ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2005

In association with Development Policy and Practice and the International Development Centre at the Open University

Milton Keynes, UK
7th-9th September 2005

Connecting people and places: challenges and opportunities for development

These are Sessions E and F.
Session E : September 8th, 15.30 - 16.45 (this is a combined session with the Media and Development Study Group)
Session F : September 9th, 10.15-11.45

SESSION E

Panel Discussion Session: “The Media and Disasters”

Panel members (provisional – not all are confirmed):

• Teresa Hanley, Head of Programmes, PANOS
• Tim Lange, Reuters AlertNet,
• Roland Pease, Science Correspondent, BBC World Service
• Moira Reddick, Head, International Programme Advisory and Development Department, British Red Cross
• Peter Troy, Head of Humanitarian Programmes, Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department, DFID
• John Vidal, Environment Editor, The Guardian

In this session there will be no papers but short presentations by the panel speakers to lead off a discussion on the significance of the media in relation to disasters. While the idea is not to restrict discussion to the tsunami, inevitably it will be fresh in people's minds and may provide ready examples for the discussion. The issues we hope will come up include:

• Are there negative consequences of the way the media report on disasters?
• Do the media "define" what constitutes a disaster through the coverage they give?
• Does this have implications for how Donors, RC and NGOs react to disasters - e.g. defining relief and emergency as the key activities rather than livelihoods, reconstruction and development
• Do the media reflect what viewers/readers “demand”, or do they create the basis on which people only receive certain types of information?
• How should NGOs/RC/Donors deal with the way they are constrained by the media?
• How can NGOs and donors be “educated” to deal with the media, and to have realistic expectations of the media in the context of disasters?
• Is it possible to assist the media to understand disasters in a more holistic manner?
• Can the media be educated to understand that "corruption", "inefficiency", delays etc in the delivery of relief are entirely understandable and often to be considered "normal"?
• Why did the tsunami attract so much attention for the media, what was the impact of this attention, what happened to coverage of other disasters?
• Why are the media interested in disasters, but often only for a short period of time, interested in the guts and glory of disasters but less so in the long term redevelopment and in efforts to limit disasters reoccurring.

From this we hope to begin to draw up guidelines for briefing people in the media so that when a disaster happens they have a better understanding of the issues. Perhaps a small working group could be established to take this project forward.

SESSION F

IN HARM’S WAY: HOW INTERNATIONAL FINANCE INSTITUTIONS’ POLICIES CAN INCREASE POOR PEOPLE’S VULNERABILITY TO DISASTER
Sarah Moss

Natural disasters, or what we think of as being 'natural', present one of the most critical challenges to development in the 21st century. The recent tsunami disaster in south Asia serves as a reminder of what the future may hold. Although tsunamis are rare, the countries affected by this disaster are perennially at risk from extreme weather events, with millions of people affected each year. The effects of climate change are already being realised across the globe and the frequency and impact of so-called natural disasters continue to mount.

Disasters create poverty, destroy assets, reduce incomes and leave communities less able to make a sustainable living and cope with future shocks. They wreak havoc on developing countries' economies and cost billions of dollars in reconstruction. They throw development plans off track and undermine governments' ability to service their debt payments. If current trends continue, disasters will be a key factor preventing the achievement of key millennium development goals (MDGs).

But although hazards themselves, whether cyclones, earthquakes or tsunamis, may be natural, their impact is not. Their cost, both human and economic, is directly related to a society's vulnerability and to past development choices. We know that if we make people less vulnerable, we reduce the cost of disaster. The challenge is to reduce vulnerability by making disaster risk management an integral part of development. It is this challenge which the international financial institutions (IFIs) are failing to meet.

Despite claiming to be at the forefront of disaster management and risk reduction, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and regional banks are promoting policies which can sometimes increase poor people's vulnerability to disaster. Our evidence shows that some of the key projects the IFIs fund, the economic policies they promote, and the conditions they impose on loans deepen poverty and increase vulnerability. In some cases, they support projects which directly put people in harm's way. While governments are ultimately responsible for the protection of their citizens, many low-income countries rely on loans from the IFIs to fund development. These loans often come with conditions attached, political, economic and institutional reforms, which must be implemented in order for the money to be released and to gain access to future funding. In this respect IFIs play a crucial role in influencing, formulating and implementing international and national development policies and practices, which in turn affect disaster risk reduction.

