Multi-level, multi-stakeholder work on enabling environments
Connecting interventions at different scales of action and government is essential (DFID, 2011a, p. 16; IFRC, 2012b, p. 6; Jha et al., 2013, p. 25; Oxfam, 2013; Reaching Resilience, n.d.; Turnbull et al., 2013). For example, Jabeen et al. (2010, p. 418) emphasise that adaptations needed at a certain level may be beyond the control of people at that level and must be implemented by actors from another level (e.g. poor slum dwellers needing secure land tenure to invest in adapting their buildings against hazards). A policy and institutional environment that supports long-term disaster resilience also involves governments supporting the capacity of individuals, civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risks and shocks (Turnbull et al., 2013; OECD, 2013b, p. 1).
Based on desk research and fieldwork in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.) found the following multi-stakeholder, multi-level approaches effective when integrating DRR, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in interventions:
- Understanding, and creating dialogue on, people’s ‘risk landscape’, i.e. the wide range of risks communities face from hazards, but also disease, hunger, unemployment, insecure land rights or violence. Reaching Resilience advocates a people-centred perspective instead of preconceived projects. This helps understand the different risk perspectives between and within communities that may cause tensions, and their social and political ramifications. Aid actors can then act as bridge-builders. For example, they can use risk maps for dialogue and negotiation, engaging with the most vulnerable groups and village authorities and national elites. Reaching Resilience also recommends selecting communities based on needs, geographical and strategic criteria.
- Exploring institutions and the governance context. Aid actors need to understand the interactions within and between governance realms and actors. In practice, it is important to identify the risk perceptions of state and non-state actors, risk policies, formal and informal institutions, norms, and spatial planning. It is also important to find where disconnect exist between risks and policies, and to determine obstacles and opportunities in risk reduction based on local priorities.
- Analysing power and relations between stakeholders. This requires an in-depth analysis of the root causes of vulnerabilities and social inequalities caused by power differentials and poor governance, as well as an understanding of people’s agency to demand risk reduction. It is useful to identify all relevant actors before acting from local to (inter)national level.
- Engaging with like-minded stakeholders (individuals and organisations). Communities can initiate an enabling environment through horizontal linkages (particularly through community-based organisations) and through vertical linkages (linking with power-holders at district, provincial and national levels). Actors who share common interests with communities’ agendas can cooperate, e.g. through awareness-raising, community networks for lobbying and advocacy, vertical and horizontal linkages on early warning, and collaborations with the private sector and the media.
- Negotiating differences between actors about agendas, values and scale, in the face of opposition within and between communities, or between communities, government and private actors. This entails changing how actors engage with each other (through negotiation, dialogue and at times confrontations), rather than what is programmed. Communities, with support from civil society, can use their own power and connect with powerful local and national actors in order to have a political voice, to access political resources, and to obtain risk reduction. It is also useful to link traditional applied knowledge to scientific knowledge.
- Working across scales. First, this means interconnecting considerations on social groups and ecosystems. Actors need to pay attention to the spatial dimensions of risk (e.g. whole river basins), coping (e.g. pastoral migrations) and politics (e.g. in spatial planning, land use and environmental resource management). Second, this includes generating climate projections. Third, the appropriate administrative scale is the most decentralised one possible, as relevant in the context.
- Designing, and insisting on, iterative and flexible interventions. Practitioners need to embrace uncertainty and unpredictability. This means letting communities’ interests and agenda-setting lead, with resilience a long-term political process with local, district, provincial and (inter)national dimensions. In addition, design needs to happen step by step. This is workable through repeated reflective practice and adaptive planning (learning by doing and doing by learning).
- Being aware of trade-offs. Adaptation or risk management ‘are rarely win-win, beneficial to all social groups and ecosystems’, and some responses may increase specific groups’ vulnerabilities (Reaching Resilience, n. d., p. 24). Reaching Resilience stresses that interventions should be aware of and sensitive to their trade-offs for people and the environment, and avoid creating new risks or conflicts.
Supporting action by national governments
Oxfam (2013, pp. 5-6) emphasises that only governments have the capacity and political leadership to embed resilience in national development plans. National resilience frameworks require: systems for disaster preparedness and response; options for a living wage; equal access to services and political participation; and sharing risk through social insurance. To fund this, governments, supported by donors, can use progressive tax systems and can reduce corruption (Oxfam, 2013, pp. 5-6). In terms of policy, Shepherd et al. (2013) add that DRM should be a key component of poverty reduction, focusing on protecting livelihoods as well as saving lives. They state that there is a need to identify, and act, where the poor and disaster risks are most concentrated. Turnbull et al. (2013, p. 38) recommend supporting national resilience policies by:
- Establishing and strengthening governance of risk management. This includes national laws, dedicated ministries, the mainstreaming of risk management policies, and multi-stakeholders, multi-level decision-making (so efforts can be scaled up from local to district and national levels).
