The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and in promoting sustainable livelihoods^[32]

S. Baas and F. Battista
Stephan Baas, Sustainable Rural Development Officer, and Federica Battista, Consultant, FAO Rural Institutions and Participation Service

In 2003/04, the FAO Rural Institutions and Participation Service initiated a comprehensive study entitled The role of local-level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters. Its objectives were (a) to gather and compare experiences and field-based evidence in order to provide guidance to policy-makers on how local organizations could best be empowered in disaster risk management (DRM) and (b) to elaborate strategies for incorporating disaster prevention and response activities into long-term sustainable rural development strategies. The study built on the basic assumption that a sound understanding of existing institutional capacities, and of the comparative advantages of different actors in DRM, are key requirements for a successful shift from reactive emergency relief operations towards long-term disaster risk prevention and preparedness as well as for their integration into regular rural development planning.

A comprehensive analysis of secondary material and nine case studies (Argentina, Burkina Faso, Honduras, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mozambique, the Niger, the Philippines, South Africa and Viet Nam) focused on practical lessons learned from local action before, during and after situations of natural disasters. An interregional workshop was then held in Rome as a forum for analysis and comparison.

CONTEXT

Increasing impact and frequency of natural disasters

Global data indicate that, in the last decade, natural hazards have occurred more frequently than in the past and have been more destructive. Weather-related hazards continue to increase, from an annual average of 200 per year between 1993 and 1997, to 331 per year between 1998 and 2002. Although reported global deaths from natural disasters have fallen (24 500 people were reported killed in 2002 against an annual average of 62 000 in the previous decade), the number of people reported to be affected is increasing dramatically (608 million people in 2002 compared with an annual average of 200 million in the previous decade).^[33]

Development and disaster risk management are closely related

The relationship between development and disaster risk management is clearly described in the recent United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report on disaster risk reduction (UNDP, 2003): about 75 percent of the world’s population live in areas affected at least once between 1980 and 2000 by earthquakes, tropical cyclones, floods or drought. While only 11 percent of the people exposed to natural disasters live in countries that were classified according to the UNDP human development index (HDI) as countries with a low HDI, these countries account for more than 53 percent of the total recorded deaths. Figures show that there is a clear link between development status and disaster impact; there is also evidence that disaster risk accumulates historically through inappropriate development interventions. Disaster reduction policies should therefore include a twofold aim to "enable societies to be resilient to natural hazards and ensure that development efforts do not increase vulnerability to those hazards" (UN/ISDR, 2004).

The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) reflects a shift in focus from hazard protection to risk management and provides a framework for complementary action on the part of different United Nations (UN) agencies involved in disaster reduction. It aims to build disaster-resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an integral component of sustainable development. The promotion of public commitment to DRM is one of the four main objectives of the ISDR. Increased importance is given to socio-economic vulnerability as a key risk factor, underlining the need for wider participation of local communities in disaster risk reduction activities.

FAO's contribution to DRM

FAO has a crucial role in DRM. The vast majority of natural disasters occur in rural areas and threaten agricultural production and food security in particular. The 1996 World Food Summit (WFS) Plan of Action stresses the need to develop efficient emergency response mechanisms and recommends that governments involve communities, local authorities and institutions [...] "in implementing emergency operations to better identify and reach populations and areas at greatest risk" (Objective 5.3. FAO, 1998). In the same spirit, the WFS Plan of Action recommends that governments "strengthen linkages between relief operations and development programmes [...] so that they are mutually supportive and facilitate the transition from relief to development" (Objective 5.4. FAO, 1998).

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Plan of Implementation reiterates the importance of the issue and calls for action at all levels for an integrated, multihazard, inclusive approach to address vulnerability, risk assessment and disaster management, including prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (UN, 2002).

FAO's work on "The role of local-level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters" was initiated in 2002 with the objective of reporting on experiences and gathering field-based evidence in order to provide guidance to policy-makers on how local organizations could best be empowered in DRM and to elaborate strategies for incorporating disaster prevention and response activities into long-term sustainable rural development strategies.

As part of this activity, FAO tackles DRM from an institutional perspective within the context of rural development and decentralization. The approach builds on the basic assumption that a sound understanding of existing institutional capacities and possible gaps, and of the comparative advantages of different actors in DRM, particularly at decentralized levels, are key requirements for a successful shift from reactive emergency relief operations towards long-term disaster risk prevention and preparedness and their integration into regular rural development planning.

The first phase of the programme activity focused on a comparative study on the role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural hazards. The study included a comprehensive analysis of secondary material; nine case studies in different countries (Argentina, Burkina Faso, Honduras, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mozambique, the Niger, the Philippines, South Africa and Viet Nam), focusing on lessons learned from local action before, during and after natural disasters; and a workshop for a comparative analysis of the case studies (31 March-2 April 2004).