Over the past decade the IFIs have recognised the important role they could play in disaster risk reduction. The World Bank, for example, states that it aims is to include disaster risk reduction in all the projects it funds and to encourage governments to finance risk reduction efforts before disasters strike. It has noted the cost benefits of such action, estimating that economic losses worldwide from natural disasters in the 1990s could have been reduced by US$280 billion if US$40 billion had been invested in preventative measures.

This paper argues that despite encouraging progress, some IFI policies are increasing people's vulnerability to disaster and that IFIs are missing important opportunities to help governments and communities reduce their vulnerability to disaster.

DISASTER INDUCED DISPLACEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT: HOW RELEVANT ARE CURRENT PARADIGMS?
Behrooz Morvaridi, Bradford Centre for International Development, University of Bradford

This paper considers whether disaster-induced displacement and the consequent challenges of resettlement needs a new analytical framework to reflect the context of disaster. There is general consensus that, irrespective of the regional setting, displacement results in considerable disruption and loss of assets for both the individual and the collective, with greater likelihood of socio-economic impoverishment and reduced access to rights entitlements. Displaced people face additional challenges of life in a new environment, living day to day with uncertainties around their survival.

Current paradigms for analyzing and responding to displacement are derived from models and case studies of displacement induced by conflict (for example Internally Displaced Persons and refugee settings) or induced by development (that triggered by large projects such as dams). Displacement and resettlement policies and programmes tend to manage resettlement through risk assessment, and planned mitigation initiatives to support income and livelihoods restoral. This approach is reflected in guidance from the UN and other agencies such as the World Bank. How relevant are these principles to disaster-induced displacement and resettlement? The UN suggests that countries that experience natural disasters, such as the recent Asian tsunami, adopt the ‘Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement’ (1998), which contains only recommendations in respect of the protection of the rights and entitlements of internal displaces, but places no obligations on states. Are there circumstances linked to disaster-induced displacement that require a more tailored analytical framework?

In cases of disaster-induced displacement, timescales alone challenge current approaches. How can resettlement be planned to respond to people’s priorities in unforeseen situations? Where does the challenge of managing disaster-induced displacement lie – within the national or international arena? What is the role of humanitarian assistance and how does this fit with long-term development? What impact does the context of local physical and socio-economic destruction have on planning resettlement? How can existing issues, such local problems of conflict over land, or mistrust of institutions, be managed to support people’s resettlement?

VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS, LIVELIHOODS AND DISASTERS
Terry Cannon, University of Greenwich

In order to understand how people are affected by disasters, it is clearly not enough to understand only the hazards themselves. Disasters happen when a natural phenomenon affects a population that is inadequately prepared and unable to recover without external assistance. But the hazard impact happens to people that are at different levels of preparedness (either by accident or design), resilience, and with varying capacities for recovery. Vulnerability is the term used to describe the condition of such people. It involves much more than the likelihood of their being injured or killed by a particular hazard, and includes the type of livelihoods people engage in, and the impact of different hazards on them.

This paper’s focus is on vulnerability (specifically restricted to the vulnerability of people), and what I call vulnerability analysis (VA). The term vulnerability is now used in such a loose and widespread manner that it is in danger of becoming as useless as the term ‘sustainability’, and so some precision is needed to rescue it. Since the main purpose of disaster risk management is to reduce the suffering of people (whether through death, injury, illness, or loss of livelihoods, assets and income), it seems to make sense to start with people and work back logically from their conditions of vulnerability. If we take people’s vulnerability as the starting point, then we can try to ensure that disaster management is linked to the reduction of the different components of vulnerability.

To conduct vulnerability analysis, we need a clear idea of what vulnerability is. It is not the same as poverty, marginalization, or other conceptualisations that identify sections of the population who are deemed to be disadvantaged, at risk, or in other ways needy. Poverty is a measure of current status: vulnerability should involve a predictive quality specifically in regard to the relevant hazards. It is a way of conceptualising what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular hazard risks. Precisely because it should be predictive, VA should be capable of directing disaster prevention, but also the wider development interventions that can reduce vulnerability while also reducing poverty. It should do this by seeking ways to protect and enhance peoples’ livelihoods, assist vulnerable people in their own self-protection, and support institutions in their role of disaster prevention.