Disaster Risk

Disasters, Pulsed Change and Issues in Risk Reduction

Recurrent disasters and their impacts on vulnerable populations are a major factor constraining development and contributing to endemic poverty. Reflecting increased global recognition of this, the Hyogo Framework for Action was adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan in January 2005.

Seventy percent of disasters are climate related and the impact of such disasters is likely to grow if the frequency and intensity of extreme events increases, as many project, with global climatic change. Furthermore, much of the world’s population lives in vulnerable regions and this number is projected to grow. Unless the cycle of disaster and poverty can be broken, the world stands little chance of ever reaching the Millennium Development Goals.

The Hyogo Framework for Action established the following priorities for action:

As the Hyogo Framework for Action emphasizes, proactive measures for disaster risk reduction are essential in order to reduce recurrent losses and their impacts on development.  In order for national and international organizations to invest in such measures, however, their costs and benefits must be evaluated. In addition, the Hyogo Framework notes the importance of including risk reduction in all aspects of disaster management (emphasis added). As discussed below, we believe this is particularly important with respect to post-disaster reconstruction and recovery processes.

While disasters are a major factor contributing to poverty, they can also serve as windows of opportunity. Existing livelihood and infrastructure systems are often disrupted and local populations are often more willing – or pushed – to make basic changes than at other times. Disasters are also times when large pulses of funding become suddenly available and when political support exists for change. As a result, if strategic approaches can be developed that support effective change in highly disrupted contexts, disasters could serve as windows of opportunity to address some of the long-term, root causes of vulnerability and unsustainable development.

Pulsed Change

Learning to work more effectively with the post-disaster recovery context could also contribute to better understanding of development processes in general. Virtually all development activities focus on linear processes of change. They involve interventions that are designed to build social capacity and infrastructure in an incremental, planned manner. While this type of work is important, recent research on complex systems emphasizes that change is, at fundamental levels, a pulsed process. It often occurs in bursts or phases that are catalyzed by disruption in pre-existing systems. Instability, in effect, frees resources and shatters conventional ways of doing things. This often leads to fundamental re-organization of economic, social and livelihood systems. This reorganization sets the stage for the next phase of more gradual, “linear” development. Attempting to recreate pre-existing conditions merely recreates pre-existing patterns of vulnerability. Changes can shift that vulnerability in fundamental ways. Following Hurricane Katrina, the US is relocating some railway lines 100 miles inland. This isn’t just a matter of infrastructure – it represents a basic enduring shift in landownership and where development will occur. Similar dramatic changes have been witnessed recently in Kachchh where rapid industrialisation is set to free the local communities from dependence on agriculture that is threatened with recurrent droughts. Changes such as these alter vulnerability of livelihoods and infrastructure in ways that could affect patterns of development across multiple generations and hundreds of years. The same can be said for less “visible” changes in institutions (such as insurance).

Viewed in this way, disruptions, including the extreme forms that cause disaster, are windows for structural rebirth. As a result, learning to work with the pulses of change that accompany disaster could lead to fundamental new insights into development processes. By learning to work with pulsed change it may be possible to identify new windows of opportunity and strategic points of entry that are fundamentally different and can achieve results at a much larger scale than conventional linear “development” processes. It is important to recognize that the need is universal. It applies equally directly to challenges the so-called “developed” Northern countries in Europe and the Americas will face as a result of climate change and to similar challenges now and in the future across the global South.

Whatever the opportunities for reducing risks in post-disaster contexts, developing effective approaches may prove complicated. History suggests that support for and awareness of risk reduction needs often fades rapidly after major disasters. The 1936 Louisiana floods catalyzed large flood protection initiatives for New Orleans, but many resulting proposals remained incomplete when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. The 1975 Quetta earthquake that hit Pakistan catalyzed strict codes for public building. These were rarely implemented and, possibly as a result, over 2,000 schools and many other public buildings were destroyed in the recent Kashmir earthquake. Although common, this dynamic is not universal. The 1953 disaster and dyke failures in the Netherlands led to an exceptional professional flood protection system. The Dutch system remains viable as illustrated by their reactions to the likely impacts of climate change. As an interesting parallel, consider the following from the UN:

“India has not experienced famine on any significant scale since Independence, a period including the worst drought this century (1986-88) for wide areas of western and central India. This is historically and comparatively an impressive achievement...

“ The prevention of famine in India now has a political importance that in the short run will also outweigh any other consideration. There is therefore a battery of famine warning and prevention measures, representing a continuation and strengthening of earlier Famine Code practice (Clay et al. 1988).”[2]

In both cases disasters served as the initial catalyst for complex responses leading to sustained courses of action reducing vulnerability. Why has this proved possible when in so many other cases attention has waned between the hazard events that often become disasters? This is a critical question where existing knowledge and research provides few insights. Clearly the overall dynamics of “pulsed” change is a major gap in both social science theory and applied development approaches.

Virtually all development approaches, including those involved with disaster risk reduction, focus on the linear or incremental phases of social change. They seek to create physical, social and institutional capacities by building on existing foundations. They emphasize avoidance of disruption and neither recognize nor make use of the opportunities for fundamental change presented by disruption. The post-disaster reconstruction phase remains peripheral to development and sustainable poverty reduction thinking. Yet it presents opportunities for change and often determines future patterns of vulnerability.

Now to return to the costs and benefits of disaster risk reduction, the primary strategy advocated in the Hyogo Framework for Action. To be effective, interventions to reduce risk must have a sustained impact. The extreme events that catalyze disaster are often infrequent. If the reductions in risk achieved through investments are likely to wane rapidly as memories fade, then the net benefits of such investments are likely to be low. Assessments of the cost and benefits of disaster risk reduction must, as a result, include estimates of the duration of changes in risk profiles disaster risk reduction interventions are capable of achieving.

[1] The key elements listed under each bullet are taken directly from the document: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, ProVention Contributions and Related Activities,
www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/intern-org/ProVention-contribution-HF.pdf

[2] UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, http://www.unsystem.org/scn/archives/india/ch09.htm