This report finds that Disaster Risk Reduction programmes and research need to begin to address the gaps in DRR knowledge and programming and the increased vulnerability of certain populations and locations. Such gaps include:
- Limited national capacity
- Limited funding for DRR compared to relief efforts
- Lack of standardised definitions, tools, methodologies, or assessments
- Limited incorporation of vulnerability as an underlying risk driver
- Minimum coordination among programmes
- Lack of project monitoring, impact evaluations, and cost-benefit analyses
- Limited scope beyond natural hazards and rural areas
The following key findings emerged from case studies of Kenya, Nepal and Haiti:
- Current DRR programming does not take into account the plethora of risks that households residing in dynamic contexts—that include poverty, disasters, and conflict—experience.
- Future programming needs to address the reality that households are vulnerable to numerous risks, and that disasters often simply exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. One such approach is through a better understanding of the livelihood context. Besides the impact of disasters on human life and health, livelihoods are most important, as they are what allow households to access the funds and cash flows necessary for recovery.
- In both Nepal and Haiti, the study found that supporting livelihoods was not simply important for accumulating wealth, but was integral for reducing household risk to a disaster. Also, DRR should not be viewed as only a pre-crisis programming concept but should pervade the program cycle, especially since many areas are consistently at risk of multiple hazards, both natural and man-made.
- The difficulty of gathering evidence to inform DRR policy and practice was also made evident in the research. In order to carry out a traditional evaluation, a study needs both access to a control group and the occurrence of an actual shock, in this case a hazard. While the former is difficult to identify for ethical reasons, the latter is often unpredictable. Both the Nepal and Kenya study suffered from this constraint. The original methodology for Nepal had to be altered after the expected flooding never arrived in the summer of 2011.
Based on a literature review and interviews, recommendations include the following:
- Increase focus on poor, urban areas and island nations, in addition to chronically risk-prone areas. Growing urban populations and environmental changes make both urban informal settlements and small island nations increasingly susceptible to hazards.
- Standardise definitions, tools, and methodologies. Agreed-upon definitions, tools, and methodologies will help bridge different fields and types of programming and reduce confusion. A cross-sectoral framework that reflects how lives, livelihoods, and assets are preserved would allow for a globally accepted set of criteria against which to measure the effectiveness of DRR.
- Focus on reducing vulnerability Risk remains overly associated with hazards and response, at the expense of concerns related to vulnerability, which is seen as too ambiguous and overwhelming. Better tools for vulnerability analysis could link humanitarian and development responses and bring those responses in line with the sustainable livelihoods approach.
- Integrate DRR with development, climate adaptation, and humanitarian programming. Development, humanitarian, and climate initiatives have to incorporate DRR programming in order to make their projects more sustainable and better address all community and household risk drivers.
- Understand and incorporate the project cycle in programming . A broader focus is needed, incorporating risk reduction, mitigation and preparedness, response, and recovery. Frequently, relief efforts contribute to increased vulnerability due to conflicting programme objectives.
- Improve monitoring, impact evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis. Quantitative analysis of the cost and benefits of DRR programming could provide evidence and a clear economic argument for or against DRR interventions.
- Broaden focus to incorporate conflict, economic, biological, and multi-hazard environments . Most natural disasters now occur in a conflict or post-conflict setting (Sudan, Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, and many others) or as a mix of multiple hazards (Ethiopia, Philippines, etc.).
