Capacity Building Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
Professor Dilanthi Amaratunga, Centre for Disaster Resilience, University of Salford, UK e-‐mail:
[email protected] web: www.dilanthiamaratunga.net
Introduction Disasters are not the necessary result of hazards but occur only when these hazards intersect with the environment, particularly poorly located and poorly constructed development. Since the ability of the built environment to withstand the impacts of hazards plays a direct role in determining the casualties and monetary costs of disasters1, it is important to reduce the vulnerabilities within the built environment and enhance its capacity for disaster mitigation and reconstruction to achieve resilience to disasters. It is indicated that the hazards cannot be managed and it is the characteristics of the built environment that can be managed2 . Therefore, it is essential to improve the capacities of the built environment in order to make it is less vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. In particular, capacity enhancement within different sectors in the society such as governments, non-‐state and private institutions and communities, in relation to the built environment enables to identify constraints and to plan and manage construction activities of the built environment effectively, efficiently and sustainably. This paper introduces a framework that was developed to enhance capacities for disaster mitigation and reconstruction. The framework identifies several stakeholders against four stages of capacity enhancement. The framework introduced through the paper provides an insight to the capacity enhancement process in disaster mitigation and reconstruction from a stakeholder perspective. The framework identifies four stages of capacity enhancement; namely, analysis, development, utilisation and retention whilst establishing national and local governments, international community, other communities, civic society, private and corporate sector and academic and professional associations. The analysis stage of the framework provides the basis to identify required areas for capacity enhancement through analysing existing capacities and identifying gaps. There are many capacities that could be found such as institutions, strategies, frameworks, policies, laws & regulations, projects and programmes which have an orientation towards disaster reduction as the relevant capacities.
1
Mileti, D. S. (1999) Disasters by design. The Changing Risk Landscape: Implications for Insurance Risk Management, In: Britton, N.R., Proceedings of a Conference sponsored by Aon Group Australia Limited. 2 Duque, P. P. (2005) Disaster Management and critical issues on disaster risk reduction in the Philippines. International Workshop on Emergency Response and Rescue, 31October -‐1 November 2005.
1
What is capacity building? In 1990s, concept of capacity building became an essential component in development theory and practice. Organisations with different perspectives, varying from the World Bank to governments and international donor agencies to local civil societies have appropriated the concept. Specifically in developing countries it has been identified as a key concept in achieving sustainability. Following are some of the key definitions of capacity building: • Eade (1997) stated that capacity building is a vague concept both in its conceptualisation and in implementation. • LaFord et al (2002) stated it as an indefinable concept which can be defined as either process or outcome, dynamic and multidimensional. • Goodman et al (1998) described capacity as ability to carry out the stated objectives • Capacity building was defined as process or activity that improves the ability (LaFond et al, 2002). LaFond et al, (2002) further argued that capacity building can be seen in two extremes. In one extreme resides the increase of knowledge and development of skills of individuals through training programs whereas the other, in a broader context integrates wide range of systems such as policy making, management and finance. • UNDP (1997) defines capacity building as a process by which individual, organizations, institutions and societies develop abilities to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives. Further, various scholars argued that it is not solemnly based on ability but also on one’s managerial, physical, human, financial and social assets. • Franks (1999) defines capacity building as the ability of the individual or group to actually perform the responsibilities depending on the resources available to perform. • UNDP (2005) redefined capacity building in much broader terms as the creation of an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal frameworks, institutional development, including community participation, human resources development and strengthening of managerial systems. It further recognizes capacity building as a long-‐term, continuing process, in which all stakeholders need to be participated (Ministries, local authorities, non-‐governmental organizations, professional associations, academics and others). • However, Morgan (1998) argued capacity building as a risky, murky, messy business, with unpredictable and unquantifiable outcomes, uncertain methodologies, contested objectives, many unintended consequences, little credit to its champions and long time lags.
Importance of capacity building Capacity building initiatives in research context is significantly underpinned by theories relating to organizational change, knowledge transfer, social action, systems theory, behavioral science, public administration and community psychology (Hentry et al 2004), specifically related to human health, ecological systems and socio-‐economics sectors in developing countries in recent past. This is mainly due to lack of financial, institutional and technological capacities and access to knowledge to deal with risks and benefits (Ayele and Wield, 2005). Boyd and Juhola, (2009) indicate that capacity building provides an opportunity to understand strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities towards a resilient future through identification of broader issues around sustainable development of a particular program, project or process, including their unique cultural, social, and ecological characteristics. Though capacity building has become popular in recent decades, it was in existence since 1950s. In 1974 it was termed as a “capacitation”, an effort to measure and promote relief and development programmes by donors (Wolfe, 1996). In 1980’s it was termed as “capabilities approach” which provides opportunities to improve people’s quality of life through access to wide range of capabilities. In early, 1990’s, capacity building has been termed to focus on issues related to management and administration at governess levels. McGuire et al (1994) stated that with the shift of economic growth from national governments to local governments, where demands were placed by communities for new jobs, higher personal incomes and new infrastructure, development capacity at local levels is a prime determinant of economic and government performance. Blunt, (2003) claimed that it enhanced accountability and transparency of
2
various systems which eventually enhance the confidence of public towards governance. More literature revealed capacity building in broader terms of service delivery on organizations and health systems in developing countries. In addition, capacity building has become dominant in disaster management, policy and practice in recent decades with increasing impacts of climate change (UNISDR, 2005). Specifically, building of local capacities in human skills, technology, data, models and methods to face future disasters in developing countries. Accordingly, literature established that early efforts of capacity building mainly focused on achieving basic institutional activities and improving ability of organizations to handle effectively donor funded projects. However, recent examples bear evidence of broadening scope of capacity building, such as development of policies in various contexts.
