538Resilience-building may take place in fragile and conflict-affected states, in slow-onset disasters, and in urban areas. Although these contexts can overlap, the literature defines them as distinct and presents findings specific to each.
Fragile and conflict-affected states
Between 2005 and 2009, an estimated 50% of people affected by disasters from natural hazards lived in fragile and conflict-affected states (Harris et al., 2013, pp. vii-ix). Over 1.5 billion people live in countries that face repeated cycles of violence, so organisations such as Oxfam (2013, pp. 3, 5) advocate increased aid interventions in risky contexts. However, the empirical literature on resilience in the context of violent conflicts is limited, fragmented and contested, and focuses on development rather than humanitarian action (Harris et al., 2013, pp. vii-ix). For instance, although different types of conflict may call for different approaches to resilience (e.g. ongoing violent conflicts and post-conflict periods), the literature does not give clear guidance on how to tailor approaches to them.
Both vicious and virtuous cycles are apparent in the impacts of conflicts and natural hazards, and in building resilience to them. Disasters from natural hazards exacerbate conflict, and conflict and fragility increase the impacts of disasters from natural hazards (Harris et al., 2013, pp. vii-viii) and tend to prolong conflicts (GFDRR, 2010, p. 13). On the other hand, ‘effective governance, equity and strong social contracts’ tend to enhance both climate resilience and conflict resilience (DFID, 2011a, p. 10), and good institutions reduce the likelihood of violence (GFDRR, 2010, p. 13).
Based on a review of the available literature, Harris et al. (2013) advocate adapting tools for measuring and appraising resilience in conflict-affected countries. They argue there is a need for combined frameworks that incorporate peace-building, state-building and disaster risk, and conversely for disaster frameworks to integrate conflict and fragility (Harris et al., 2013, p. ix). They also suggest that a multidimensional risk index could be developed from existing data on conflict and fragility, hazards, vulnerability, poverty and climate change, with sub-national areas and weighted risk factors (Harris et al., 2013, p. x).
Turnbull et al. (2013, pp. 94-96) note that a conflict-sensitive approach to disaster resilience requires a clear understanding of the interaction between programme and context, and between conflict risk and disaster risk, and should:
- Analyse conflict issues before and during programming, and ensure that participatory capacity and vulnerability analysis covers risk, conflict and peace
- Consult all stakeholders before allocating resources or defining projects, and make clear how decisions are made
- Address governance (including institutions that promote accountability), natural resource management and livelihood security
- Encourage ‘win-win measures’ for different interest groups, e.g. agreement on contingency plans
- Support conflict early warning and provide training in conflict sensitivity and doing no harm
- Support customary negotiation and conflict-resolution.
In protracted crises, resilience is constrained by challenges at three levels, according to a recent synthesis of academic and practitioner knowledge (Frankenberger et al., 2012):
- Community level: Environmental problems leading to aid dependency and conflict; contested access to land and water; poverty within unequal power relations; the impact of livelihood insecurity on youth and armed conflict; and gender inequality.
- Government level: Ineffectual governance, policies and service delivery, lack of political will and local or national political interference all affect resilience-building.
- Donor level: Humanitarian and development activities operate to different timelines, with different procurement systems, geographic areas of focus, relationships with governments and trade-offs among aid sectors.
To respond to these challenges, Frankenberger et al. (2012, p. 8) suggest shifting aid towards a long-term combination of DRM, climate change adaptation, livelihood diversification and social protection. Strategic partnerships (including with the private sector) could complement donor funding and create financial incentives for investment in livelihoods, and external actors should draw on customary institutions and knowledge on coping with climate, conflict and food insecurity. The authors propose that effective programming must (Frankenberger et al., 2012, p. 8):
- Support ‘effective formal and informal governance, peace-building and conflict mitigation’
- Address ‘the different needs, capabilities and aspirations of the most vulnerable groups (women, orphans, elderly, displaced, conflict-affected, unemployed/uneducated youth)’, with equity for women supported through participation in decision-making and access to productive assets
- Promote healthy ecosystems, incorporate ecosystem-based planning, payment for ecosystem services and farmer-managed natural regeneration;
- Support livelihoods diversification based on a thorough risk assessment (including political economy and conflict drivers)
- Promote access to infrastructure (e.g. roads, markets, water) and financial services
- Encourage actors to invest in household ‘human capital’: health, diversified livelihoods, social capital, and rights.
