require the involvement of all

segments of society on an equal footing. A multi-

stakeholder and even multi-role approach to DRR is

absolutely required to address disaster risks in an effi-

cient, integrated and sustainable manner. From

grassroots to policymakers, each player has an essential

role in managing risk. And while traditionally-conceived

roles are a good starting point, expanded and overlap-

ping roles are needed to accelerate DRR. For example,

the role of the media in communicating risk issues to

the general public is critical. But they can support accel-

erated DRR if they were also to serve as watchdogs and

advocates. Academics could also support these efforts

by being more than neutral observers of risk. Many non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) are expanding their

traditional role of supporting awareness raising and

advocacy; undertaking excellent research, and field

testing innovative development and DRR strategies.

Donors play a key role in resource development and

capacity building, but could do more to assert the

primacy of human rights and pressure national govern-

ments to live up to their commitments. National

governments can create the enabling conditions for DRR

through the development of legislative frameworks,

plans and budgets. Yet without national governments

promoting popular participation in these processes, the

national role is not complete. Local authorities also need

to promote population participation in their decisions.

Finally, in many countries, the private sector is going

beyond its conventional role of protecting its work force

– adopting schools for seismic retrofit, controlling

mosquito breeding in the communities surrounding

factories, and so on. Thus, institutions and groups

should be encouraged to re-think and expand their roles

for effective implementation of DRR, particularly in