working concept - university of british columbia risk management.pdfdag-hammerskjöld-weg 1-5...

Division 4300 Health, Education, Nutrition, Emergency Aid

Disaster Risk Management

Working Concept

Published by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Dag-Hammerskjöld-Weg 1-5 P.O.Box 5180 D-65726 Eschborn Telephone: + 49 (0) 6196-79-0 Telefax: + 49 (0) 6196-79-6170 Internet: http://www.gtz.de Activity Area Emergency and Refugee Aid (Section 4334) Person responsible: Bernd Hoffmann, GTZ Written by: Wolfgang Garatwa, GTZ • Dr. Christina Bollin Special advisers: Dr. Roland F. Steurer, GTZ • Nadira Korkor, GTZ • Network for Development-oriented Emergency Aid (NDEA), GTZ Layout and editorial revision: Nadira Korkor, GTZ Printed by: O.K.KOPIE GmbH, 65719 Hofheim-Wallau Eschborn, April 2002

gtz Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

PREFACE

Disaster risk management is a comparatively new area of social concern and prac-tice. However, it is a very relevant concern for development cooperation given that natural disasters have devastated an increasing number of regions, destroyed in-vestments and set back progress in development. Often, countries victim to the large-scale impacts of earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, floods or droughts are barely able to respond, and recovering can take years or decades. Following the United Nations initiative for an International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990-99), this theme has climbed much higher on the international agenda. An in-creasing number of development cooperation actors are trying to cater for more pre-vention in their activities. And, the more vulnerable countries of the South are also beginning to make efforts to protect their populations and national economies from future disasters.

The link between disasters and development is now apparent to everyone, and dis-aster risk management is gaining increasing currency as an effective form of invest-ment. But, most developing countries are limited in their ability to effectively integrate a strategic approach to the theme into national policy. It is the poor populations in the disaster areas that are hardest hit by losses and setbacks.

Development cooperation supports political, economic, ecological and social develop-ment worldwide. It helps improve living conditions and promotes sustainable de-velopment. Natural disasters do not just pose a challenge to southern hemisphere countries. They are also a challenge for development cooperation and therefore for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ): Strategies must be developed and implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations in partner countries, as well as measures to decrease disaster risk.

GTZ aims to bridge the gap between the perceived challenges and the necessary practical steps for addressing them. The present working concept provides a review of current approaches and GTZ services in disaster risk management. Our intended audience includes relevant professionals, national and international institutions and organizations, and GTZ staff.

Special thanks are due to the authors, Wolfgang Garatwa and Dr. Christina Bollin, who compiled the working concept, and other colleagues within and outside of GTZ who provided comments and suggestions.

Bernd Hoffmann Dr. Roland F. Steurer

Head of Division Senior Planning Officer

April 2002

Contents

5

CONTENTS

List of abbreviations.....................................................................................................6

Summary........................................................................................................................8

GTZ – a service enterprise for international cooperation.........................................9

1. Disasters – a challenge for developing countries and development cooperation ..................................................................................................10

1.1 Causes and effects........................................................................................12 1.2 Action needed................................................................................................14 1.3 Obstacles to implementation .........................................................................14

2. Approach and definitions ...........................................................................16 2.1 The growing risk ............................................................................................16 2.1.1 Hazard ...........................................................................................................17 2.1.2 Vulnerability ...................................................................................................18 2.1.3 Disaster risk management.............................................................................19

3. From disaster relief to disaster risk management ...................................20 3.1 The scope of disaster relief and the actors involved .....................................20 3.2 The international path towards integrated disaster risk management ..........21

4. GTZ activities in disaster risk management .............................................24 4.1 The political background in the Federal Republic of Germany .....................24 4.2 Activity areas in disaster risk management...................................................25 4.2.1 Risk assessment ...........................................................................................26 4.2.2 Disaster prevention and mitigation................................................................27 4.2.3 Disaster preparedness ..................................................................................28 4.2.3.1 Early-warning systems ................................................................................. 28 4.2.4 Disaster risk management as part of rehabilitation and reconstruction ........29 4.2.5 Mainstreaming disaster risk management in development cooperation

sectors ...........................................................................................................31 4.2.6 Multisectoral approaches ..............................................................................31 4.2.6.1 Raising awareness ....................................................................................... 32 4.2.6.2 Strengthening local disaster risk management capabilities ......................... 33 4.3 Future challenges..........................................................................................34

5. GTZ services ................................................................................................35

Sources and selected references..............................................................................37

Selected internet addresses ......................................................................................41

Annex 1 – Selected GTZ reference projects in disaster risk management...........45

Annex 2 – Key terms in disaster risk management.................................................47

List of abbreviations

6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA German Federal Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt) ADB Asian Development Bank ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre BID/IDB Inter-American Development Bank (Banco

Interamericano de Desarrollo) BMELF German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and

Forests (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten)

BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung)

CEPAL/ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe)

CEPREDENAC Coordination Centre for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America (Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América Central)

CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

DAC Development Assistance Committee DEA Development-oriented Emergency Aid DIPECHO European Community Humanitarian Office

Disaster Preparedness Programme DKKV German Committee for Disaster Reduction – reg.

soc. (Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V.)

DSE German Foundation for International Development (Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung)

ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office ECLAC/CEPAL Economic Commission for Latin America and the

Caribbean (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe)

EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FEMID Strengthening of Local Structures for Disaster

Mitigation (Fortalecimiento de Estructuras Locales en la Mitigación de Desastres)

GDP Gross domestic product GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

List of abbreviations

7

IATF Inter-Agency Task Force for Disaster Reduction (of ISDR)

IDB/BID Inter-American Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo)

IDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

IDRM International Institute for Disaster Risk Management

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction LA RED The Network for the Social Study of Disaster

Prevention in Latin America (La Red de Estudios Sociales en Prevención des Desastres)

OAS Organization of American States OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs RELSAT Reforzamiento de Estructuras Locales y Sistemas

de Alerta Temprana THW Technical Support Service (Technisches Hilfswerk) TC Technical Cooperation UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme WHO World Health Organization WMO World Meteorological Organization ZENEB Centre for Natural Risks and Development

(Zentrum für Naturrisiken und Entwicklung Bonn/Bayreuth)

Summary

8

Summary

There has been an increase in the inci-dence of natural disasters worldwide with increasing loss of life and damage to prop-erty. The risk of disasters can also be ex-pected to rise in the future, particularly for developing countries populations. There are two reasons for this trend:

• An increase in extreme natural events, primarily due to climatic change

• Increased vulnerability of populations to these natural events

Natural disasters are closely bound up with the development status of a region: They disrupt or impair development and, at the same time, a low level of development in-creases the chances of them occurring. Supported in part by bilateral and multilat-eral donors, many countries are stepping up their efforts to prevent disaster. The idea is that effective precautions will avert future disasters or at least mitigate them. This in turn will help stabilize development in part-ner countries. We can lower disaster risk by containing the hazards and reducing vul-nerability. The general economic and social conditions in a country are a major determi-nant for both factors. All measures must therefore be assimilated into the 'normal' institutional, regional and sectoral develop-ment strategies employed in threatened re-gions.

Mainstreaming this issue in development cooperation sectors is a major challenge. Cooperation with projects for decentraliza-tion and/or community development, rural development, environmental protection and resource conservation, housing, health and education are of particular importance.

Based on the German Federal Govern-ment's policy papers on BMZ emergency-oriented development aid (1996) and global

poverty alleviation (2001)1, GTZ has put to-gether a service package for disaster risk management. It has identified five activity areas for cooperation with partner coun-tries:

• Risk assessment • Disaster prevention and mitigation • Disaster preparedness • Disaster risk management as part of re-

habilitation and reconstruction • Mainstreaming disaster risk manage-

ment in development cooperation sec-tors

In addition to this, two multisectoral strate-gies are described for supporting measures in disaster risk management. Firstly, we outline ways of raising awareness amongst endangered populations and policymakers as a precondition for sustainable efforts in disaster risk management. Secondly, we discuss the role of local resources for dis-aster risk management and the practical experience gained. The working concept concludes with a summary of GTZ services for disaster risk management.

1 BMZ, Poverty Reduction – a Global Responsibility:

Program of Action 2015. The German Govern-ment's Contribution Towards Halving Extreme Pov-erty Worldwide, Bonn 2001.

GTZ – a service enterprise for international cooperation

9

GTZ – a service enterprise for international cooperation

The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH is a gov-ernment-owned corporation for international cooperation with worldwide operations. Its development-policy mandate is to help im-prove the standard of living and prospects of people in partner countries all over the world, whilst stabilising the natural resource base on which life depends. GTZ is respon-sible for designing, planning and imple-menting programmes and projects in part-ner countries oriented by the German Gov-ernment’s development-policy guidelines and objectives. The GTZ’s main commis-sioning body is the German Government through the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and other ministries such as the Federal For-eign Office. Other clients of GTZ include the European Commission, UN organizations, the World Bank and regional development banks. Increasingly, foreign governments or institutions also directly commission GTZ services.

Technical Cooperation is playing a growing role in strengthening the capabilities of both people and organizations in partner coun-tries. In achieving this, the institution is itself changing in the process. In the past, an-swers were found to clearly delineated problems. But, today’s intricate and com-plex issues call for more sophisticated ap-proach Sustaining improvements in peo-ple’s living conditions in our partner coun-tries in the long term crucially depends on the political, economic and social frame-works in place.

Where crises, conflicts or disasters create acute needs that threaten survival, GTZ provides development-oriented emergency aid (DEA). It has become increasingly ap-parent in recent years that loss and dam-

age can be averted by preventive meas-ures, so approaches, instruments and meas-ures have been developed to manage con-flicts and prevent crises and disasters.

Both the international community and part-ner governments are attaching increasing importance to disaster risk management. The measures developed for disaster risk management are designed to supplement existing sectors of development coopera-tion. Comprehensive approaches are adopted that aim to reduce the disaster risk associ-ated with potentially highly destructive natural events. This is designed to make development more sustainable.

The present document is a working concept for disaster risk management. It outlines some project case studies and presents GTZ services in this field.

The first chapter contains a description of the situation in developing countries and the rationale for addressing this theme. The second chapter deals with the underlying policy approach and the specific cause-ef-fect matrix.

The ongoing paradigm shift towards focus-ing emergency aid intervention on disaster risk management is outlined in the third chapter.

In Chapter 4 we identify the link between German development cooperation and dis-aster risk management and describe the specific operational areas of a comprehen-sive approach. The fifth chapter summa-rizes the specific services GTZ provides in this operational area, outlining GTZ's ser-vice delivery profile. Reference projects are listed in annex 1.

1. Disasters – a challenge for developing countries and development cooperation

10


A number of well documented studies show that there has been a significant increase in natural disasters2 over the last decade.

Fig. 1: Number of natural disasters worldwide from 1966 to 2000. Source: CRED, University of Louvain, Belgium 2001.

There are also many small-scale, local disasters that are not recorded in official statistics.3 Even more pronounced than the increase in the numbers of disaster events is the magnitude of the physical damage caused and particularly the loss of human life.

Natural disasters are caused by extreme occurrences in nature for which society is unprepared. They destroy the basic condi-tions of life for the victims, who lack the re-sources to recover in the short or medium term. Disasters often have a very significant detrimental impact on past development efforts.

2 The present paper concentrates on so-called natu-

ral disasters that have to do with natural events such as earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes. We leave aside technological disasters that are often caused by people taking inadequate safety precau-tions, such as reactor accidents, and the disastrous impacts of political-military conflicts (cf. Eikenberg, C., Journalisten-Handbuch zum Katastrophenma-nagement 2000, Typologie von Katastrophen, DKKV, Bonn 2000, p. 6-7).

3 Cf. BMZ, Entwicklungspolitik zur Vorbeugung und Bewältigung von Katastrophen und Konflikten, BMZ spezial 082, Bonn 1997, p. 9.

List of some disasters from 1998 to 2001: • The three-months of flooding in Bangladesh

and India in the summer of 1998 left more than 4,700 dead and 66 million homeless, destroyed 1.2 million buildings and indirectly caused several hundred deaths due to epidemics.

• At the end of October 1998 Hurricane Mitch in Central America claimed a death toll of more than 9,000 with almost 13,000 injured and it left 2 million homeless. Altogether 11% of the total population was affected. The total damage came to over US$ 7 billion.

• In August 1999, the earthquake in north-western Turkey claimed over 17,000 lives with 44,000 injured. In November 1999, the same region was hit by another earthquake. The two earthquakes are estimated to have destroyed or badly damaged a total of 400,000 buildings.

• Heavy rains in Venezuela in December 1999 caused floods and landslides that destroyed more than 23,000 houses. This disaster caused the death of about 30,000 people.

• Since the end of 1999, Kenya has been suffering from the worst drought in 40 years. This drought, which reached its worst point in July 2000, affected over 4 million people. For several months more than 3 million had to rely on external food aid.

• At the beginning of 2000 over 650,000 peo-ple were made homeless by 2 cyclones and flooding in Southern Africa. Mozambique was particularly hard hit by this disaster. Over 2 million people in this country suf-fered in the aftermath.

• Two severe earthquakes that shook El Salvador in January and February 2001 took a toll of more than a thousand lives. In the hardest hit Department, La Paz, 90% of the houses in urban and rural areas were damaged or destroyed. Material loss amounted to US$ 1.3 billion.

Total number of reported natural disasters worldwide from 1966-2000

0

400

800

1.200

1.600

1966-70 1971-75 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00


11

A vast majority of natural disasters occur in emerging economies (medium human de-veloped) and developing countries (low human developed).4

Fig. 2: Natural disasters in high, medium and low human developed countries from 1991-2000. Source: IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001, Geneva 2001.

The loss of life in the emerging and devel-oping countries is also much higher than in the industrialized countries.

Fig. 3: Loss of life in high, medium and low human de-veloped countries from 1991-2000. Source: IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001, Geneva 2001.

In absolute figures, however, the material damage in industrialized countries (high human developed) is greater.

4 We use the definitions of UNDP. They categorize

countries according to their level of human devel-opment. See also, UNDP, Human Development Report 2001, New York, Oxford 2001.

Fig. 4: Material damage in high, medium and low hu-man developed countries from 1991-2000. Source: IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001, Geneva 2001.

If, however, we compare the size of the damage caused with gross domestic prod-uct (GDP), the ratio shifts substantially. Take the following comparison as an ex-ample: The colossal earthquake that de-stroyed the Japanese town Kobe on 17 January 1995 caused damages totalling US$ 100 billion (see Fig. 5). This amounted to approximately 2% of Japanese GDP in the same year.

In contrast, a study5 put the US$ 1,255 mil-lion in total damages after the earthquake in El Salvador at the beginning of 2001 at about 10% of national GDP (as much as 20%-35% in most of the departments af-fected). World Bank figures for small island states indicate an even heavier burden: In the state of Niue in the South Pacific cy-clone Ofa in 1990 caused damage to gov-ernment and administrative buildings worth US$ 4 million, which made up 40% of GDP.6

A comparison between Venezuela and France gives us a similar picture: Land-slides in Venezuela and severe storms in France in December 1999 caused similar economic losses in both countries – about US$ 10 billion. The death toll in France was

5 Cf. CEPAL/BID, El terremoto del 13 de enero de

2001 en El Salvador. Impacto socioeconómico y ambiental. Naciones Unidas, LC/MEX/L.457, 2001.

6 Cf. World Bank, Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies, Disaster Risk Management Series No. 2, Washington 2000, p. 13-14.

High human developed countries Medium and low developed countries

Natural disasters in high, medium and low human developed countries from 1991-2000

719

1.838

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

Number of natural disasters

Loss of life in high, medium and low human developed countries from 1991-2000

16.200

649.398

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

Number of deaths


Material damage in high, medium and low human developed countries from 1991-2000

457.091 329.615

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

Total material loss in US$ millions



12

123. In Venezuela, however, it amounted to 30,000. Venezuela will take years to re-cover from the aftermath, whereas France was quick to get over the worst hanks to effective public and private system of dis-aster management and damage sharing.7

Fig. 5: Loss of life and material damage worldwide after natural disasters between 1990 and 1999. Source: IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001, Geneva 2001. * The year 1991 claimed a particularly high number of deaths. The floods in Bangladesh alone left about 139,000 people dead. ** 1995 was the year with the heaviest material damage. The big earthquake in Kobe, Japan, alone caused losses worth about US$ 100 billion.

It is no coincidence that 95% of the deaths caused by natural disasters in 1998 were in developing countries.8 The vulnerability of these countries is much higher than in the industrialized nations. We shall look at the reasons for this in the following section.

1.1 Causes and effects

Due to their geographical location devel-oping countries are particularly exposed to extreme natural phenomena. Storms, heavy rains and landslides are more frequent and severe in the subtropical and tropical re-gions of the South. Hydrometeorological, seismic, volcanic and other natural events pose a permanent ongoing threat to the

7 Cf. World Bank, Managing Risk, A Special Report

on Disaster Risk Management, ProVention Con-sortium, undated, p.2.

8 Cf. CEPAL/BID, Un Tema del Desarrollo: La Re-ducción de la Vulnerabilidad Frente a los Desas-tres, LC/MEX/L.428, no loc. 2000.

people living in these regions. The com-paratively low level of development, as evi-dent in the fragile infrastructure, the poor building fabric of housing, the vulnerability of productive activities, the low level of po-litical and social organization and the ab-sence of warning systems, makes them more vulnerable to natural disasters.

The doubling of the world population since 1950 to more than 6 billion and its impact on settlement patterns and natural re-sources also makes itself particularly felt in the developing countries. Moreover, the rapid rise in world population has not just caused a drastic increase in the density of settlements; it has also altered their distri-bution pattern and land use. There is, for example, a growing migratory trend towards valleys and slopes under threat of flooding, land-slides and earthquakes, particularly on the outskirts of large and medium-sized conurbations. These are growing too fast for the requisite planning and building regulations to be drafted and supervised. Modernization without the necessary safety precautions (e.g. when building bridges) in-creases the vulnerability to and risk of ad-verse impacts resulting from a natural event.

Finally, another cause of the increase in natural disasters is the widespread human intervention in the climatic system9 and in the equilibrium of fragile ecosystems (forest clearance, soil erosion, single cropping practices).

Natural disasters have direct and indirect effects on developing countries. First, dur-

9 The scientific findings of the IPCC report show

clearly that the rise in global temperatures correlate with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The inference in this connection is that human activities exert an influence on the global climate (cf. IPCC, Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001, http://www.ipcc.ch/). To date, how-ever, there is no scientific proof that this is the cause of climate change.

Loss of life and material damage worldwide after natural disasters between 1990 and 1999

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19990

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

Total amount of estimated damage in mio. US $ Total amount of people killed

Damage in Mio.US $

People killed

* **


13

ing and after a disaster people lose their homes, their belongings, the very basis of their livelihood. The poorer population is much harder hit than the middle and upper classes because their vulnerability is far greater. This is due to social, economic and political factors. The poorest people often have nothing left with which to resume their daily battle for survival. It is very difficult for them to recover from the losses they have suffered and many migrate elsewhere in the hope of finding better conditions of life.

Then, the direct losses in productive sec-tors are followed by indirect impacts. In the largely agrarian economies the production losses lead to the dismissal or unemploy-ment of day labourers. The loss of jobs re-duces income and curbs spending power in families that already live under very pre-carious conditions. This in turn affects trade and transportation as well as other ser-vices. Finally, losses can occur in the finan-cial sector and even result in economic collapse if deposits and large amounts of savings are withdrawn. Disasters thus im-poverish the population further, and in-crease their vulnerability. A vicious circle of vulnerability to more frequent extreme natu-ral events is established.

The international community often provides assistance for reconstruction but this is a huge burden on the economy. Since eco-nomic rationale demands that destroyed infrastructure are restored first, little funding is left for years to pursue coherent devel-opment strategies. Disasters often have a destabilizing political impact as well given the worsening situation of large sectors of the population in the medium and long term.

In the industrialized nations, the damage caused by extreme natural events is also on the increase. This increase may be ex-plained in good part by the higher density of

large-scale assets (e.g. infrastructure, in-dustrial plant, technology). Unlike the de-veloping countries, material losses far out-weigh human loss. Also, population and governments have the capacity to make good these losses, at least in the medium term. Most are insured and part of the costs of rebuilding and rehabilitation are borne by the insurance firms. Nor does local and na-tional economic stability depend on a few marketable products. This signifies far lower levels of economic vulnerability.

The figure below illustrates the different medium-term economic effects of disasters, taking capital formation as a benchmark.

Fig. 6: Impact of disasters on capital formation in smaller national economies. Source: ECLAC/IDB, La reducción de la vulnerabilidad frente a los desastres: Una cuestion de desarrollo, presentation at IDB anual meeting in March 2000, New Orleans 2000.

The disaster itself causes disruption to eco-nomic development, which is overcompen-sated at first by the rapid provision of addi-tional capital. After the additional funds for emergency aid and reconstruction have been consumed, the local economy has to cope with the remaining adverse effects on its own. While the industrialized countries

Form

atio

n of

Cap

ital

Time

Industrialized countries

Developing countries

Disaster *

*

Impact of disasters on capital formation in smaller national economies


14

manage this relatively quickly, in the devel-oping countries the disaster depletes capi-tal formation for a long time.

1.2 Action needed

As we showed in the previous section, vul-nerability to extreme natural events com-prises various factors that bear a close re-lation to the development of a country or region. These provide a number of starting points for bilateral and international devel-opment cooperation.

In many development cooperation projects and programmes efforts are underway to reduce development constraints and short-comings. This implicitly translates into low-ered vulnerability in developing countries. Nevertheless, as BMZ points out, "the con-nections between poverty and vulnerability are quite complex" and "not every kind of development effort in areas threatened by disaster qualifies as disaster prevention".10

On the other hand, as the term itself im-plies, disaster risk management is fre-quently aimed at finding practical remedies for current problems. There is need here for a wider vision to include the systematic re-duction of hazards and vulnerability. This means extending the mandate beyond emergency assistance. "Assistance in dis-asters and conflicts and the related preven-tive measures (development-oriented emer-gency aid) cannot properly be treated as an isolated field of activity; it must be as-similated into development cooperation as an integral component."11

GTZ's concern is to mainstream this theme in other sectoral projects and programmes (in decentralization and rural development,

10 Cf. BMZ, Entwicklungspolitik zur Vorbeugung und

Bewältigung von Katastrophen und Konflikten, BMZ spezial 082, Bonn 1997, p. 4.

11 Cf. ibidem, p. 17.

health and education, for example). These sectors are either heavily affected by dis-asters and their consequences and/or strive to reduce the vulnerability of the population with the aim of promoting sustainable de-velopment. "Development can only be sustained if it enables a society to prevent or cope with disasters."12

Most developing countries are still a long way from assimilating disaster risk man-agement in national development strategy, despite the verifiable economic costs of disasters and the demand for effective dis-aster risk management voiced at the na-tional and international level for years. The United States Geological Survey estimates that investing US$ 40 billion worldwide in preventive measures in the 90s would have reduced economic loss through disasters by US$ 280 billion.13

With the help of a cost-benefit analysis for eight towns in Argentina the World Bank also worked out that in-vestments of US$ 153 million in flood pre-vention would have been more than offset by an estimated saving of US$ 187 mil-lion.14

1.3 Obstacles to implementation

There are many different reasons why gov-ernments are reticent as regards disaster risk management. However, these are com-pounded by the following difficulties found in mainstreaming disaster risk management in development strategy:

• Preventive measures are seen by gov-ernment and the private sector as cost

12 Plate, E., Merz, B. and Eikenberg, C., Naturkatas-

trophen – Strategien zur Vorsorge und Bewäl-tigung, Bericht des Deutschen IDNDR-Komitees zum Ende der "International Decade for Natural Di-saster Reduction", Deutsche IDNDR-Reihe 16, Bonn 1999, p. 16.

13 Cf. IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001, Focus on Recovery, Geneva 2001, p. 12.

14 Weltbank, Weltentwicklungsbericht 2000/2001 – Bekämpfung der Armut, Bonn 2001, p. 212.


15

factors and not as profitable invest-ments. On the other hand, external aid supplies and reconstruction measures expected in the event of a disaster are mostly cost-free transfers.

• Pure emergency measures taken after disasters are spectacular. And it is eas-ier to make political capital out of them than out of disaster risk management.

• Donors are still more prone to react with reconstruction models rather than with preventive action.

• Expanding infrastructure is often a way of attracting votes during elections. When implementing these measures, however, construction quality standards that are important for disaster risk re-duction are often neglected (e.g. streets without drainage systems).

• Uncertainty as to whether an extreme natural event is actually going to occur often deters decision makers from in-vesting scant existing funds in risk-re-duction measures. In addition, many disaster risk management technologies are still too costly and sometimes too complicated to be easily applied by poorly equipped and funded organiza-tions and populations.

• Some well-established local political and economic institutions hamper dis-aster risk management (land law and land distribution, for instance). Reforms meet with strong opposition from all kinds of pressure groups.

2. Approach and definitions

16


Extreme natural events can become disas-ters if people are affected directly or indi-rectly. At present, the term disaster is not used to mean only one thing; the definition of the term can differ greatly depending on the standpoint (e.g. victim, insurer or scien-tist) and the cultural setting.

Nevertheless, in all definitions, there are two common elements: one, the extent of damage and loss, which is considered to be very high, and two, the inability of the peo-ple, regions or countries affected to cope in the short or medium term on their own.

Under the auspices of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) an updated glossary was issued in May 2001, which marks a major step forward in stan-dardizing terms in disaster risk manage-ment.15

GTZ's disaster risk management strategy is based on the United Nations' definition of disaster.

Definition of 'disaster' "A serious disruption of the functioning of soci-ety, causing widespread human, material or en-vironmental losses which exceed the ability of affected society to cope using only its own re-sources."16

This notion of disaster draws a distinction between sudden and slow onset disasters. Amongst natural disasters extreme droughts are the only ones that are slow onset by nature. The causes and effects of a drought disaster are far more difficult to ascertain than sudden natural events such as earthquakes, tsunamis or landslides. Due to the gradual nature of the process, often

15 ISDR, Updated and Expanded Terminology on Di-

saster Reduction, Geneva 2001. 16 Cf. ibidem, p. 24.

taking place over months and even years, the causes are more complex and it is often only possible to identify the effects in-directly.

However, not every extreme natural event is a disaster. A volcanic eruption in an un-occupied area is a natural event but not a disaster. Floods can also have many bene-ficial effects – the soil is supplied with fresh nutrients and made more fertile again, re-sulting in higher yields. So, disasters al-ways have adverse impacts but specific approaches to them must cater for the dual nature of such events, i.e. disaster risk management searches to maintain the positive impacts while reducing the adverse consequences of extreme natural events.

2.1 The growing risk

In many regions of the world the threat of natural events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes extreme rainfall, droughts or for-est fires are permanently present. People living in these regions are exposed to these natural hazards, but they may be able to prevent them having grave consequences (e.g. earthquake-resistant building, a dyke or a good insurance policy). People who are unable to protect themselves sufficiently against the adverse effects of a natural event are particularly 'vulnerable' to disas-ter.

The disaster risk (of a region, a family, or a person) is therefore made up of two ele-ments: hazard and vulnerability.


17

Fig. 7: Components of disaster risk. Source: GTZ, Eschborn 2001.

The following formula is used to calculate disaster risk:

Disaster Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability17

In this equation risk is the product of the two factors, hazard and vulnerability. There-fore, it is clear that a risk exists only if there is vulnerability to the hazard posed by a natural event. For instance, a family living in a highly earthquake-resistant house would not be vulnerable to an earthquake of 6 on the Richter scale. So, they would not be at risk. If the hazard approaches zero, be-cause, for example, buildings have been constructed in areas far away from conti-nental plate subduction zones and tectonic faults, a house built with minimum precau-tions will be a safe place for the family, be-cause they would only be vulnerable to very extreme events.

Risk identification starts with identifying the hazard and then assesses the correspond-

17 Cf. amongst others Wilches-Chaux, Gustavo, Auge,

Caída y Levantada de Felipe Pinillo, Mecánico y Soldador o Yo Voy a Correr el Riesgo, LA RED, Peru 1998, p. 142.

ing vulnerability, i.e. the possible repercus-sions in the event a natural phenomenon should occur.

2.1.1 Hazard

Hazards are extreme natural events with a certain degree of probability of having ad-verse consequences. A distinction also needs to be drawn between a real natural hazard and a socio-natural hazard. Given the com-plex set of influences this distinction is difficult to make, but it is useful in helping define disaster risk management measures.

Whereas with truly natural phenomena people exert no influence as regards their occurrence, socio-natural hazards are in-duced or aggravated by a combination of extreme natural events and human inter-ventions in nature. Only a few hazards, earthquakes for example, occur as purely natural phenomena; most others, such as forest fires, floods and landslides, can come about with and without human intervention.

Some examples of extreme natural events are listed and classified in the following box.

List of natural hazards18 Volcanic eruptions ♦ Earthquakes and seaquakes ♦ Floods ♦ X Droughts ♦ X Storms ♦ Hurricanes and tornadoes ♦ Forest fires ♦ X Landslides ♦ X Avalanches ♦ X Heat and cold waves ♦ Tsunamis ♦

♦ Hazard posed by pure natural phenomena X Hazard also due to human intervention

18 This list does not claim to be complete. See also

the typology in Eikenberg, C., Journalisten-Hand-buch zum Katastrophenmanagement 2000, Bonn 2000, p. 6-7.

Disaster risk

Hazard Vulnerability

Disaster


18

Hazards can be narrowly confined to a lo-cality or threaten entire regions. So a haz-ard is a variable whose intensity and prob-ability can differ by place. This has a con-siderable influence on the levels of possible damage.

Fig. 8: Aftermath of Hurricane Mitch: roof of a clay house in mud following floods, Honduras 1998.

To be able to reduce hazards or prepare for them, we have to ascertain their potential. To a certain extent, it is possible to obtain quite a full picture of possible hazards from the history of past events. To exactly iden-tify the possible size of the hazard, how-ever, this information must be supple-mented by professional assistance and modern technology.

2.1.2 Vulnerability

Vulnerability denotes the inadequate means or ability to protect oneself against the ad-verse impacts of natural events and, on the other hand, to recover quickly from their effects.

Vulnerability comprises very diverse, often mutually reciprocal, factors that have to be taken into account to determine the vulner-ability of a family, a village or a country. The main vulnerability factors are summarized below:

Political-institutional factors

• Legislation is lacking, is not commensu-rate with the hazard or is not imple-

mented (regional development and land use planning, building regulations).

• The personnel and financial resources available for disaster risk management and preparedness are inadequate.

• Roles are not properly or clearly as-signed and there is a lack of coordina-tion in and amongst the responsible in-stitutions (including centralism: insuffi-cient power for local actors).

• The political culture is conducive to vested interests and corruption, which hampers consistent disaster risk man-agement (e.g. in the building trade) and effective disaster preparedness.

• Democratic institutions are underdevel-oped: The low level of participation of the population in democratic processes diminishes their self-help capabilities.

• Mechanisms and instruments for spread-ing financial risks are lacking or in-adequate (e.g. disaster funds, insur-ance).

• A culture of prevention is obstructed or insufficiently promoted.

Economic factors

• Governmental financial resources are insufficient for disaster risk manage-ment (e.g. for flood protection infra-structure).

• Poverty in general limits the self-help capabilities of large parts of the popula-tion, although very effective traditional mechanisms to cope with disasters still exist in many regions. Poverty increas-ingly compels people to settle in en-dangered areas (on riverbanks and steep slopes, in gulleys or ravines or on the slopes of volcanoes). Partly through environmental degradation (e.g. unoffi-cial garbage dumps or slash-and-burn


19

clearance), poor people often contribute to their own higher disaster risk.

• The economies depend on a few prod-ucts (low level of diversification) and the danger is particularly great if these sectors are vulnerable to disaster (e.g. agriculture).

• Not enough account is taken of the influence of economic activities on dis-aster risk (e.g. consumption of natural resources).

Sociocultural factors

• Due to poor education and insufficient knowledge of the cause-effect matrix, people are less able to respond appro-priately in a changing environment.

• Fatalism is widespread as a conse-quence of the belief that natural disas-ters are willed by God and are therefore inevitable.

• The tradition of slash-and-burn clear-ance or the application of out-dated production methods can result in greater vulnerability for people and their property. On the other hand it may re-sult in greater hazard due to the ad-verse impact on the natural environ-ment (e.g. erosion through deforesta-tion).

• The population is not prepared to en-gage in mutual support schemes and organize themselves in order to negoti-ate competing interests in the search for greater levels of general welfare.

These political, economic and cultural fac-tors are interconnected in a complex way. They have a reciprocal relationship and of-ten compound each other. Progress in indi-vidual aspects, therefore, may well also have a positive effect on other vulnerability factors. A general improvement in school education, for instance, can be expected to

help reduce poverty, facilitate the applica-tion of appropriate production methods and raise organizational abilities. This in turn can motivate people for prevention, thus generating a positive influence on the politi-cal factors through greater participation.

2.1.3 Disaster risk management

Technical Cooperation defines disaster risk management as a series of actions (programmes, projects and/or measures) and instruments expressly aimed at re-ducing disaster risk in endangered re-gions, and mitigating the extent of disas-ters.

Disaster risk management includes risk as-sessment, disaster prevention and mitiga-tion and disaster preparedness. It is used in the international debate to underscore the current trend of taking a proactive approach to hazards posed by extreme natural phe-nomena. The intention is a comprehensive reduction in disaster risk accounting for all the factors that contribute to risk (risk man-agement), as opposed to a focus on each individual danger.

3. From disaster relief to disaster risk management

20


The notion of a continuum of crises and disasters, as coined by the UN, conveys the idea that the phases of emergency aid, re-habilitation, reconstruction and the resump-tion of development are concurrent but nevertheless interconnected. From this standpoint, they must be viewed as an in-teractive process.19 Until a few years ago, disaster relief was a major intervention area whenever sudden events disrupted the functioning of society and overstretched available self-help capabilities. Due to the close link between disasters, development and development cooperation an increasing number of national and international actors are calling for the introduction of disaster prevention measures in development plan-ning, and the establishment of national systems for comprehensive disaster risk management. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has also ex-pressly demanded a paradigm shift from the prevalent 'culture of reaction' to a 'cul-ture of prevention'.20

3.1 The scope of disaster relief and the actors involved

The main organizations and institutions in-volved with disaster relief (humanitarian aid in the phase of emergency assistance and reconstruction) are:

• Friendly governments which proffer their help immediately,

• the various suborganizations of the UN, particularly the UN Office for the

19 See EU, Communication from the Commission to

the Council and the European Parliament – Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development – An as-sessment, COM (2001) 153 final, 2001.

20 Annan, K., Facing the Humanitarian Challenge. To-wards a Culture of Prevention, Report on Work of Organization, New York 1999.

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),

• the European Union (EU) with its spe-cialized ECHO office and

• non-governmental organizations, such as the well renowned International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

The main responsibility remains, however, with the government and civil society of the affected country. However, developing coun-tries in particular are usually incapable of coping with the magnitude of the financial and technical-organizational tasks. As a rule, state institutions in these countries lack sufficient technical equipment and they do not have the same organizational capa-bilities as institutions in industrialized coun-tries.21

Due to the existence of many national and multilateral institutions as well as the rapid growth in the number of small non-govern-mental organizations, it is difficult to keep track of all of the actors involved. For this reason it is very difficult to arrive at exact figures as regards the financial scope of disaster relief. Another problem is that the phases of emergency aid, reconstruction and the resumption of development coop-eration are often hard to demarcate such that it turns out to be very difficult to exactly allocate costs for each phase. However, it can be clearly established that the share of emergency and disaster relief in total public development cooperation spending by the

21 Aside from the public agencies, the health services,

police and fire departments in Germany the techni-cal relief organization (THW) for example is a leading actor when it comes to rapid response to disasters. The THW does not confine its relief op-erations to Germany; it also engages abroad.


21

OECD countries in the 90s was much higher than in the 80s.22

3.2 The international path towards integrated disaster risk man-agement

The United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), which ended in 1999, made a major contri-bution to raising international community awareness of the need to move from reac-tive measures towards integrated disaster risk management. The decade was inaugu-rated in 1989 by the General Assembly of the United Nations with the overall goal of mitigating the adverse consequences of disasters, particularly in developing coun-tries (Resolution 44/236). A secretariat un-der OCHA was established to coordinate IDNDR activities. The IDNDR initiative also prompted the establishment of national committees for disaster risk management. In Germany the IDNDR committee was ap-pointed in 1989 and renamed German Committee for Disaster Reduction – DKKV (reg. soc.) once the decade expired in 1999. The committee focuses on combining activities in science and practice, innovation development and know-how transfer, social dialogue and raising public awareness, as well as strengthening local disaster prepar-edness capabilities.23 GTZ is currently re-presented on the executive board and in the operative advisory board of the DKKV.

In the course of the decade, the early more technical approach of the IDNDR was sup-plemented with the incorporation of socio-economic factors in the cause-effect matrix of disasters, hazards and vulnerabilities. A major milestone in this process was the 22 See OECD, The DAC Journal, Development Co-

operation Report 2000 – Efforts and Policies of the Members of the Development Assistance Com-mittee Volume 2 Issue 1, Paris 2001.

23 Plate, E. und Merz, B. (Pub.), Naturkatastrophen. Ursachen, Auswirkungen, Vorsorge, Stuttgart 2001.

United Nations Conference on Natural Dis-aster Reduction celebrated in Yokohama in 1994.24 In the Yokohama Declaration, disaster prevention, mitigation, prepared-ness and relief were specified as the basis for a sustainable development policy.

In December 1999 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (No. 54/219) on actions to be taken follow-ing the end of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Since then, the issue has been followed up in an Interna-tional Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), whose organization (IATF secre-tariat and task force) is to concentrate on raising political awareness, assisting re-gional networks and stepping up scientific research.

Between 1989 and 1999 other major UN international conferences took place that highlighted the interdependence between disaster risk management and other global challenges facing the international commu-nity. Of particular note here are the summits in Rio de Janeiro (1992) and Kyoto (1997) on environment and development. In Rio de Janeiro, Agenda 21 was adopted. With re-gard to disaster risk management, Agenda 21 points in particular to the threat of sea level changes for densely populated coastal regions, the need to combat drought and desertification and the paramount role of local authorities in prevention/prepared-ness. In September 2002, the World Sum-mit on Sustainable Development (Rio + 10) will take place in Johannesburg. Its aim is to review how sustainable changes have been achieved in the world since the 1992 world summit in Rio. The prime concern in Kyoto was to reduce the greenhouse effect

24 United Nations, World Conference on Natural Di-

saster Reduction, Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World – Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation, Yokohama 1994.


22

worldwide through the implementation of definite measures. Major progress in im-plementing the Kyoto Protocol was made at the climate conferences in Bonn (July 2001) and Marakkesh (November 2001), although the original targets had to be rolled back.

The UN international conference HABITAT II in Istanbul in 1996 also dealt explicitly with the issue of disaster risk management. As does Agenda 21, the final document stresses the role of local action: "The most efficient and effective disaster prepared-ness systems and capabilities for post-dis-aster response are usually provided through volunteer contributions and local authority actions at the neighbourhood level."

In 1996, the World Food Summit took place in Rome under the auspices of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).25 Amongst other things, the 186 na-tions and 32 international organizations pledge to combat drought and desertifica-tion and improve preparedness for natural disasters, with a view to preventing a short-age of basic foodstuffs due to extreme natural events. A follow-on conference is planned for 2002 to review the results.

At the operative level of the United Nations, disaster risk management is the responsi-bility of the United Nations Development Programme. The focus of UNDP activities is on strengthening national disaster risk management capabilities in developing countries. UNDP's approach comprises short, medium, and long-term measures. Scheduled for publication in spring 2002, the first World Vulnerability Report will analyse disaster risk and outline measures in disaster risk management worldwide. 25 The final declaration and plan of action are printed

in BMELF, Nahrung für alle. Welternährungsgipfel 1996. Dokumentation, Bonn 1997.

Despite its priority of providing rapid emer-gency aid, the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent So-cieties (IFRC) has for many years attached importance to disaster risk management. To promote this it supports relevant activi-ties by its members worldwide and as of 1993 publishes an annual World Disaster Report containing developments, facts and analysis on natural disasters and crises and conflicts.26

There is also a discernible trend amongst the international development banks to-wards assimilating disaster risk manage-ment in projects. Via its Disaster Manage-ment Facility, the World Bank launched the ProVention Consortium in 2000. This initia-tive centres on mitigating the impacts of disasters by means of comprehensive dis-aster risk management. The World Bank underpins its activities in this field with mar-ket incentives for investment in disaster risk management.27 When planning its finance investment projects the Inter-American De-velopment Bank now also includes risk as-sessment and investigation into appropriate and feasible disaster risk management measures.28

As of 1994, the European Union finances projects for disaster risk management via its European Community Humanitarian Of-fice (ECHO). Since 1996 the focus has been on programmes (DIPECHO) for

26 Reconstruction was a priority topic in the latest

report: IFRC, World Disaster Report 2001. Focus on recovery, Geneva 2001.

27 Market Incentives for Mitigation Investment (MIMI): http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/urban/dis_man/mimi/default.htm.

28 Cf. for example IDB, Action Plan – Facing the Challenge of Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean. Special Report, Washington 2000, pp. 24-26.


23

Central America, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia.29

In Central America and Southeast Asia, where disasters are particularly severe and frequent, there are now a good number of regional institutions that coordinate com-prehensive disaster risk management across national borders. Particularly worthy of mention are the Coordination Centre for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America (CEPREDENAC) based in Pa-nama, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) based in Thailand and the International Institute for Disaster Risk Management (IDRM)30, which maintains its office on the Philippines.

29 See DIPECHO, Action Plan – Central America,

South-East Asia, Caribbean. Financing Proposal 1998.

30 Formerly known as the Asia Pacific Disaster Management Centre (ADPMC).

4. GTZ activities in disaster risk management

24


4.1 The political background in the Federal Republic of Germany

The GTZ is a government-owned corpora-tion for international cooperation with world-wide operations. Therefore, its activities in disaster risk management are bound by the policy directives of the German Federal Government. These directives are set out in the policy paper entitled "BMZ's31 Develop-ment-oriented Emergency Aid" (1996). In this document BMZ defines disaster risk management as a major trans-sectoral task in development cooperation and specifies it as follows: "Based on an analysis of […] factors causing disasters, the existing in-struments of development cooperation should be deployed more to eliminate these or re-duce possible damage".32

It points out that various instruments of de-velopment cooperation such as "Technical Cooperation already combine food security with agricultural early warning systems or training [...] with the prevention of natural disasters as major tasks." 33 The obligatory environmental appraisal for each project also includes an assessment of natural dis-aster risk and caters for preventive meas-ures.

The German Federal Government's Action Programme 2015 headed by BMZ as of 2001 places renewed emphasis on the need for disaster risk management. This is why the Federal Government is involved “in shaping and defining UN policy in this area and promotes [...] projects to protect people better against natural events in countries

31 German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation

and Development. 32 BMZ, Entwicklungsorientierte Nothilfe des BMZ,

BMZ aktuell 065, Bonn 1996, p. 5. 33 Ibidem, p. 5.

and regions with high levels of vulnerabil-ity.”34

The German Federal Foreign Office (AA) also supports disaster risk management and as of 2001 provides funds for projects in this area. In 2000 the AA drew conclu-sions from the Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), stating in its Policy Pa-per on Disaster Prevention after the IDNDR Decade: "In the transition from the 'decade' to 'strategy' prime importance must now be attached to the operational implementation of the tasks and objectives of disaster risk management."35

The paper specifies the following priorities for future activities:

• Application-oriented project promotion, • Building up interdisciplinary networks

in disaster risk management (e.g. ZENEB)36,

• Setting up an international coordinating body for early warning in Germany and

• Co-shaping and co-defining UN policy in disaster risk management.

34 BMZ, Poverty Reduction – a Global Responsibility:

Program of Action 2015. The German Govern-ment's Contribution Towards Halving Extreme Pov-erty Worldwide, Bonn 2001, p. 20.

35 Auswärtiges Amt (ASHH), Konzept zur Katastro-phenprävention nach der IDNDR-Dekade, Berlin 2000, p. 4.

36 The Centre for Natural Risks and Development Bonn/Bayreuth (ZENEB) was founded in 2000 for the purpose of developing and implementing ap-proaches to reducing vulnerability to natural haz-ards in a collaborative effort between scientists and practitioners (including GTZ). On behalf of the Ger-man Federal Foreign Office ZENEB currently co-ordinates the German contributions to the UNDP World Vulnerability Report.


25

4.2 Activity areas in disaster risk management

Based on the need for disaster risk man-agement as explained in Chapter 1 and the conceptual approach outlined in Chapter 2, a basic concern must be to avoid isolated individual activities and put together an 'in-tervention package' of concerted measures wherever possible. Based on a systematic analysis of hazards and vulnerabilities and involving all the major actors, this must de-fine and link the necessary fields of activity for risk reduction.

In line with the policy directives for devel-opment cooperation, an approach has been developed for Technical Cooperation that facilitates this integral way of dealing with disaster risk management. It links up sec-

toral approaches in TC with specific con-tents in disaster risk management.

Five interdependent fields of activity have been identified for strengthening disaster risk management, which will be described in more detail in this chapter:

• Risk assessment (see Section 4.2.1)

• Disaster prevention and mitigation (see Section 4.2.2)

• Disaster preparedness (see Section 4.2.3)

• Disaster risk management as part of rehabilitation and reconstruction (see Section 4.2.4.)

• Mainstreaming of disaster risk man-agement in development cooperation sectors (see Section 4.2.5.)

Technical Cooperation

Health

Environmental and natural resources management

Decentralisation

Rural development

Other sectors and issues

Education

Transport and communication

Disaster risk management

Risk assessment

Disaster prevention and mitigation

Disaster preparedness

Crisis prevention and conflict management

Emergency aid and humanitarian aid

Demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants

Integrated de-mining Refugee programmes

Activity areas in disaster risk management in the context of Technical Cooperation

Rehabilitation and reconstruction

Technical Cooperation in the context of crises, conflicts and disasters

Fig. 9: Activity areas in disaster risk management in the context of Technical Cooperation. Source: GTZ, Eschborn 2001.


26

In addition, two other multisectoral ap-proaches merit special attention. We shall also look at these more closely after pre-senting the operational areas:

• Raising awareness (see Section 4.2.6.1)

• Strengthening local disaster risk man-agement capabilities (see Section 4.2.6.2)

4.2.1 Risk assessment

Risk assessment measures aim at ascer-taining disaster risk in a certain region or sector of the population. Taking the equa-tion for risk provided in Chapter 2.1, the specific hazards and vulnerabilities of a so-ciety or group are assessed.

To make a realistic assessment of the haz-ard it is important to determine the prob-ability and the possible intensity of the ex-pected natural event. In the vulnerability analysis the different political-institutional, economic and sociocultural factors must be taken into account and a vulnerability pro-file drawn up accordingly. Risk assessment is the outcome of the investigation of the cause-effect matrix between hazards and vulnerabilities.

The main tools in risk assessment are:

• Records of past disasters and major natural phenomena.

• As precise as possible studies on the specific geological, climatic and other hazards in the national and/or regional context.

• Drafting and updating hazard maps and vulnerability profiles with a maximum level of participation.

• Surveys of the endangered population by gender and vulnerability (especially

persons/households, condition of buildings, production activities, vehi-cles, animals, special abilities and needs in the case of an emergency).

Fig. 10: Example of a hazard map of the Río Piura river in Peru, GTZ, Peru 2000.

A thorough analysis of these factors using the available tools enables us to identify specific disaster risk management meas-ures for the endangered population.

Project case study: Risk assessment for reconstructing La Masica, Honduras (1999) Much of the physical and social infrastructure of La Masica municipality in the North of Honduras was destroyed in October 1998 as a result of the heavy rainfall during Hurricane Mitch. Alongside reconstruction, the aim of the rehabilitation pro-ject financed by ECHO was to reduce the pre-sent vulnerability through applied disaster pre-vention and mitigation. Before the individual measures could be implemented the flood risk for the infrastructure scheduled for rehabilitation had to be identified. This was possible with the help of an analysis of the impacts of Mitch.

In workshops with community members the hazard (probability and possible magnitude) and the vulnerability of the physical and social infra-structure and the production systems was as-certained. On this basis maps were drawn up to cater for the relationship between both factors and provide a sound basis for adjusting the re-habilitated infrastructure to suit the natu-ral/geographical conditions: Investments were not made in high-risk zones, whereas appropri-ate adjustments were made to infrastructure in zones with medium or low risk.


27

The heavy rainfall in November 1999 (up to 373 mm in 24 hours), which only caused minor dam-age, showed that catering for present risk when planning and implementing rehabilitation meas-ures was successful in reducing vulnerability by a large margin.

4.2.2 Disaster prevention and mitiga-tion

Disaster prevention and mitigation denotes activities that prevent or mitigate the ad-verse effects of extreme natural events, above all in the medium and long term. These include on the one hand, political, legal, administrative and infrastructure measures to address the hazard situation, and, on the other, influencing the lifestyle and behaviour of the endangered popula-tion in order to reduce their disaster risk.

Measures designed to achieve these aims include:

• National and local regulation of land use: regulations for the zoning of resi-dential and commercial districts and nature reserves. Detailed land surveys and registers are required in order to achieve this.

• Sustainable management and expan-sion of forestland: control of deforesta-tion and slash-and-burn forest clear-ance, reafforestation and implementa-tion of sustainable forest management schemes.

• Zoning natural reserves on river flood plains, planting of trees and other vegetation types on riverbanks and possible reinforcement using infra-structure such as dams, dykes and embankments.

• Adjusting infrastructure to anticipated events including relevant legal and ad-ministrative regulations: raising the

heights of bridges, retrofitting buildings, drainage and irrigation systems.

• Strengthening local prerogatives and responsibilities through decentralization and democratisation.

• Training the population and local and national institutions on the causes, im-pacts and means of prevention of dis-asters.

• Assistance to the population and local and national institutions in the adequate organisation of disaster risk manage-ment and the building up effective co-operation capabilities.

• Introduction of mechanisms and instru-ments for spreading risk and/or risk transfer (e.g. insurance, safety re-serves).

Project case study: Fire prevention in Mongolia (1997-2000) Due to the climatic conditions in the forests and steppes of Mongolia fires is a regular occur-rence. They recurrently deprive many families of the essentials of life (housing, major household articles and livestock). The Government of Mon-golia has so far been unable to effectively pre-vent and fight forest and steppe fires. Fire-fight-ing has mainly been the job of the local popula-tion, but without systematic deployment, organi-zation, communication and suitable equipment.

BMZ therefore commissioned GTZ to assist the population in reducing the levels of damage caused to forests and people by fires and in im-proving fire management. The project raised awareness on forest fires and their causes amongst the local population. The project also aimed at improving their capabilities for efficient fire-fighting.

The following measures were supported:

• Drafting a fire management strategy for the project region.

• Devising and implementing a scheme for educating, mobilizing and training the target group.

• Setting up a communication system for fire-fighting.


28

• Building up and training decentralized fire prevention and fighting units in the project area.

• Setting up information and training centres in selected areas.

4.2.3 Disaster preparedness

Preparation is the third main operational area. The intention is to prevent or minimize deaths or other losses and damage in the case of an extreme natural event.

Prior to the event it is necessary to prepare the institutions involved (above all disaster preparedness and civil protection, the fire department, the health service, administra-tion, police) and the endangered population as to possible situations, and take precau-tionary steps. Measures may include:

• Establishing a legal framework and specifying government assistance for disaster preparedness.

• Establishing a deployment and coor-dination apparatus, task allocation and communications structure; drawing up emergency plans: clarifying the com-petences, resources available and tasks of the population; evacuation plans; securing contingency supplies (first aid, food, drinking water, medica-tion).

• Building up or strengthening local and national disaster preparedness capa-bilities and rescue services (particu-larly, personnel and financial resources, logistics and communications).

• Infrastructure measures: fitting out pos-sible emergency accommodation, se-curing lines of communication and evacuation routes.

• Training: conducting disaster protection exercises in evacuation, recovery, res-cue, emergency medical measures, oc-cupation and organisation of emer-gency accommodation.

• Improving abilities for rapid assessment of the requisite assistance as well as damage in the case of an emergency in order to ensure rapid and systematic delivery of needed.

• Building up appropriate decentralized early-warning systems to ensure that endangered population relevant local and national actors receive timely in-formation.

4.2.3.1 Early-warning systems

Early warning is comparatively easy in the case of floods. In higher-lying areas or the upper reaches of rivers rainfall and water levels are monitored continuously (mark-ings 1 to 5 in Fig. 11). These measure-ments are conveyed by radio or other means of communication to a base for evaluation (the town of Cartago in Fig. 11). Based on the risk assessment, this centre can then judge whether, where and when flooding may occur. Personnel then as-sume a state of readiness, and the endan-gered inhabitants are alerted and possibly evacuated (markings 6 to 8 in Fig. 11). The organised population and responsible in-stitutions can then perform specific tasks as allocated in the disaster preparedness plan.

Fig. 11: Example of a participatory early-warning system for floods, GTZ, Cartago, Costa Rica 2000.


29

This kind of early-warning system requires appropriate technical equipment (above all measuring instruments and means of com-munication), trained operators and test runs.

Early-warning systems also exist for food crises due to drought or for volcanic erup-tions (see project case studies). Unfortu-nately, however, early warning systems are not appropriate for all types of hazard. This is why special importance must be attached to permanent readiness in the case of sud-den events such as earthquakes.

Project case studies: early-warning sys-tems 1. Early-warning systems for food crises due

to drought in the Sahel Zone (1986-1995)

The Sahel Zone suffers recurrently from extreme droughts, which have often resulted in food cri-ses in the past. So on behalf of BMZ GTZ de-veloped an early-warning system for food crises during droughts and assisted in its implementa-tion from 1986 to 1995 in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mauritania and Senegal. The aim is the early detection of incipient food crises in these countries in order to be able to plan and carry out suitable prevention measures avoiding es-calation into crises.

A core element of this system is the collection and evaluation of data for checking the current and future food situation using crisis indicators. Signs of drought (e.g. low rainfall and water lev-els) are examined alongside measures of food shortage (e.g. high death rate amongst animals or marked increases in food prices).

Based on the data evaluation those responsible must instigate risk management measures - this is the second core element of the early-warning system. This is why political will and organiza-tional and financial capacity are crucial for an operational early-warning system.37

2. Early warning at volcanoes in Guatemala (2001)

37 Cf. GTZ, Frühwarn- und Marktinformationssysteme,

Erfahrungen im Sahel, Eschborn 1995, and GTZ, Ernährungskrisen. Instrumente zur Vorsorge und Bewältigung, Eschborn 1998.

The volcanoes Fuego and Pacaya in Guatemala have shown signs of increased activity for the last two years. The poor population living on the slopes of these volcanoes are in particular dan-ger. This population has grown considerably in recent years and lives largely from subsistence farming. Apart from larger volcanic eruptions this population and its life basis is frequently threat-ened by ash rain. With German assistance (GTZ on behalf of the Federal Foreign Office) the na-tional disaster control authority CONRED is now developing a local disaster risk management system for selected communities living near the volcanoes. This has the following components:

• Participatory risk assessment, • Raising the awareness of population and au-

thorities, • Adequate monitoring system to control vol-

canic activities, • Evacuation and emergency plans.

4.2.4 Disaster risk management as part of rehabilitation and re-construction

The reconstruction phase after a disaster is a good time to implement integrated disas-ter risk management measures. Recon-struction affords the opportunity to make use of experience gained with the latest natural events and it is also a time when the institutions and the population are par-ticularly amenable to preventive ap-proaches. Disaster risk management is an elementary component of reconstruction measures. First of all, the causes and im-pacts of the last event and the possible changes in risk are analysed. The findings are then taken into account in defining the necessary precautionary measures in pre-vention and preparedness. The intention is to prevent the disaster from recurring.

Project case study: Emergency aid and reconstruction measures for victims of the earthquake in Colombia (1999) In January 1999 an earthquake in Colombia measuring force 6 on the Richter scale caused the collapse of thousands of houses in the


30

provinces of Armenia and Pereira. The GTZ supported reconstruction assistance targeted particularly vulnerable families of day labourers in the coffee-growing area. In the municipalities of Quebrada Negra, Córdoba, Barcelona and Pereira (Dep. Quindío) 280 earthquake-resistant houses were built using local materials (particu-larly bamboo). One new aspect of the project was the participatory approach employed which involved affected people in all phases of plan-ning and implementation. Another novel aspect was the high quality buildings constructed using teamwork, which now set an example for the re-gion. As well as constructing the new houses, the project also strengthened the self-help ca-pabilities of the population in other areas (e.g. drinking water, basic education). Thanks to the joint approach employed the municipalities can now earn additional income by passing on their know-how.38

Fig. 12: Collapsed house in Armenia, Colombia after the earthquake in January 1999.

Fig. 13: Earthquake-proof bamboo construction. Source: Cooperación Colombo Alemana: Guía para Autoconstrucción utilizando la Guadua como elemento principal, Pereira 1999. 38 The role of the project for Quebrada Negra is

described in a booklet: Ospina Marín, S., Quebrada Negra: Una perla en el Quindío, Colombia 1999.

Fig. 14: Rebuilding an earthquake-resistant house, Colombia in June 1999.

Project case study: El Niño reconstruc-tion and disaster risk management, Peru (Phase 1: 1998-2001) The northern departments of Peru suffered ex-tremely high rain-fall levels between December 1997 and April 1998 as a result of El Niño. Floods in the Piura region caused direct damage amounting to more than DM 500 million. The re-gion has been suffering from malaria and den-gue epidemics for more than two years. The in-direct effects of severed road connections and the destruction of the irrigation infrastructure with a subsequent drop in agricultural output, were devastating nationwide and particularly for the poor population in the rural areas.

Despite prior warnings about El Niño disaster preparedness was inadequate. Hardly any risk assessments were carried out and the lack of coordination and preparation of emergency measures caused delays and shortcomings in relief measures.

BMZ therefore commissioned GTZ to assist the population, government and non-governmental organizations in coping with the economic dam-age using direct transfers and advisory meas-ures. To reduce vulnerability to El Niño the me-dium-term reconstruction measures are geared towards improving disaster risk management in the region. Building on risk assessment, the project promotes measures in rural develop-ment, resource management in watersheds and flood protection measures (incl. a flood protec-tion early-warning system). This will reduce the risks of flooding. At the same time the project supports the integration of risk management tools in the operations of the local and regional organizations (municipalities, ministries and non-governmental organizations) to prepare them better for the periodical recurrence of El Niño.


31

4.2.5 Mainstreaming disaster risk management in development cooperation sectors

Disaster risk management needs to be more closely integrated into development cooperation sectors that are either very vul-nerable to disaster that are capable of con-tributing to improving disaster risk man-agement. Particularly relevant sectors are rural development/environmental and re-source management, decentralization/com-munity development, health, housing and education. Here are some examples.

Disaster risk management in rural devel-opment/environmental protection and resource conservation starts by addressing issues of land use. Regulating resource management and land settlement policy can reduce disaster risk. This also includes specific development projects in water-sheds´ that mitigate the risk of drought dis-asters and prevent floods. Disaster risk management in rural development is also directly related to the creation of alternative sources of income. Efficient drainage sys-tems can reduce the extent of flooding.

Disaster risk management both promotes and calls for personal participation and re-sponsibility and solidarity on the part of communities. So it is important to strengthen the prevention/preparedness and local dis-aster risk management capabilities of mu-nicipal authorities through decentraliza-tion.

In the health sector, measures to provide health care to casualties and/or to counter the risk of diseases and epidemics are of particular importance in the event of a dis-aster. The role of basic health care in gen-eral should not be underestimated in terms of its contribution to the reduction of disas-ter risk. A healthy population is better able to withstand the adverse effects of an ex-

treme natural event than people who are debilitated by illness and undernourish-ment.

Secure housing is an elementary human need. Nevertheless, a growing number of families in endangered areas occupy houses that cannot withstand extreme natu-ral events. This is why the housing sector is essential for sustainable development through disaster risk management. Land use planning, building supervision planning and building with earthquake-proof material or flood-protection methods can tangibly improve the conditions of life for many peo-ple.

In order to institutionalise disaster risk management in selected development co-operation sectors practical recommenda-tions need to be worked out in collaboration with them. The aim with this and other measures (e.g. mainstreaming this issue in sector policy papers, training) is to raise awareness amongst personnel as to the need and opportunities for disaster risk management and provide them with definite practical proposals for implementation.

4.2.6 Multisectoral approaches

Disaster risk management is not the sole prerogative of specialists. For effective im-plementation it is necessary to gain the in-terest and the broad support of the popula-tion and of government institutions. On the other hand, it is necessary that public-sec-tor institutions and other social organiza-tions are open to such measures and take initiative themselves.

Multisectoral approaches can help increase self-help capabilities. These include aware-ness raising, particularly among political decision-makers and the endangered population, as well as strengthening local risk management capabilities.


32

4.2.6.1 Raising awareness

Raising awareness involves helping people and institutions to better grasp the hazard problem and current levels of vulnerability, as well as the cost and benefit connection in disaster risk management at the eco-nomic, social and political level.

The awareness of decision-makers and ex-perts in different local and national institu-tions (e.g. municipal administration, con-struction and health sector, civil protection) can be raised through a combination of training, and joint implementation of practi-cal measures. The following aspects must be taken into account here:

• The cost-benefit analysis should be as realistic as possible in order to con-vince decision-makers in particular. Beneficial side-effects (e.g. gain in prestige) can also play a role.

• In order to motivate experts and deci-sion makers and make the topic more amenable to them, disaster risk man-agement should not be conveyed as something new, but rather as an addi-tional development to their activities to date.

• High personnel turn over rates and strict hierarchical structures that limit consciousness raising to individual specialists are common problems. The topic should be introduced to as broad (horizontal and vertical) a section of the institutional personnel as possible in order to bring about lasting change.

Awareness in the population can also be raised through a number of measures. In-formation campaigns (e.g. radio or bro-chures) can draw short-term attention to definite dangers and needed precautions (e.g. at the beginning of the rainy period), or promote acceptance for forthcoming pre-

ventive activities (e.g. a law on environ-mental protection or a vaccination cam-paign). Provided it is long-term (e.g. in schools) training/education can also alter people's attitudes and behaviour. The most effective way to raise awareness, however, is to actively involve as many people as possible in implementing measures in the different operational areas of disaster risk management.

Disaster risk management approaches that aim at mobilizing the population in this way are called participatory disaster risk man-agement. They proceed from the precept of motivating people on a voluntary basis in order to:

• build up a sufficient pool of informed and trained personnel for an emer-gency,

• inculcate disaster risk management attitudes and behaviour in broad sec-tors of the population using the volun-teers involved and

• ultimately strengthen the self-help ca-pabilities of the endangered popula-tion.

Project case study: RELSAT – Mobilizing the population with participatory early-warning systems (1999) On behalf of the EU/ECHO in 1999 GTZ intro-duced participatory early-warning systems in six areas in Central America threatened by floods. They aimed at alerting the population and local institutions of impending floods in a timely fash-ion enabling them to take the necessary pre-paratory measures (cf. previous Chapter 4.2.3). This was achieved without any major involve-ment of national authorities.

Project experience indicates that the participa-tory early-warning systems introduced under RELSAT are one of the most effective ways of raising awareness in the population, for the fol-lowing reasons:

• They provide tangible help in an emergency.


33

• The tasks make up part of the daily life of those involved, so that other members of the family are also actively engaged.

• Measurement instruments and radiotele-phones are a kind of status symbol and can also be used for emergency calls in the event of illness, for example.

• They make for a permanent link between the municipality and the population.

This kind of system does, however, require in-tensive upkeep, permanent coordination and se-cure finance. When it works, though, it is a key element in disaster risk management at the mu-nicipal level.

Fig. 15: Early warning volunteer on the radiotelephone in Corintho, Nicaragua 1999.

4.2.6.2 Strengthening local disaster risk management capabilities

High priority is attached to strengthening local capabilities for two reasons:

• Disaster risk frequently varies signifi-cantly by microregion. This is why use must be made of local knowledge, and disaster risk management tailored at the local level to local hazards and vul-nerabilities, as part of the national and regional systems.

• National disaster preparedness authori-ties are at present still centrally organ-ized in most developing countries and unable to provide effective help in an emergency, particularly to rural popula-tions. Even national early-warning sys-tems (e.g. information on hurricanes)

often reach the endangered population too late or not at all. So endangered ar-eas must rely on their own capabilities of taking precautionary measures.

A way of helping to build an effective local disaster risk management system is by stimulating community-based disaster risk management. The local system should form part of a national system and should assure the participation of all relevant social actors at the municipal level.

Project case study: CEPREDENAC – Dis-aster risk management in Central Amer-ica/FEMID (1997-2002) Central America is one of the world’s regions that is most frequently hit by extreme natural events. Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurri-canes, landslides, etc. occur in a region where there is little regional planning, land use is un-controlled, population density is high, buildings are badly constructed, the disaster prepared-ness agencies are ill equipped and most of the population is poor and unprepared. In all, Cen-tral America is a high disaster risk zone.

In order to contribute to the solution of this prob-lem, the FEMID project was implemented by the Coordination Centre for the Prevention of Natu-ral Disasters in Central America (CEPREDENAC) was originally entrusted (1997-1999) with the job of strengthening local capabilities for disaster risk management in one municipality in each of the six Central American countries. This was done on a trial basis with a view to subsequently transferring the experience gained and a strat-egy of community-based disaster risk manage-ment (2000-2002) via the national and regional organizations to other areas exposed to disaster risk. This work is conducted in close collabora-tion with the national disaster preparedness au-thorities and more recently with other sectors as well (above all community development). To set up and strengthen local capabilities the priority activities are as follows:

• Setting up or strengthening local disaster risk management groups involving the mu-nicipal administration and volunteers,

• Training the members of these groups in risk assessment methods and preventive


34

and preparatory measures, • Drawing up hazard maps and evacuation

plans and carrying out disaster prepared-ness exercises jointly,

• Improving communication and coordination amongst local, national and regional actors involved in disaster risk management.

Experience and know-how on community-based disaster risk management is also being ex-changed in regional seminars.

4.3 Future challenges

In view of the higher priority accorded dis-aster risk management in international dis-cussion it needs to be far more closely as-similated in development cooperation. The issue should be mainstreamed in national and local development strategies and poli-cies through specific measures and activi-ties.

The paramount concern of disaster risk management is to advise partner countries in developing an efficient risk management system of their own. The focus is on the following aspects and issues:

• Political awareness of disaster risk management amongst national, re-gional and local decision-makers, rec-ognized authoritative persons and leaders of opinion has increased nota-bly in recent years. It needs stepping up further, however.

• The major role of civil society in dis-aster risk management, particularly at local level, is still not fully recognized in many countries where disaster management is organized by the mili-tary and/or central government. Confi-dence-building measures and coordi-nation mechanisms are essential here.

• Mainstreaming disaster risk man-agement in development coopera-tion sectors that are vulnerable to natural disasters or can contribute to

their reduction. Depending on the type and geography of the hazard a cross-border approach should be applied. Such an approach already exists to a greater or lesser extent in Central America, the Caribbean, the Andean states and the Mekong countries. This process of incorporating disaster risk management in projects and pro-grammes across sectors and borders is still at an early stage and support needs to be stepped up further.

• A major factor in sustaining risk reduc-tion in the long term is the active in-clusion of the private sector in dis-aster risk management. Objectives here relate to production and income diversification as well as cooperation with the insurance sector to mitigate the medium-term and long-term effects of disasters. To get the private sector to engage in this area, though, gov-ernment must first put in place appro-priate infrastructural, institutional and organizational frameworks. Experience has been gained here in more ad-vanced countries but nothing has so far been done in the less advanced partner countries.

• Another key factor for the effective im-plementation of disaster risk manage-ment strategies is coordination and cooperation amongst international/-bilateral Technical and Financial Cooperation. Only by coordinating measures and making deliberate use of the comparative advantages of indi-vidual partners can the various chal-lenges be mastered.

• Applied research must be stepped up and experience to date system-atically collated to improve the eco-nomic viability of preventive measures and shed more light on the climatic and ecological cause-effect matrix.

5. GTZ services

35

5. GTZ services

As with other Technical Cooperation pro-jects, the prime concern of disaster risk management projects is to improve the con-ditions of life for the population in partner countries. In specific disaster risk manage-ment projects the focus is on the hazard posed to the population by extreme natural events and their possible consequences. These may erode the progress made through years of development efforts.

Disaster risk management measures pur-sue short-, medium-, and long-term objec-

tives. In the short-term the aim is to raise awareness of the existing risks and improve the organization for emergencies. The me-dium-term intention is to foster a culture of prevention that pervades all sectors of daily life, thus contributing to sustainable social development.

GTZ services in disaster risk management can only be provided when different sectors interact and can be broken down into the following, interdependent categories:

Activity areas in disaster risk management 1. Risk assessment

Registering past disasters and major natural events, Precise studies, including specific geological and climatic hazards and their

causes, in the national or regional setting, Surveys of the endangered population by gender and vulnerability, Participatory preparation and updating of hazard maps and vulnerability

profiles.

2. Disaster prevention and mitigation

Setting and enforcing regional development and land use plans, building supervision plans as well as zoning ordinances and building regulations,

Training the population and representatives of institutions, Building up/Strengthening local and national disaster risk management

capabilities (incl. clear responsibilities), Sustainable resource management (e.g. watershed management), Improving Infrastructure (dams, embankments, more stable buildings

better capable of withstanding a disaster).

3. Disaster preparedness

Participatory drafting of emergency plans, Infrastructure measures (emergency accommodation, etc.), Carrying out disaster preparedness exercises, Building up and/or strengthening local and national disaster preparedness

capabilities and rescue services, Coordination and deployment planning, Early-warning systems: - Setting up and operating communications systems, - Delivery of technical equipment, - Operator training.

5. GTZ services

36

4. Disaster risk management as part of rehabilitation and reconstruction

Conducting risk assessments, Infrastructure, e.g. earthquake-resistant or floodproof construction

methods, development schemes, shelters, Institutional set-up, e.g. demarcating roles and improving cooperation

amongst individual actors, Organizational set-up, e.g. strengthening local capabilities (see below), Developing and promoting measures for future prevention (e.g. watershed

management, resource conservation, flood protection schemes).

5. Mainstreaming disaster risk management in development cooperation sectors

Prevention needs to be integrated into development cooperation sectors that are very vulnerable or capable of contributing to improving disaster risk management. Particularly eligible sectors include decentralization and/or community development, rural development, environmental protection and resource conservation, housing, health and education.

Multisectoral approaches 1. Raising awareness Support for raising awareness of the connection between cost and benefit

in disaster risk management at the economic, social and political level, Raising awareness amongst populations living in risk areas of the hazards

and vulnerabilities and the opportunities for disaster risk management, Implementing appropriate early-warning systems, Participation of the population, the municipal administration and other

institutions in all phases of disaster risk management.

2. Strengthening local disaster risk management capabilities

The cornerstone of effective disaster risk management is the establishment and/or strengthening of a local system containing the above listed activity areas and incrusted in an overall national system, mobilizing all possible social and political actors at the municipal level and getting them to shoulder responsibility in the process.

Sources and selected references

37

SOURCES AND SELECTED REFERENCES

Alexander, D., The Study of Natural Disasters, 1977-1997: Some Reflections on a Changing Field of Knowledge, in: Disasters, 21 (2), 1997, p. 284-304.

Albala-Bertrand, J. M., The Political Economy of Large Natural Disasters: With Special Reference to Developing Countries, Oxford 1994.

Anderson, M. B. and Woodrow, P., Rising from the Ashes: Development Strate-gies in Times of Disaster, Boulder 1989.

Annan, K., Facing the Humanitarian Challenge. Towards a Culture of Prevention, United Nations, Report on Work of Organization, New York 1999.

ADB, Disaster and Mitigation in Asia and the Pacific, Manila 1992.

Auswärtiges Amt (ASHH), Konzept zur Katastrophenprävention nach der IDNDR-Dekade, Berlin 2000.

Banerjee, M. M. and Gillespie, D. F., Linking preparedness and organizational disaster response effectives, in: Journal of Community Practice 1 (3), 1994.

Beatley, T., Promoting Sustainable Land Use: Mitigating Natural Hazards through Land Use Planning, in: Natural Disasters: Local and Global Perspectives, Boston 1995.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B., At Risk. Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, London and New York 1994.

Blaikie, P. et al., Vulnerabilidad. El Entorno Político, Económico y Social de los Desastres, LA RED, Bogotá 1996.

BMELF, Nahrung für alle. Welternährungsgipfel 1996. Dokumentation, Bonn 1997.

BMZ, Entwicklungsorientierte Nothilfe des BMZ, BMZ aktuell 065, Bonn 1996.

BMZ, Entwicklungspolitik zur Vorbeugung und Bewältigung von Katastrophen und Konflikten, BMZ spezial 082, Bonn 1997.

BMZ, Poverty Reduction – a Global Responsibility: Program of Action 2015. The German Government's Contribution Towards Halving Extreme Poverty Worldwide, Bonn 2001.

Bohle, H.-G., Geographie und Entwicklungsforschung. Beiträge der Sozialgeo-graphie zum Problemkreis von "Global Change", in: H. Karrasch (Ed.): Geographie: Tradition und Fortschritt, HGG-Journal 12, Heidelberg 1998, pp. 71-86.

Chambers, R., Vulnerability, Coping and Policy, in: Institute of Development Stud-ies Bulletin 20, 1989, pp. 1-7.

Cohen, D., Aftershock: The Psychological and Political Consequences of Disaster, London 1991.

Council of Europe, International Organizations and Major Hazard Management, Strasbourg 2000.

Cuny, F., Disasters and Development, New York and Oxford 1993.

Dams, T. and Gocht, W., Konzept für die Einbindung der Katastrophenvorbeu-gung in die entwicklungspolitische Zusammenarbeit der staatlichen Träger und Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Gutachten im Auftrag des Deutschen IDNDR-Ko-mitees, no loc. 1993.


38

Deutsches IDNDR-Komitee für Katastrophenvorbeugung (Pub.), Jahresbericht des Deutschen Komitees für Katastrophenvorsorge, Schriftenreihe des DKKV Nr. 20, 2000.

DSE, Katastrophenvorbeugungspolitik für nachhaltige Entwicklung, Schriftenreihe des Entwicklungspolitischen Forums (DOK 1706 A – IT 04- 05- 94), Berlin 1994.

Development Initiatives (Ed.), Global Humanitarian Assistance 2000, no loc. 2000.

ECLAC and IDB, A Matter of Development: How to reduce Vulnerability in the Face of Natural Disasters, Mexico 2000.

ECLAC and IDB, La reducción de la vulnerabilidad frente a los desastres: Una cuestion de desarrollo, presentation at IDB anual meeting in March 2000, New Orleans 2000.

ECLAC, Manual for Estimating the Socio-Economic Effects of Natural Disasters, no loc. 1999.

Eikenberg, C., Journalisten-Handbuch zum Katastrophenmanagement 2000, Deutsches IDNDR-Komitee für Katastrophenvorbeugung (Ed.), Bonn 2000.

ECHO (Pub.), DIPECHO Action Plan, Central America, South-East Asia and Caribbean 1998.

GeoForschungszentrum Potsdam (Ed.), International IDNDR-Conference on Early Warning Systems for the Reduction of Natural Disasters, Programme and Abstracts, no loc. 1998.

Gilbert, R. and Kreimer, A., Learning form the World Bank’s Experience of Natu-ral Disaster Related Assistance, World Bank, Disaster Management Facility, Washington 1999.

GTZ, Frühwarn- und Marktinformationssysteme, Erfahrungen im Sahel, Eschborn 1995.

GTZ, Entwicklungsorientierte Nothilfe (EON), Arbeitskonzept der GTZ, Eschborn 1998.

GTZ, Ernährungskrisen, Instrumente zur Vorsorge und Bewältigung, Eine Orien-tierung für die Projektarbeit, Eschborn 1998.

GTZ, German Technical Cooperation in Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Eschborn 2000.

GTZ (Ed.), Sánchez del Valle, R., Lecciones aprendidas de FEMID, Ciudad de Guatemala 2000.

GTZ/ECHO (Ed.), Villagrán de León, J. C., Lecciones aprendidas de RELSAT, Ciudad de Guatemala 2000.

GTZ (Ed.), Villagrán de León, J. C., Aportes para la gestión de obras para la prevención de inundaciones, Ciudad de Guatemala 2001.

Hewitt, K., Regions of Risk, Essex 1997.

Hoffmann, B., Entwicklungszusammenarbeit im Spannungsfeld zwischen Katas-trophenbewältigung und nachhaltiger Entwicklung, in: Entwicklung + ländlicher Raum, Issue No. 4, 1999, pp. 3-8.


39

IDB, Taller sobre Vulnerabilidad Ecologica y Social, Washington 1999.

IDB, Action Plan – Facing the Challenge of Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean. Special Report, Washington 2000.

IFRC, World Disasters Report 2000, Geneva 2000.

IFRC, World Disasters Report 2001. Focus on recovery, Geneva 2001.

ISDR, Updated and Expanded Terminology on Disaster Reduction, Geneva 2001.

ISDR, Strategy for Action for World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), no loc. 2001 (draft).

Ingleton, J. (Ed.), Natural Disaster Management, London 2000.

Kreimer, A. and Munasinghe, M. (Ed.), Managing Natural Disasters and the Environment, World Bank, Washington 1991.

Kreimer, A. and Arnold, M., Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies, Disaster Risk Management Series No. 2, World Bank, Washington 2000.

Kron, W. and Plate, E. J., Natural Disaster and Disaster Reduction, Deutsche –IDNDR-Reihe No.1, 1996.

Lavell, A. (Ed.), Viviendo en Riesgo: Comunidades Vulnerables y Prevención de Desastres en América Latina, LA RED-FLASCO-CEPREDENAC, Bogotá 1994.

Maskrey, A. (Ed.), Los Desastres no son Naturles, LA RED, Bogotá 1993.

Merz, B. and Plate, E. J., Ende der Internationalen Dekade für die Reduzierung von Naturkatastrophen – ein Resümee, in: IDNDR Forum (Geographie aktuell) der Geographischen Rundschau, Issue 11, 1999.

Mitchell, J. (Ed.), Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-cities and Disasters in Transition, Tokyo, United Nations University Press, 1996.

Munasinghe, M. and Clark, C. (Ed.), The IDNDR and the World Bank, A Report from the Yokohama World Disaster Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, May 23-27, 1994, Disasters Prevention for Sustainable Development, no loc. 1995.

OAS, Disasters, Planning and Development: Managing Natural Hazards to Reduce Loss, Department of Regional Development and Environment, Washington 1990.

OECD (Ed.), Development Assistance Committee: Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Disaster Mitigation, No. 7, Paris 1994.

OECD (Pub.), The DAC Journal, Development Cooperation Report 2000 – Efforts and Policies of the Members of the Development Assistance Committee Volume 2 Issue 1, Paris 2001.

O’Keefe, P., Westgage, K. and Wisner, B, Taking the Naturalness out of Natural Disasters, in: Nature, 1976.

Ospina Marín, S., Quebrada Negra: Una perla en el Quindío, Colombia 1999.

Quarantelli, E. L., Ten Criteria for Evaluating the Management of Community Dis-asters, in: Disasters 21 (1), 1997, pp. 39-56.

Plate, E., Merz, B., Eikenberg, C., Naturkatastrophen – Strategien zur Vorsorge und Bewältigung, Bericht des Deutschen IDNDR-Komitees zum Ende der "Interna-tional Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction", Deutsche IDNDR-Reihe 16, Bonn 1999, p. 16.


40

Plate, E., Merz, B. and Eikenberg, C., Natural Disaster – Strategies for Mitigation and Disaster Response, Deutsche IDNDR-Reihe No. 17, Bonn 1999.

Plate, E. and Merz, B (Ed.), Naturkatastrophen – Ursachen, Auswirkungen, Vor-sorge, Stuttgart 2001.

Plate, E. et al. (Ed.)/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Naturkatastrophen und Katastrophenvorbeugung, Bericht des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der DFG für das Deutsche IDNDR-Komitee, Weinheim 1993.

Schaef; T. and Steurer, R., Reduzierung von Katastrophenrisiken im Rahmen Technischer Zusammenarbeit, Katastrophenvorsorge “El Niño” – Piura/Peru, in: Dokumentation zum Gefahrentag 2001 (i. E.).

Siegel, P. and Alwang, J., An Asset-based Approach to Social Risk Management: A Conceptual Framework, Social Protection Discussion Paper 9926, World Bank, Washington 1999.

Steurer, R. and Bollin, C., Mobilisierung der Zivilgesellschaft für die Katastro-phenvorsorge, Möglichkeiten und Beispiele, Gemeindeorientierte Katastrophenvor-sorge in Entwicklungsländern, in: Notfallvorsorge Issue No. 4, 2001 (i.E.).

UNDP, Disaster Mitigation, Cambridge 1994.

UNDP, Disaster Profiles of the Least Developed Countries, Geneva 2001.

United Nations (Ed.), General Assembly Resolution 44/236, International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, 1989.

United Nations (Ed.), World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yoko-hama Strategy and Plan of Activities of a Saver World – Guidelines for Natural Dis-aster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation, Yokohama 1994.

United Nations (Ed.), General Assembly Resolution 54/219, International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction: successor arrangements, 1999.

Wilches-Chaux, G., Auge, Caída y Levantada de Felipe Pinillo, Mecánico y Soldador o Yo Voy a Correr el Riesgo, IT Perú y LA RED, Peru 1998, p. 142.

Wisner, B., Wetgate, K. and O’Keefe, P., Poverty and Disaster, in: New Society, Issue No. 9, 1976.

Wisner, B., Disaster Vulnerability – Geographical Scale and Existential Reality, in: H.-G. Bohle (Pub.): Worlds of Pain and Hunger: Geographical Perspectives on Disaster Vulnerability and Food Security, Saarbrücken and Fort Lauderdale 1993.

WHO (Ed.), Community emergency preparedness: a manual for managers and policy-makers, Geneva 1999.

World Bank, Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies, Disaster Risk Man-agement Series No. 2, Washington 2000.

Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State of the World 2001 – A Worldwatch Institute Re-port on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society, New York 2001.

Selected internet addresses

41

SELECTED INTERNET ADDRESSES

Please note that the internet addresses listed below may have changed.

Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland e.V. http://www.asb-online.de

Asian Development Bank http://www.adb.org

Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre http://www.adpc.ait.ac.th

Asian Disaster Reduction Centre http://www.adrc.or.jp/top.asp

Canadian Intern. Development Agency http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index.htm

CARE http://www.care.de http://www.care-international.org

Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project http://www.oas.org/EN/CDMP

Caritas http://www.caritas.de http://www.caritas-international.de

Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América Central (CEPREDENAC)

http://www.cepredenac.org

Centro Régional de Información sobre Desastres (América Latina y el Caribe)

http://www.disaster.info.desastres.net/crid

Comisión Económico para América Latina y el Caribe (UN)

http://www.eclac.cl

CRED

http://www.cred.be

Department for International Development

http://www.dfid.gov.uk

Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge

http://www.dkkv.org

Deutsches Rotes Kreuz

http://www.drk.de

Directory for Disaster Reduction Institutions

http://www.unige.ch/idndr


42

Disaster Information Network http://www.disaster.net

Disaster Preparedness ECHO (DIPECHO)

http://www.disaster.info.desastres.net/dipecho

Disaster Relief – Worldwide Disaster Aid and Information via the Internet

http://www.disasterrelief.org

Earthquake Research Institute

http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp

European Community Humanitarian Office

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/echo

FEMID (Fortalecer Estructuras Locales para la Mitigación de Desastres)

http://www.cepredenac.org/10_femid/10_index.htm

GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de

German Federal Foreign Office/Auswärtiges Amt http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de

HazardNet (IDNDR Demonstration Proj.)

http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/hazard/index.html

Inter-American Development Bank

http://www.iadb.org

International Committee of the Red Cross

http://www.icrc.org

International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

http://www.idndr.org

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

http://www.ifrc.org

International Institute for Disaster Risk Management

http://www.idrmhome.org

International Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction http://www.unisdr.org

Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V.

http://www.johanniter.de

Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

http://www.kfw.de

La Red de Estudios Sociales en Prevención de Desastres en América Lat.

http://osso.univalle.edu.co/tmp/lared/lared.htm


43

Malteser-Hilfsdienst

http://www.malteser.com

Medecins sans Frontières

http://www.msf.org

Münchener Rückversicherungsgesellschaft

http://www.munichre.com

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

http://www.reliefweb.int/

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

http://www.oecd.org

Oxfam International

http://www.oxfam.org

Pan American Health Organisation

http://www.paho.org

ProVention Consortium

http://www.proventionconsortium.org

Technisches Hilfewerk

http://www.thw.de

UN Development Programme

• Disaster Management

http://www.undp.org/erd/disaster.htm

• Disaster Management Programme

http://www.undp.org/erd/dmp.htm

• Sustainable Energy and Environment Division

http://www.undp.org/seed

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

http://www.unesco.org

• Unit for Natural Disaster Reduction

http://www.unesco.org/environment

UN Environment Programme

http://www.unep.org

UN Food and Agriculture Organization

http://www.fao.org

• Global Inform. and Early Warning System

http://www.fao.org/giews/default.htm

• Geoweb

http://geoweb.fao.org


44

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

http://www.unhchr.ch

U.S. Agency for internat. Development

http://www.info.usaid.gov

World Bank Group

http://www.worldbank.org

World Food Programme

http://www.wfp.org

World Health Organization

http://www.who.int

• Division of Emergency and Humanitarian Action

http://www.who.int/eha

World Meteorological Organization

http://www.wmo.ch

Zentrum für Naturrisiken und Entwicklung Bonn/Bayreuth http://www.zeneb.de

Annex 1

45

ANNEX 1 Selected GTZ reference projects* in disaster risk management

Project Country/Region Duration

Completed TC projects lasting several years

• Strengthening Fire Prevention Mongolia 07/97 - 06/00 • Management Consultancy to the Commission

for Disaster Prevention and Preparedness (CDPP)

Ethiopia 05/93 - 12/96

Completed individual measures

• Support in Fire-fighting Mongolia 05/96 - 06/96 • Fire-fighting and Fire Prevention Mongolia 09/96 - 12/96 • Strengthening Early Warning Systems Antigua, Barbuda 10/97 - 05/99 • Assistance for Self-help Measures in

Disaster Risk Management in Managua Nicaragua 01/98 - 12/98

• Equipment of Vehicles for Disaster Prevention Bolivia 02/97 - 05/97 • Study on Raising Efficiency in Disaster

Prevention Thailand 11/97 - 03/98

• Diagnosis on Prevention and Mitigation of Disaster Risk in the Andean Community

Andes 05/99 - 07/99

• Diagnosis on Disaster Prevention in South Asia

South Asia 05/99 - 07/99

• Strengthening Local Capabilities with Early Warning Systems

Central America 11/98 - 12/99

• Study on Experience with Community-based Disaster Risk Management


• Strengthening a Community Self-help Network in Disaster Risk Management


• Reconstruction La Masica Honduras 03/99 - 10/99 • Reconstruction in the Department of Atlántida Honduras 11/99 - 03/00

* GTZ-assisted projects.

Annex 1

46

Project Country/Region Duration

TC projects lasting several years

Ongoing projects

• Disaster Risk Management in Central America Central America 1996 - 2002 • Disaster Risk Management in Piura Peru 1998 - 2003 • Disaster Risk Reduction in the Buzi Region Mozambique 2001 - 2003 • Disaster Risk Management as part of

Reconstruction El Salvador

2001 - 2002 • Disaster Risk Management as part of

Reconstruction in Areqipa Peru

Planned projects

• Establishment and Implementation of a Regional Disaster Risk Management Strategy

Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos

as of 2002

• Disaster Risk Management in two Endangered Regions

Bolivia as of 2002

• Disaster Risk Management as part of Restoring the Production Base

Peru as of 2002

Ongoing individual measures

• Municipal Disaster Management Plans Bolivia 2001 • Flood Early-warning System Peru 2001 • Flood Early-warning System El Salvador 2001 • Early Warning at Volcanoes Guatemala 2001 • Forest Fire Prevention Guatemala 2001 • Decentralized Disaster Risk Management East Caribbean

Islands 2001

Annex 2

47

ANNEX 2

Key terms in disaster risk management

HAZARD Hazards are extreme natural events that can have adverse consequences. The extent of the hazard depends on its probability within a certain period of time and region and the severity of the event.

DISASTER

A disaster is a disruption in the normal functioning of a society which leads to loss of human life, property and environmental resources, and which exceeds the ability of the affected communities to cope unaided.

VULNERABILITY Vulnerability denotes the inadequate means or ability to protect oneself against the adverse impacts of external events on the one hand and on the other to recover quickly from the effects of the natural event. Vulnerability is made up of many po-litical-institutional, economic and sociocultural factors.

DISASTER RISK Disaster risk designates the extent of the damage and loss a natural event is ex-pected to cause. It is determined as the product of the factors hazard and vulner-ability. Hazard includes the probability and the magnitude of the anticipated natural event; vulnerability comprises a number of political-institutional, economic, socio-cultural and geographical factors. The following formula is widely used to calculate disaster risk as the product of these two factors:

Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT/DISASTER RISK REDUCTION In Technical Cooperation disaster risk management comprises action (pro-grammes, projects and/or measures) and instruments whose intended impacts are expressly aimed at reducing disaster risk in endangered regions and mitigating the extent of disasters. Disaster risk management is the generic term for the opera-tional areas risk assessment, disaster prevention and mitigation and disaster pre-paredness.

RISK ASSESSMENT OR RISK ANALYSIS A survey is made of the current hazards posed by extreme natural events as well as the respective local vulnerability of the population and their basis for livelihood to ascertain the specific risks within a region. Based on this information disaster risk can be purposively reduced.

DISASTER PREVENTION AND MITIGATION Disaster prevention and mitigation denotes activities that prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of extreme natural events, above all in the medium and long term. These include on the one hand political, legal, administrative and infrastructure

Annex 2

48

measures to address the hazard situation and on the other hand influencing the lifestyle and behaviour of the endangered population to reduce their disaster risk.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Preparedness comprises measures that can be carried out for fast and effective evacuation, to save human life, mitigate loss and damage and provide emergency assistance. Full-scale preparedness includes: early-warning systems, deployment and coordination capabilities, emergency plans, emergency supply reserves and training.

working concept - university of british columbia risk management.pdfdag-hammerskjöld-weg 1-5...

Documents