Towards comprehensive community development

Livelihood Centered
Approach to Disaster Management
A Policy Framework for South Asia
A review of its applicability to Sri Lanka
BY SUMITH Pilapitiya

Senior Environmental Engineer, South Asia Environment and Social Development Sector Unit, The World Bank

INTERMEDIATE Technology Development Group (ITDG), South Asia and the Rural Development Policy Institute (RDPI), Pakistan must be commended for producing this publication on a "Livelihood Centered Approach to Disaster Management - A Policy Framework for South Asia".

Considering that Sri Lanka is in the process of recovering from the greatest natural disaster this country has ever faced, this document is very timely.

For a country in a region of the world that has a history of addressing disasters from a post disaster response perspective, a simple, well researched policy framework to proactively approach disaster management from a risk assessment and mitigation context is invaluable.

More importantly, the approach is centered on livelihoods, emphasizing the interrelationship between poverty, disaster risk and livelihoods.

The policy framework calls upon governments, development partners and civil society in South Asia to join together in a paradigm shift in the way disasters are managed. It calls for a focus on reducing vulnerability to potential disasters instead of emergency responses.

It is a well-known fact that South Asia is one of the most disaster prone regions of the world. As if that was not bad enough for us in South Asia, experience has shown that natural hazards hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest, resulting in the affected becoming poorer and more vulnerable, and at greater risk of suffering another disaster.

Generally, efforts to reduce vulnerability have failed miserably when there have been no simultaneous attempts to reduce poverty.

There is an increasing body of literature on disaster management, empowering disaster management, which promoted linkages to development based on livelihood enhancement, empowering disaster prone communities to be more resilient to hazard shocks as well as macro-economic down-turns.

If this knowledge is available, why do South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, still continue to deal with disasters from an emergency recovery standpoint?

One fundamental problem is that we don't look at disasters as part of ecology, which should be managed rather than controlled. The policy framework suggests in addition, that disasters should be treated as issues of development and governance, where states should be made responsive, sensitive and accountable to the demands, needs and rights of disaster prone communities.

The focus of disaster management policies should be towards poverty alleviation and reduction of vulnerability, rather than to compensation and relief responses. While "hard" engineered structural measures are important in strategies for disaster management, these measures should be integrated with "soft" measures such as enhancing entitlements and negotiating power of the most vulnerable communities and subordinate social groups.

Most importantly, disaster prone communities should be engaged equitably in the process of disaster related decision making, development planning and monitoring.

Yet, countries tend to deal with disaster management through a "top down" approach. One obvious reason cited by any government in the region, is that existing legislation is inadequate for effective disaster management.

The proposed disaster management legislation in Sri Lanka, which is expected to provide more "teeth" for government to effectively deal with disaster situations, is a typical response of any South Asian Government to a problem - more legislative control.

It is well known that better legislation alone will not improve the way in which disasters are managed, since legislation is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for effective disaster management.

The Policy Framework articulates all the required ingredients for effective disaster management, as long as governments' in the region "buy into" all the aspects presented. A piecemeal approach to disaster management will result in the situation we are in today.

While there may be a need for more emphasis on certain aspects of the Policy Framework, depending on the country or local situation, there is consensus among disaster management specialists that to be effective, an integrated approach of all aspects identified in the Policy Framework is needed.

Sri Lanka is prone to a variety of natural hazards, which include floods, drought, cyclones, landslides and now, tsunamis and earthquakes.

In addition to the human and economic impacts resulting from disasters, there are serious implications for livelihoods. The Framework identifies the social dimensions of disasters through a nexus between poverty and vulnerability, natural resources and livelihoods, and livelihoods and disasters.

These linkages are not abstract theories but have emerged from "real world" experiences through a recently concluded program by the organizations authoring this framework, on "Livelihood options for disaster risk reduction in South Asia (LODRR).

The program covered five regional countries, including Sri Lanka, where a series of research projects were carried out to explore links between disaster risk and livelihoods.

The research findings reveal that most disaster prone communities live in rural areas and urban peripheries on marginal lands, while being under constant threat from one form of hazard or another. Few livelihood options are available to them at best of times and their livelihood assets are most prone to damage from disasters.

Communities recovering from disasters are most often left more vulnerable due to irreversible impacts on livelihoods. These findings challenge common perceptions of disasters, which largely focus on damage to life and physical structures, as is clearly evident in post-tsunami Sri Lanka.

ITDG and RDPI have used real life experiences as the basis for their policy recommendations. Their grass roots experiments have shown that stable and diversified livelihoods are a key to reducing vulnerability. A sound and diversified livelihood base can shield communities against both economic downturns and natural disasters.

Social and physical infrastructure, if designed according to local needs, brings two tangible deliverables to hazard prone communities.

It increases the hazard mitigation capacity and it protects life and livelihoods from disasters. A livelihood based approach creates self confidence and forges collective community action. It also enhances community involvement in natural resource management.

Most importantly, marginalized communities can be mobilized through livelihood enhancement. Thus, what is being proposed is not only a framework for disaster management, but its effective implementation would result in comprehensive community development. Sustainable risk reduction and poverty alleviation go hand in hand.