- Developing longer-term plans that are inclusive of multiple institutions (‘whole of government’ approach) and that identify key partnerships from different social sectors as well as the human and financial resources required.
- Strengthening institutions and entitlement systems ‘to ensure equitable access to key assets’. Examples include national policies on potable water, health services, education, climate information and basic rights; local norms regulating access to natural resources; laws for indigenous groups’ land rights; and customs encouraging wealthier households to support poorer ones during hardships.
- Supporting people’s ability to influence policy and planning at different levels, in government and governance. This can be through popular campaigning to ensure that at-risk populations can raise concerns that are heard and acted upon by decision-makers.
- Providing national support to innovation and learning, e.g. with inputs or insurance for changing crop types, training in new employment skills or promotion of improved sanitation designs.
To date, evaluations of aid interventions supporting an enabling environment for disaster resilience are limited. One exception is a study by Tadele et al. (2009), which examined a project in Ethiopia that assisted government capacity building for disaster prevention and response. In this case, a combination of human resources development, action research, physical capacity building, and enhancement of systems and structures was used. Others advocate the use of multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) for disaster resilience, specifically DRR, which have shown positive results in Indonesia (Djalante, 2012). Here, MSPs were found to facilitate disaster resilience because they engaged actors at different levels, and with different agendas, creating space for participation, collaboration, learning and sharing (Djalante, 2012). However, their inclusiveness was found to be limited, with limited involvement of ‘non-traditional’ stakeholders such as parliamentarians, scientific and academic communities, and the private sector. In addition, public data on MSPs’ budgets was limited, obscuring the allocation of resources and hindering their accountability.
Supporting action by local government
Turnbull et al. (2013, pp. 37-38, 121-124) provide detailed guidance on local risk governance. To strengthen risk prevention, they recommend improving local stakeholders’ access to public information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies to face high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management committees, emergency services, contingency plans and funds, and social insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing new building techniques for homes, schools and hospitals, and investing in new water and sanitation technology.
Why ‘small is beautiful’ in municipal disaster risk reduction: evidence from the Yucatán peninsula, Mexico
This qualitative study compared progress made by five municipalities in the Yucatán peninsula in disaster risk reduction (DRR) from 1998 to 2008. The selected municipalities are coastal, have high and frequent exposure to hurricanes, and are characterised by socioeconomic marginalisation. The study found that the financial, material, human and administrative capacities of civil protection departments were most limited in small cities, but these municipalities have been more innovative and effective in disaster risk reduction. A number of factors were found to influence their effectiveness, including:
- Community participation in planning and implementation: Small municipalities overcame some constraints by relying on other organisations. Contact with communities was beneficial for communicating risk, preparedness and evacuation.
- Social capital: In one city, the population benefited from already having ‘bonding social capital’ (based on friendship and kinship), and ‘networking social capital’ (based on trust and reciprocity between the community and the municipality).
- Relations between municipalities and states: Two factors played a role: partisan change (the state most used to opposition parties being elected in cities cooperated better) and the number of municipalities (a greater number led to a less interventionist and controlling state).
- Political change: The four cities with the greatest improvements have been ruled, at some point, by parties other than the dominant one. ‘Policy entrepreneurs’ can be catalysts. One new mayor mobilised the population, spurring increased participation and raised expectations, leading to efficiency.
- Focus on measures with multiplier effects: Education and communication for awareness and preparedness were effective. However, persistent limitations, such as over-reliance on evacuation, required for costlier measures such as land-use planning and resettlement, which require external support.
Source: Wilkinson, 2012b
- DFID (2011a). Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. DFID.
See document online - Djalante, R. (2012). Adaptive governance and resilience: the role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci, 12, 2923-2942.
See document online - IFRC (2012b). Understanding community resilience and program factors that strengthen them. A Comprehensive Study of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies Tsunami Operation. IFRC.
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 - OECD (2013b). What Does “Resilience” Mean for Donors? An OECD Factsheet. OECD.
See document online - Oxfam (2013). No accident. Resilience and the inequality of risk. Oxfam International.
See document online - Reaching Resilience (n.d.). Handbook resilience 2.0 for aid practitioners and policymakers in Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Poverty Reduction. Reaching Resilience. See document online
- Shepherd, A., et al. (2013). The Geography of Poverty, Disasters and Climate Extremes in 2030. ODI. See document online
- Tadele, F., et al. (2009). Building disaster resilience through capacity building in Ethiopia. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(3), 317-326.
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 - Wilkinson, E. (2012b). Why ‘small is beautiful’ in municipal disaster risk reduction: Evidence from the Yucatán peninsula, Mexico. Environmental Hazards, 11(2).
See document online
- Namely a semi-arid area affected by drought in Southern Ethiopia, tropical lowland prone to floods in Bolivia, and peat lands prone to peat fires in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
