Disaster Management or Disastrous Management?
I, like many others, grew up believing that my grandfather was a real life action hero. What’s different about my case is that I wasn’t the only one. After becoming known as the ‘Minister of the Volcano’ in 1963, my grandfather moved from one disaster to another – creating emergency response plans for earthquakes in Nicaragua, Guatemala and el Salvador and hurricanes in Honduras and Costa Rica. Though confident in his role as ‘action man’, he sought to change the approach to disasters in Latin America from reaction to prevention, arguing that responsible management was the key to development.
Unfortunately, our current action figures rarely stop to consider what long term effects disasters can have on development. Two generations down the line, I’d like to pick up my grandfather’s thread and analyse how disaster management has progressed and how we can ensure that nations benefit in the long-run from our interventions.
One of the main obstacles to long-term progress is the separation of disaster management and development programs. Given that disasters tend to have higher impacts on ‘less developed’ nations and make it difficult for communities to advance, it is easy to deduce that if disaster management achieves higher levels of development, a nation will need less relief over time[1].
We may ask ourselves why it is that higher-income nations need less relief than lower-income ones, given that they are just as exposed to disasters. Taking the USA for instance, “more than one-third of its population lives in hazard-prone areas but only 1 percent of its land area ranks high in mortality risk,”[2] showing that geographical vulnerability alone does not determine the impact of disasters. This is where development comes into play. Not only can the USA better mitigate dangers, through means such as advanced warning systems, crop irrigation (to reduce the effects of draught) and sturdier buildings[3], but it also has the income and equipment to react quickly when a disaster does occur. ‘Less developed’ nations, on the other hand, generally do not have available funds to deal with disasters, so they have to take resources away from long-term projects, which in turn hinders their development.
Frequent disasters not only affect governments’ strategies, but also those of individuals. According to Robert Chambers “the poor live constantly with the risk of crisis and plan their livelihood strategies accordingly,”[4] suggesting that they will never consider their possibilities for personal development. For this reason alone we can say that interventions are necessary. Yet, the aim should be to reduce the pressure on locals, not to push them out of crisis management altogether. When aid comes with short-term goals and imported strategies, local institutions are often left crippled or dependant on foreign support[5]. Hence, local people and organisations should be allowed to create their own path to development.
Contrary to popular belief, the road to development can be paved during a crisis, so long as the support given treats people as resilient economic actors rather than victims. In 2009, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) began a shift from food aid to voucher or cash transfers which could then be exchanged for food. In this manner, local markets could continue operating and consumers could continue accessing their basic needs. Controversially, the WFP’s vouchers can only be exchanged for specified food items at set quantities[6], so they come with restrictions to autonomy. Yet, such restrictions are intended to guarantee that nutritional goals are met and such conditions can create stepping stones for development.
Other conditions may require that people take positive action in order to earn their vouchers. This can range from going to school, working or even participating in relief efforts. In order to protect local labour markets, wages are generally set below market price to “serve as a self–targeting mechanism”[7] Though this may seem perverse, it could be the motivation people need to build up their own future. According to a GECHS report, continuous crises can damage people’s mental strength[8], so this approach could give them control over their lives and reduce their feeling of vulnerability.
By encouraging people to work and study, such programs can begin changing priorities and boost mitigation policies. If locals learn to save funds, use sanitation procedures and implement drought-protection mechanisms (through improved irrigation and different industrial systems)[9], they can become more resistant to natural disasters. Native institutions are essential in this, since they have local knowledge and may have a wider reach in society.
There is of course an underlying issue here, which James Darcy refers to as ‘low absorptive capacity’, entailing that there is little guarantee than funds given to local institutions will be spent effectively.[10] For this very reason, perhaps, a division has been made between disaster management and development. As Buchanan-Smith and Maxwell note, “there is little prospect of linking relief and development in countries such as Sudan, where the development aid budget has been slashed, because the country does not comply with political criteria for aid”.[11] However, rather than shrugging our shoulders and directing our efforts to humanitarian aid, we should work to build up relationships and improve the capacity of local authorities.
The simplest way of engaging local institutions is by ensuring that their long-term needs are met, and for this we need to include development criteria in disaster management strategies. Though the media may push for urgent action, sometimes the best response is to take a step back and look at the big picture. On this matter I can agree with my grandfather: we cannot continue to rely on external action figures to sweep in during a crisis. We have to implement long-term strategies that create local leaders, so that their own development reduces their need for foreign aid.
[1] Maxwell, S., & Buchanan-Smith, M. (1994). Linking relief and development: An introduction and overview. In M. Buchanan-Smith (Ed.), IDS Bulletin (4 ed., Vol. 25, pp. 2-16).
[2] Strömberg, D. (2007). Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid. In Journal of Economic Perspectives (3 ed., Vol. 21, p. 199 –222).
[3] McMillan, C. (1998). Natural disasters: Prepare, mitigate, manage. In EIS: Digests of Environmental Impact Statements. CSA.
[4] Maxwell, S., & Buchanan-Smith, M. (1994). Linking relief and development: An introduction and overview. In M. Buchanan-Smith (Ed.), IDS Bulletin (4 ed., Vol. 25, pp. 2-16).
[5] Ibid.
[6]Guarnieri, V. et al. (2009). Cash and vouchers manual. Rome: United Nations World Food Programme
[7]Ibid.
[8] O’Brien, K. et al. (2008). Disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and human security. In Report for Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (3, 2008). University of Oslo.
[9] Maxwell, S., & Buchanan-Smith, M. (1994). Linking relief and development: An introduction and overview. In M. Buchanan-Smith (Ed.), IDS Bulletin (4 ed., Vol. 25, pp. 2-16).
[10] Darcy, J. (2008). The MDGs and the humanitarian–development divide. Overseas Development Institute. London.
[11] Maxwell, S., & Buchanan-Smith, M. (1994). Linking relief and development: An introduction and overview. In M. Buchanan-Smith (Ed.), IDS Bulletin (4 ed., Vol. 25, pp. 2-16).
Comments Off on Disaster Management or Disastrous Management? /
06 Jan 2014
por
anabeatriceacuna
IMSD /
.png)
].gif)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
].png)
].png)
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