Building resilience in a complex environment
This paper reports on a long-term, regional programme to build resilience to drought through cross-border collaboration between communities in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, implemented by CARE. Regional Resilience Enhancement Against Drought (RREAD) aims to improve innovation, diversification, governance and resource management approaches (pp. 1-3). The programme succeeded in enhancing the adaptive capacities of pastoralists, partly by increasing the diversification of livelihoods, though this requires careful planning and risk assessment. Support for resilience came from access to markets, viable economic alternatives and sustainable natural resource management. The paper concludes that approaches to building resilience should (pp. 4-10):
- Enhance community capacities to manage risks and uncertainties.
- Support good governance at and between all levels, based on rights and on decentralised and participatory decision-making, and build the capacity of local institutions.
- Strengthen inclusive partnerships across a broad spectrum of institutions, with support for the rights and interests of all marginalised and vulnerable groups.
- Integrate local traditional knowledge with science and technology.
- Work across scales, focusing on socio-ecological systems and context specifics.
- Build on the ‘conflict transformation potential’ of effective natural resource management, run by community users in collaboration with authorities.
Source: Standley, 2012
Slow-onset disasters
Slow-onset disasters present significant opportunities for resilience-building (Turnbull et al., 2013). For instance, the rehabilitation of water sources during droughts, or the provision of information and chlorine for water potability, can reduce the risk of sickness in the long-term. Technical support can improve early warning systems, evacuation planning and the capacity of local authorities to manage risk (Turnbull et al., 2013).
The consequences of slow-onset disasters are predictable and can be reduced through early action, from days to years in advance (Turnbull et al., 2013). For example, with flood risks, early action can be taken in advance by: years (e.g. work with at-risk populations on reforestation and house reinforcement); months (e.g. update contingency plans and inform population of risks and appropriate response such as clearing drains); weeks (e.g. mobilise local groups responsible for disaster preparedness and response); days (e.g. store valuables in higher places); and hours (evacuate).
In the face of drought-related food insecurity, useful interventions include:
- Protecting food production (e.g. irrigation, soil and water conservation, crop diversification).
- Protecting access to food, through cash transfers, food distribution, credit, cash- or food-for-work.
- Preserving food (e.g. storage), water (e.g. rainwater harvesting) and livestock (e.g. fodder supply).
- Protecting and diversifying livelihoods, e.g. through insurance, agricultural diversification, off-farm employment and the protection of natural resources.
- Providing monitoring, forecasting and guidance through local-to-international early warning.
Urban areas
By 2030, over 60 percent of the world’s population – almost five billion people – are expected to live in urban environments, with the fastest population growth expected in small- to medium-sized towns (Jha et al., 2013, pp. 1-2; Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109; see also UNISDR, 2012). Urban contexts present specific challenges, vulnerabilities and opportunities for disaster resilience (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109; Jha et al., 2013, pp. 1-2). This section reflects lessons and recommendations from practitioner experience and research in a range of countries.
Resilience of the urban poor and municipal policy, Bangladesh
Jabeen et al. (2010) examine household and community coping by the poor in Korail, the largest informal settlement in Dhaka, in the face of climate vulnerability and various hazards. They find that the urban poor use a variety of coping strategies (pp. 423-428). These include physical modifications to buildings, saving groups and diversified livelihoods, social networks for help and safety nets, and the accumulation and use of assets such as material goods, skills and health (usually on the initiative of women).
The authors recommend that effective and equitable municipal plans scale up knowledge and lessons from the grassroots to tackle the ‘double vulnerability’ of the urban poor to climate change and poverty (pp. 429-430). Local adaptation plans should be associated with broader development, at the intersection of poverty reduction, vulnerability reduction and climate change. Plans should combine structural approaches (such as engineering) and non-structural ones (e.g. warnings, evacuations, regulations of land use and building, insurance). Land tenure is essential to encouraging dwellers to improve buildings. Partnerships between government, utility providers and civil society would be useful. Municipalities could support community-managed savings schemes and insurance for low-income groups.