FRAMEWORKS AND STRENGTHS OF KEY ACTORS IN DRM

Case study findings and workshop discussions confirmed the basic hypothesis that locally organized preventive action as well as responsive action to disasters could be very powerful in limiting damage and losses, and that both are crucial to complement higher-level activities in emergencies. They also confirmed that what is lacking is a clear understanding of local experiences and knowledge, and concrete guidance on how to strengthen the role of local government and community-based organizations in DRM and improve their methods of communication and active interaction. The data and workshop discussions indicated that local institutions and organizations are key actors with comparative strengths in several areas. Local institutions derive their strengths from proximity, responsiveness to social pressures and adaptation. However, the evaluation of comparative strengths should include the additional considerations outlined below.

• Local institutions need the appropriate frameworks and an enabling environment to function.

  Local actors often act without a mandate from the central level. Concrete and effective action at the local level requires such a mandate and a revenue system that also allows for resource mobilization at local level. The central administration/government is the key actor in policy formulation. DRM requires a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to reduce risk and make disaster response and rehabilitation more effective.

  Effective coordination systems benefit from decentralized governance, once clearly defined roles of local government are in place. Critical aspects include:

  (i) devolution of responsibilities;
  (ii) appropriate budget allocations;
  (iii) institutions at different levels and in different sectors that are mutually supportive (vertical and horizontal coordination);
  (iv) clear definition of tasks;
  (v) strong partnerships with civil society and the private sector; and
  (vi) integration with sectoral development plans.

• The functioning and comparative strengths of local institutions depend upon the type and scale of natural disasters.

  There is a threshold beyond which local institutions are no longer able to prepare for and respond effectively to a disaster. While recurrent natural disasters are better managed at the local level, exceptional events also require support from the national/local government and international community.

  Some elements of natural hazard management, in particular agricultural risk adaptation practices, require a combination of institutional capacity building and technical assistance or transfer of technology practices. This fact underlines the important link between DRM and agricultural extension.

• Integration with natural resource management and long-term rural development, particularly in the areas of land use and watershed management.

  Natural disasters are often a consequence of inappropriate natural resource management and there is often a clash between local DRM strategies and practices and national development policies strategies These issues need to be addressed at the central government level and require negotiation and participation at local level.

Comparative strengths of local communities in DRM

Social capital is the key factor in ensuring immediate responses to disasters (saving lives and moving people to safer grounds, providing emergency food and shelter) and it also has an important role in the rehabilitation phase (e.g. credit and mutual support in reconstruction work), especially when there is no formal system in place.

Where there is no official coordinating mechanism, the local community carries out all rescue and relief functions via its informal networks. Emergency relief operations can facilitate the recognition of the role of local social capital by: a) allocating roles and responsibilities in the distribution of relief goods and provision of relief services; b) identifying policy and legislation gaps; and c) providing local and national government support to develop normative frameworks that would capitalize on local informal networks.

However, spontaneous initiatives related to the prevention of and preparedness for disasters and risk are rare. Mitigation measures normally require support from formal institutions. Adaptation strategies for dealing with recurrent small-scale hazards are common but extreme events are often perceived as "acts of God" and no preventive measure is taken.

Comparative strengths of local governments

The overall emerging pattern is that local governments are the key actors in:

• monitoring of risk and vulnerability: pre-disaster vulnerability assessments and emergency needs assessments, early warning systems (dissemination of alerts requires that the message is understood by various users and that there is community involvement/ownership);

• contingency planning and coordination of emergency operations: setting up local coordination bodies for evacuation, timely planning for the distribution of relief goods, health services, transport and planning of rehabilitation;

• integration of DRM components into natural resource management plans;

• development of horizontal partnerships with the private sector, non-governmental organizations and community groups, and establishment of intermunicipal agreements.

A preliminary overview of the comparative strengths of different local institutions in DRM vis-à-vis higher level institutions -as emerged from the case studies - is summarized in the Annex table, pp. 52-55.

Weaknesses of local institutions in DRM

Despite the comparative strengths of local organizations in DRM, the studies also identified shortcomings of local institutions. Local institutions are often not adequately prepared to respond efficiently to emergencies. Some of the institutional weaknesses are:

• lack of institutional coordination in responding to situations of extreme need;

• weak communication mechanisms between different levels of the administration;

• lack of capacity to anticipate major events, inhibiting appropriate responses, particularly to early warning;

• lack of efficient channels and mechanisms for dissemination of information on natural hazard management to communities that need the information;

• centralization of decision-making at the national level and non-flexible mechanisms for information flow from the bottom up. As a result, most of the decisions taken do not reflect the needs and expectations of people in the areas at risk;

• fragile and incompatible links between the different powers created in a context of new democratization. At the local level, there is no clear allocation of roles between the traditional and administrative authorities; this sometimes results in conflict, which can have a negative effect on institutional coordination in disaster management;

• poor coordination with donors and inability to challenge their conditions and impositions of how and where to provide support.

