Disaster resilience and children: managing food security in Zimbabwe's Binga District

The growing recognition of the vulnerability of children to disasters has added a new impetus to the concept of their involvement in disaster risk reduction programs. Involving children in disaster risk reduction is among those aspects promoted in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 to enhance the resilience of disaster-affected communities. This article presents the results from a research study which investigated the involvement of children in disaster risk reduction programs in Binga District, Zimbabwe, focusing on food security. The results suggest that children are an invaluable part of human agency in disaster contexts, especially in view of increasing numbers of children orphaned by HIV and AIDS. Yet their involvement is still contested. Unless family and cultural pressures imposed on children are recognized and managed in disaster risk programming, the potential of children’s involvement is likely to be missed in building disaster-resilient communities

Contingency planning in southern Africa: Events rather than processes?

With the increasing frequency, magnitude and impact of disasters, there is growing focus on contingency planning as a tool for enhancing resilience. Yet, there is little empirical evidence that reflects on the practice of contingency planning systems within the context of disaster risk reduction. This article explores the practice of contingency planning in southern Africa, focussing on Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A qualitative comparative analysis informed by fieldwork was used. The findings show that (1) there was a wide gap between theory and practice in contingency planning, (2) response activities rarely reflected projected scenarios and (3) resources were inadequate for effective contingency planning. We conclude that unless these issues are addressed, contingency planning is likely o remain a theoretical rather than a practical tool for building disaster-resilient communities in southern African countries. Although a generalisation cannot be made on the status of contingency planning and practice in southern Africa without a wider analysis of more examples, the findings may apply beyond the examined contexts and also offer insights into research gaps

Disaster education in the UK

The seminar series brought together emergency management specialists and educationalists to explore how disaster management knowledge, innovation and education can contribute to building a culture of safety and resilience in the UK. The series was primarily focussed on ways of understanding UK disaster reduction contexts, though informed by contributions from other parts of the world. The strengthening of debate on practical and policy developments for disaster education helped exchange experiences and ideas about dealing with changing hazards and vulnerabilities. This contributed to wider and strengthened interest in disaster risk reduction engagement through associated educational needs. The series analysed conceptual, practical and policy issues surrounding UK disaster education. Institutional partners were The universities of Northumbria (lead), Glamorgan, UCL and Kyoto served as partners with significant inputs from practice institutions, including in hosting of seminars. This facilitated a rich mix of learning cultures from within and without the academy for open debate and awareness building regards learning and education in disaster reduction. There are consequent developments for further activities beyond the life of this grant, such as ongoing additional conference sessions on disaster education, an EU project, and a DFID funded disaster education and community resilience programme in Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. These also feed back into the UK context. The series exposed a deeply held interest in disaster education from within the UK emergency management sector. Key conclusions were the need to develop in depth grounded learning processes, integrated institutional development and mixed qualitative and quantitative tools for the job

Challenges in Creating a Disaster Resilient Built Environment

With the increase in occurrences of high impact disasters, the concept of risk reduction and resilience is widely recognised. Recent disasters have highlighted the exposure of urban cities to natural disasters and emphasised the need of making cities resilient to disasters. Built environment plays an important role in every city and need to be functional and operational at a time of a disaster and is expected to provide protection to people and other facilities. However, recent disasters have highlighted the vulnerability of the built assets to natural disasters and therefore it is very much important to focus on creating a disaster resilient built environment within cities. However the process of making a disaster resilient built environment is a complex process where many challenges are involved. Accordingly the paper aims at exploring the challenges involved in building a disaster resilient built environment. Paper discusses the findings of some expert interviews and three case studies which have been conducted in Sri Lanka by selecting three cities which are potentially vulnerable to threats posed by natural hazards. The empirical evidence revealed, lack of regulatory frameworks; unplanned cities and urbanisation; old building stocks and at risk infrastructure; unauthorised structures; institutional arrangements; inadequate capacities of municipal councils; lack of funding; inadequacy of qualified human resources; and corruption and unlawful activities as major challenges for creating a disaster resilient built environment within Sri Lankan cities. The paper proposes a set of recommendations to address these prevailing concerns and to build a more resilient built environment within cities

Comparing Mutuality and Solidarity in Its Application to Disaster Ethics

Often it has been observed that in disaster situations, people (including victims) become altruistic and are very willing to listen, obey and act in a manner that would help bring an end to the situation. In this chapter, linking disaster ethics and human rights, it is argued that this indeed is how it should be, disaster or otherwise, and that we have moral duties to oneself and to others. An individual exhibiting solidarity, comradery and altruism during a disaster is indeed behaving as a reasonable Self, and exercising ethical individualism as per Gewirthian philosophy. It is the duty of the State and society to act as a supportive State and a caring society. In order to do this, we need to be conditioned for ethical rationality before any whiff of disaster arises, i.e. in our day-to-day conduct and decision-making, at a personal, institutional and transnational level. Our ethical resilience during disasters can only be as robust as our rational moral compass during ‘peace-time’. This chapter argues that Gewirthian solidarity ethics (GSE) should play a role in European policy and action in order to provide a system that conditions ethical rationality and in order to fulfil human rights. This involves addressing our current understanding of human rights as distinct categories of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and to effect a shift towards a more holistic understanding of human rights, whereby the hierarchy of fulfilment does not always prioritise civil and political rights.Peer reviewe

Disaster resilience in development and humanitarian interventions

The connections between disaster recovery and the resilience of affected communities have become common features of disaster risk reduction programmes since the adoption of The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005–2015. Increasing attention is paid to the capacity of disaster-affected communities to recover with little or no external assistance following a disaster. This highlights the need for a change in the disaster risk reduction work culture, with stronger emphasis being put on resilience rather than just needs or vulnerability. The aim of this thesis is to determine the extent to which development and humanitarian interventions promote resilience in disaster-prone areas. Three case studies with elements of resilience building were examined in 2002, 2004 and 2005 using an evaluation framework. Survey and participatory interviewing methods involving more than 1200 participants were employed to gain insights from the implementation of: The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe; The Institutional Support Project in Ethiopia; and The Agricultural Rehabilitation Project in East Timor. There are no easy answers for enhancing disaster resilience through development and humanitarian interventions. However, four conclusions emerging from this study contribute to the emerging disaster resilience body of knowledge, spanning social science disciplines such as geography, environmental management and sociology. Firstly, disaster resilience is the ability to ‘bounce forward’ rather than ‘bounce back’ following a disaster. The notion of ‘bounce back’ implies the capacity to return to a pre- disaster state, which fails to capture the ‘new’ reality created by the disaster. ‘Bounce forward’ encapsulates community continuity within the context of changed realities brought about by the disaster. Secondly, resilience and vulnerability are confirmed as discrete constructs, the one not being the ‘flip side’ of the other. Thirdly, local resilience to disasters is about agency, albeit in a political and economic context. Community agency continuously creates and re-creates, and owns and controls the disaster institutional structures. Fourthly, resilience building resonates with the contiguum approach - it can occur at any phase or multiple phases of the disaster cycle. Thus, the process of resilience building does not necessarily need to adopt a ‘linear’ or continuum approach. The contiguum approach offers opportunities for linking (existing) resilience, relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRRD). Finally, on the basis of the author’s broader experience with similar evaluations elsewhere, the findings of this thesis are robust and generalisable and would not have been significantly different, if different case studies were used. Similarly, the focus of this thesis has been on structures and evaluation processes and outcomes; a different approach might have given rise to different findings