Source: Jabeen et al. (2010)
In terms of general principles, Jha et al. (2013, pp. 2-3) emphasise that, in the face of uncertainty, ‘a flexible and dynamic approach’ is critical to building urban resilience. Prioritising different risk reduction measures requires risk information that highlights trade-offs between policy options (Jha et al., 2013, p. 5). Municipal governments should learn from other cities through knowledge exchange (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109).
Local governments can plan development, among others through land use planning and ecosystem management approaches (Jha et al., 2013, pp. 3-4). They can influence land availability and construction requirements, regulate building design, construction and hazardous activities.
In terms of analysis and design (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109), maps of hazards should be developed and overlapped at different scales (regional, city-wide, specific neighbourhoods or sectors). The analysis of hazards should be integrated with other risks, such as technologies and violence. It should also consider population growth, migration, unemployment and informal employment. The focus should be on informal settlements and older central districts. Engaging professionals (engineers, city planners and social workers) is important to gain expertise. At the same time, participatory risk assessment can increase social cohesion in heterogeneous populations (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109) and helps with collective resilience and information dissemination (Jha et al., 2013, p. 4).
Actors must plan for particularly long and complex negotiations and coordination in urban contexts (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109). Multi-sectoral and multi-level contingency planning must be a priority. All plans must fit urban livelihoods, which often involve long commuting distances and working days. A wide range of stakeholders (including emergency services, relevant government departments, private sector and civil society) must engage in city-wide and area-specific efforts. In terms of funding, public investment should prioritise activities that perform well in different risk scenarios, as urban resilience relies on the redundancy of assets while facing tradeoffs due to limited resources (Jha et al., 2013, p. 3).
In addition, local governments can provide safe and affordable infrastructure and services, while putting in place effective disaster early warning, preparedness and response, and encouraging household and community risk reduction (Jha et al., 2013, pp. 3-4). Infrastructure systems – water, sanitation, energy, communications and transportation – are critically important for emergency response and quick recovery (Jha et al., 2013, p. 4). Their robust design should build on ‘investments in risk information, strategic communication, cross-sectoral coordination’, and response and recovery planning (Jha et al., 2013, p. 4). Urban upgrading should prioritise ‘infrastructure, housing, livelihoods, and social networks for highly vulnerable households living in slum settlements’ (Jha et al., 2013, p. 4).
Aid actors have a role to play in advocacy, to promote multi-hazard and multi-effect forecasting and early warning systems, as well as public and private accountability for risk reduction (Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 104-109).
- DFID (2011a). Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. DFID.
See document online - Frankenberger, T.R., et al. (2012). Enhancing Resilience to Food Insecurity amid Protracted Crisis. UN High-Level Expert Forum.
See document online - GFDRR. (2010). Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters. The Economics of Effective Prevention. United Nations, World Bank.
See document online - Harris, K., et al. (2013). When disasters and conflicts collide: improving links between disaster resilience and conflict prevention. ODI.
See document online - Jabeen, H., et al. (2010). Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 415–431.
See document online - Jha, A.K., et al. (eds.) (2013). Building Urban Resilience: Principles, Tools, and Practice. World Bank.
See document online - Oxfam (2013). No accident. Resilience and the inequality of risk. Oxfam International.
See document online - Standley, S. (2012). Learning paper: Building resilience in a complex environment. Briefing Paper 04. Care UK.
See document online - Turnbull, M., et al. (2013). Toward Resilience: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Catholic Relief Services.
See document online - UNISDR (2012). How To Make Cities More Resilient. A Handbook For Local Government Leaders. UNISDR.
See document online
- Areas in protracted crisis are ‘environments in which a significant proportion of the population is acutely vulnerable to death, disease and disruption of livelihoods over a prolonged period of time. The governance of these environments is usually very weak, with the state having a limited capacity to respond to, and mitigate, the threats to the population, or provide adequate levels of protection’ (Harmer & Macrae, 2004, p. 1).