IMPROVING THE LINK BETWEEN DRM SYSTEMS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DRM systems should be perceived as an integral part of regular sustainable development planning at different levels and, in addition to improved early warning and response mechanisms, should also recognize mechanisms and issues related to disaster risk mitigation and preparedness. A better integration of DRM systems and rural development policies can be tackled at different levels. The issues of general governance, poverty reduction and sustainable use of natural resources are the preconditions for effective DRM. However, several framework conditions need to be in place or improved to mitigate disaster impacts further and build communities' resilience to shocks. They are briefly outlined below.

Policy design

• Include disaster prevention and mitigation components (and vulnerability/risk analysis elements) in rural development plans and other sectoral plans ("retrofitting" of rural sector development projects with DRM components).

• Integrate land-use and watershed management strategies, promoting cooperative planning among countries/municipalities in regional watershed management (e.g. the floods in Mozambique in 2000) and crossboundary risk management.

• Mandate national policy for disaster risk reduction at the local level and the development of local DRM plans.

• Improve revenue systems allowing for resource allocation to local relief-calamity funds, budget allocations for prevention and mitigation and resource mobilization strategies (including twinning programmes between municipalities in the South and North, bringing together resources and experiences).

• Develop post-disaster financial measures that can facilitate recovery (tax alleviation, credit payment rescheduling, etc.).

• Include preparedness and response coordination systems in local institutions.

• At the local and national levels, link the representatives and interest groups of development with those of disaster management and establish alliances among different actors.

• Create incentives for different actors to become involved in what would be defined as "good practice"; disincentives should be designed for unsustainable practices.

Governance and coordination

• Encourage central government to acknowledge the role of local actors and provide an enabling normative framework.

• Establish cross-sectoral (horizontal) disaster coordination committees at the local level (not necessarily new structures) and add new specialized functions and services to existing structures.

• Design and operationalize emergency coordination mechanisms (contingency plans and evacuation plans) with a clear definition of authority roles and responsibilities. These are normally more effective when designed at the provincial level and below; when this is not the case, the level of detail is not sufficient for translating recommendations into action.

• Establish effective vertical decision-making mechanisms (where higher-level organizations support lower-level) for periods of emergency.

• Build local capacities for immediate response (normally, all relief operations rely on the local community during the first four days).

• Recognize and enhance local knowledge, specifically on risk identification and monitoring, risk mitigation strategies, early warning and conflict resolution.

• Recognize and enhance social safety nets, especially in the relief and rehabilitation phase. A key related governance issue that requires analysis is how to combine modern democratic institutions with traditional knowledge and livelihood and communication strategies, and how to adapt traditional organizations to modern requirements.

Rethinking emergency relief

• Promote more consistency with long-term rural development objectives where possible (rural development policies in disaster-prone areas should include sections on recommendations for emergency food aid distribution).

• Improve current monitoring and evaluation practices on relief operations (including impact on rural development).

• Identify relief interventions that support and sustain local livelihoods.

• Build an exit strategy, based on local sustainability, for all external relief interventions.

• Use emergency relief operations to generate momentum and the opportunity to rethink and foster long-term rural development.

Monitoring

• Identify and monitor risk on a regular basis.

• Develop local risk indicators adapted to climate-related changes.

• Undertake local vulnerability and needs assessments before and after hazards occur (including differentiated, but standardized, vulnerability criteria) and prepare risk maps and hazard risk diagnosis.

• Evaluate the consequences of development choices on disaster impact.

• Monitor and evaluate the impact of relief distributions.

• Measure the impact of a disaster in terms of loss of livelihoods and not loss of lives.

Key services

• Improve the local asset base: sustainable natural resource management strategies, appropriate technology development, stock reserves for emergencies, access to capital and markets, livelihood diversification, insurance mechanisms and improvement of existing buildings to increase their resilience against damage.

• Improve early warning systems, including clear information dissemination practices and outreach mechanisms to populations in remote areas (mixed formal and informal information systems and local radio communications proved to be the most efficient).

• Integrate scientific understanding of natural hazards with local knowledge and traditional beliefs.

• Include regularly updated contingency plans within systematic disaster-preparedness planning mechanisms.

• Improve understanding of how people interpret and respond to warnings.

Capacity building and public awareness

• All case studies show evidence of a lack of relevant capacity building, public awareness and training activities on DRM at the local level.

• Capacity-building efforts should target both government and civil society representatives and be site-specific.

• Information on disaster risk protection options should be provided to citizens in easily understood, ideally local language and through means appropriate to the local context.

Targeting vulnerable groups

• Relief operations have consistently demonstrated the need for accountable community-based structures to oversee the implementation of emergency interventions, which also ensure that interventions are culturally acceptable.