Capacity building strategies and evaluation measures Enhancing required capacities for disaster risk reduction is a long and slow process that requires a significant commitment from various stakeholders involved and some resources. However, there is a dearth of literature on this process and it has not been clearly identified and described especially from a stakeholder perspective. Thus, the following framework has been developed to describe this complex process in terms of various stakeholders involved in the process against four stages of capacity enhancement. Stages of Capacity Enhancement
Development/ creation
Analysis
Stakeholders
National and local governments International community Community Civic society
Private and corporate sector Academia and professional associations Figure: Capacity development framework
Utilisation
Retention
Method of framework development The idea of developing a framework for capacity enhancement with a stakeholder perspective was brought into reality mainly through a series of interviews. Notably, over twenty five interviews with experts including in disaster risk mitigation and resilience were conducted to capture expert opinion on capacity enhancement in the relevant context. Interviews were selected as the best technique to map the capacity enhancement process with a stakeholder perspective since it is extremely effective in identifying people’s experiences, opinions and expectations. In addition, a detailed literature review was conducted in order to identify the components and steps of capacity enhancements in the focused context. In this context, the literature review ensured that the knowledge on capacity enhancement was up to date and the aspects which have been previously explored were not going to be reinvented. Further, data collected through these techniques were supplemented by several workshops and focus groups which were conducted with practitioners and academics. Subsequently, the draft framework of capacity enhancement was invented. The framework was established after the draft was validated through another set of expert interviews.
3
Stages of capacity enhancement The vertical axis of the framework illustrates four stages of capacity enhancement. These four stages are briefly explained below3 : Analysis It is increasingly recognised that the term capacity building is misleading, as building has the undertone of starting something from the beginning, whereas in practice, improving capacity must take account of the current context. One common and problematic theme of capacity development is the individual nature of capacity development interventions. Capacity development is highly influenced by local context and thus is unique in each of its applications. The first stage of capacity development focuses on the analysis of existing capacity, and identification and prioritisation of capacity gaps. Development/creation The second stage focuses on the need to create capacity in order to address the identified gaps. Creating capacity requires enormous efforts and time in understanding the local context and finding appropriate means to build capacity. Effective human and institutional capacity rests on a strong foundation that facilitates the creation of new capacities through learning opportunities as well as by putting in place processes that enhance the adaptability required for dealing with a dynamic environment. Such a foundation is created through formal training, informally through on-‐the-‐job training, as well as through accumulation of norms, routines and processes, which promote capacity creation on a continuous basis. Utilisation The third stage considers howdeveloped capacities are mobilised and deployed under realistic conditions. A failure to make effective use of existing capacities can undermine mitigation and reconstruction activities. Efficient and effective use of existing capacities is an important aspect of capacity building as it recognises the need to make use of the affected community’s own assets, thereby reducing its sense of helplessness. Making the best use of existing capacities will involve mobilisation of all the creative and innovative capacities that can be found in existing human and institutional capacities Retention The final stage addresses the need to retain and sustain capacity over time. Capacity development must be designed in such a way that it is sustainable beyond any initial external intervention. Sustaining capacity is more likely to occur in the context of stable political, institutional and economic conditions that provide an atmosphere of support for the capacity building efforts in society. Sources of funding are an important element of sustainability and capacity retention. In the long-‐run, the key to sustaining capacity will be the availability of local sources of funding. Sustainable capacity building will need to address the capacity to mobilise domestic resources.
Stakeholders of capacity enhancement Capacities in the world exist in different forms such as knowledge, skills, technology and resources. However, the capacities necessary for effective disaster risk reduction mitigation in general could be represented through comprising a society with organisations particularly deal with disaster issues, well-‐ developed disaster plans and preparedness, coping mechanisms, adaptive strategies, memory of past disasters, good governance, ethical standards, local leadership, physical capital, resilient buildings and infrastructure that cope with and resist extreme hazard forces, etc. (Benson et al., 2007). Accordingly, the institutions, strategies, frameworks, policies, laws & regulations, projects and programmes, etc. which have been developed can be considered as the relevant capacities. 3
Ginige & Amadatunga, D. (2011) Capacity Development for Post-‐Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment In Amaratunga, D. & R. Haigh, eds. Post-‐Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Building for resilience. Wiley-‐Blackwell: Chichester.
4
Alongside human causalities, disasters are usually associated with enormous damage and destruction to the built environment. This impact restricts the development of the economy, annihilating the physical and personal lives of victims, while increasing the likelihood of epidemics. It frequently takes a prolonged period to reinstate the personal, economic, and social lives of the affected due to lack of financial and intellectual resources4. It also opens the way for large scale construction projects: a temporary, one time only and short-‐term undertaking that is creating the built environment. Stakeholders of an organisation are usually identified as the groups who have a direct relevance to the organisation’s core economic interests. A broader view of stakeholders also considers those who may be affected, positively or negatively, by the organisation5. With this broader view, individuals, groups, neighbourhoods, organisations, institutions, societies and even the natural environment can be considered as actual or potential stakeholders. However, when a process is taken into account, stakeholders can generally be defined as the individuals or organisations that gain or lose from the success or failure of the particular process. