Aspects and challenges of disaster risk reduction
Priorities
According to Kluver (1996) it is unrealistic to expect progress in all aspects of DRR: capacities and resources are insufficient. Governments and other organizations have to make what are really "investment decisions", choosing which aspects of DRR to invest in, when and in what order. This is complicated by the fact that many of the interventions advised are developmental rather than directly DRR. Most DRR guides ignore this issue. One way to focus is to consider only actions specifically aimed at reducing disaster risk. This would at least distinguish DDR from more general efforts towards sustainable development. The concept of "invulnerable development" attempts this: in this formulation invulnerable development is that aimed at reducing vulnerability to disasters, comprising "decisions and activities intentionally designed and implemented to reduce risk and susceptibility, and also to increase resistance and resilience to disasters."[6].
Research has shown the impact of greater investment in effective disaster preparedness, because the benefits of reducing human loss far outweigh the costs. A case study in Niger showed positive results in benefits and costs in all the scenarios considered. 3 different scenarios were modeled: from the absolute level of disaster losses to the potential reduction in disaster losses and the flow of discounted funds. It was estimated that every $1 spent on effective disaster preparedness resulted in $3.25 in benefit under the most conservative scenario. This increased to $5.31 profit for the least conservative scenario.[7].
Partnerships and coordination between organizations
No group or organization can address all aspects of DRR alone. According to this approach, disasters are complex problems that demand a collective response. Coordination even in conventional emergency management is difficult, because many organizations can converge on a disaster area to help. Through the prism of DRR, the relationships between types of organizations and between sectors (public, private and non-profit, as well as communities) become much more extensive and complex. Correct DRR requires strong vertical and horizontal connections (central-local relationships become important). In terms of civil society involvement, this should mean taking a broad view of what types of organizations to accept (e.g. mainstream NGOs, trade unions, religious institutions, radio amateurs (as in the US or India), universities and research institutions).
Communities and their organizations
Traditional emergency management (civil protection) makes 2 erroneous assumptions about communities. First, it sees other forms of social organization (voluntary or community organizations, informal social groupings, and families) as irrelevant in emergency action. Spontaneous actions by affected groups or communities (e.g., search and rescue) are considered irrelevant or disruptive to the work of professional rescuers, because they are not controlled by authorities. The second assumption is that disasters produce "passive" victims, those affected by nervous breakdowns or dysfunctional behavior (pathological selfishness, panic, looting). Therefore they need to be told what to do, and their behavior must be controlled—in extreme cases, through the imposition of martial law. Abundant sociological research refutes these "myths".[8][9].
An alternative view, supported by a considerable body of research, highlights the importance of local communities and organizations in disaster risk management. Local management is justified because it responds to local needs and problems, takes advantage of local expertise and knowledge, is cost-efficient, improves the likelihood of sustainability through "genuine" ownership of projects (local people make them their own), strengthens community technical and organizational capacities, and empowers people to face the challenges posed by disaster and others. Local organizations and people are the main actors in risk reduction and disaster response in any case.[10] Consequently, it has been seen that understanding the social capital already existing in the community can go a long way to reducing community risk.[11][12].
Major floods affected most of Colombia's 32 regions between 2010 and 2012. Some 3.6 million people were affected. On April 24, 2012, President Juan Manuel Santos enacted a law to improve the response to and prevention of natural disasters, both nationally and locally.[13] The Universidad del Norte, based in Barranquilla, has investigated how one community reacted to the destruction caused by flooding, in an effort to make Colombian communities more resilient to similar events that may occur in the future. With funding from the Climate and Development Alliance, the project team spent 18 months working with women from the municipality of Manatí "Manatí (Atlántico)"), in the department of Atlántico "Atlántico (Colombia)").
In this municipality 5,733 women were affected by the floods. They had to rebuild their entire lives in a Manatee they could no longer recognize. The project team worked with the women to discover how they endured the effects of the floods, and to articulate the networks of reciprocity and solidarity that formed in the community. Their findings highlighted resilience strategies that the community used to respond to the extreme event. The researchers suggested that similar strategies could be used in order to inform government actions to reduce or manage disaster risk. They also concluded that it is important to consider gender in disaster planning, because women and men often perform very different roles and because, on average, disasters kill women more.[14].
Governance
The DRR approach requires redefining the role of government. It is generally accepted that national governments should be major actors in DRR: they have a duty to ensure the safety of citizens, the resources and capacity to implement DRR on a large scale, a mandate to direct or coordinate the work of others, and create the necessary legislative and policy frameworks. These policies must be consistent with the programs. More research is needed into why some governments are more successful than others in managing disasters. There is still no consensus on what drives changes in policy and practice. The changing relationships between the central government and other actors constitute another area requiring research.
Accountability and rights
The principle of accountability is at the core of genuine partnership and participation for DRR. It applies both to state institutions—which are expected to be held accountable through the democratic process—and to the private sector and non-profit organizations, not subject to democratic control. Accountability is an emerging theme in DRR. Those who should primarily be held accountable are people vulnerable to hazards or who have been affected by disasters.
Many development aid organizations are now committing to a "rights-based" approach. This tends to encompass human rights (those generally accepted by international agreements) and other possibilities that an agency believes should be recognized as human rights. In such contexts the language of rights may be used vaguely, with the risk of confusion. Safety from disasters is not generally considered a right, although it is reflected in some international codes, usually indirectly. The idea of a "right to security" is being discussed in some circles.
Policies and investment
In a June 2012 study, researchers from the Overseas Development Institute highlighted the need for international policy frameworks to be agreed in 2015 to focus more on disaster risk management (DRM).[15] The economic costs of disasters are increasing, but the majority of humanitarian aid investment is currently spent on responding to disasters, rather than managing their future risks. If this pattern continues, the researchers argue, then "spending on reconstruction and relief will become unsustainable." A greater number of studies, greater political commitment and dialogue between all policy-making sectors will be necessary to change the current unsustainable way of dealing with disasters.
Other articles also highlight the need for a strong gender perspective in disaster risk reduction policies. Studies have shown that women are disproportionately impacted by disasters. Following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, 77% and 72% of deaths in North Aceh and Aceh Besar districts, Indonesia, were female. And in India, 62%.[16] A gender-sensitive approach would identify how disasters affect women, men, girls and boys differently, and shape policies to respond to people's particular vulnerabilities, concerns and needs.[17].