• Such structures, which usually take the form of committees, need to be legitimate. Because emergency operations need to be swift and tend to involve at least some free distribution of assets of one kind or another, they are also more prone to corruption and bribes. Community-based structures thus need to include a rigorous selection of credible and trusted local individuals, who should be chosen by community members themselves.

THE WAY AHEAD

The issues described above are a synthesis of the case studies' findings and workshop discussions. The comparative analysis of the case studies highlights that the following are key requirements for effective local DRM systems and mechanisms.

• enabling legal frameworks

• social capital formation

• integration of DRM and natural resource management

• conflict resolution over natural resources

• disaster preparedness and contingency planning

• financial services factoring in risks associated with natural disasters

• early warning systems and outreach strategies

• vertical and horizontal communication and cooperation linkages

• coordination mechanisms among actors at all levels

• community training and public awareness

A strategic framework is currently being developed by the FAO Rural Institutions and Participation Service to translate these requirements and principles into action. This implies identifying in more detail how to operationalize them and who the key actors could be in designing and implementing specific tasks in the field. This should also lead to a better understanding of how relief operations could be used as an entry point to promoting longer-term development and of how to include disaster risk prevention and preparedness activities into regular development planning.

REFERENCES

FAO. 1998. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.

IFRC. 2003. World Disasters Report 2003. Geneva, Switzerland, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

UN. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. New York, USA, United Nations.

UNDP. 2003. Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. New York, USA, United Nations Development Programme.

UN/ISDR. 2004. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations/Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Annex table
Overview of the comparative strengths of local and higher-level institutions in DRM

Le rôle des institutions locales dans la réduction de la vulnérabilité aux catastrophes naturelles et dans la promotion des moyens d'existence durables

En 2003/04, le Service des institutions rurales et de la participation de la FAO a entrepris une étude globale intitulée Le rôle des institutions locales dans la réduction de la vulnérabilité aux catastrophes naturelles. Ses objectifs étaient les suivants: a) recueillir et comparer des données d'expérience et des preuves sur le terrain pour fournir des orientations aux décideurs sur la manière dont les organisations locales pourraient au mieux assumer la responsabilité de la gestion des risques de catastrophe et b) élaborer des stratégies visant à incorporer la prévention et la réponse aux catastrophes dans les programmes de développement rural durable à long terme. Cette étude repose sur l'hypothèse qu'une bonne compréhension des capacités institutionnelles existantes, ainsi que des avantages comparatifs des différents interlocuteurs, est le critère fondamental qui permettra de passer d'une politique de réaction aux catastrophes à une politique de prévention et de préparation à long terme aux risques de catastrophe ainsi qu'à son intégration dans la planification ordinaire du développement rural.

Une analyse exhaustive de matériel complémentaire et de neuf études de cas (Afrique du Sud, Argentine, Burkina Faso, Honduras, Mozambique, Niger, Philippines, République islamique d'Iran et Viet Nam), a porté sur les enseignements pratiques tirés de l'expérience au niveau local avant, pendant et après des catastrophes naturelles. Un atelier interrégional s'est ensuite tenu à Rome pour analyser et comparer ces données.

La función de las instituciones locales en la reducción de la vulnerabilidad ante las catástrofes naturales y en el fomento de medios de vida sostenibles

En 2003/04, el Servicio de Instituciones y Extensión Rurales de la FAO inició un amplio estudio sobre la función de las instituciones locales en la reducción de la vulnerabilidad ante las catástrofes naturales. Sus objetivos consistían en: a) recopilar y comparar experiencias y datos sobre el terreno con objeto de orientar a los responsables de la formulación de políticas sobre la mejor forma de dotar a las organizaciones locales de los medios necesarios para gestionar los riesgos de catástrofes; y b) elaborar estrategias para incorporar actividades de respuesta y prevención de desastres dentro de las estrategias de desarrollo rural sostenible a largo plazo. En el estudio se partió de la base de que un buen conocimiento de las capacidades institucionales existentes, así como de las ventajas comparativas de las diferentes partes implicadas en la gestión de riesgos de catástrofes era un requisito fundamental para pasar de forma satisfactoria de operaciones de socorro en respuesta a emergencias a la preparación y prevención de riesgos de catástrofes a largo plazo y su integración en la planificación ordinaria del desarrollo rural.

El análisis exhaustivo del material accesorio y de nueve estudios de casos (Argentina, Burkina Faso, Filipinas, Honduras, Mozambique, Níger, la República Islámica del Irán, Sudáfrica y Viet Nam) se centró en las enseñanzas prácticas extraídas de ejemplos de actuación local antes, durante y después de situaciones de peligro natural. Se celebró luego un taller interregional en Roma que sirvió de foro de análisis y comparación.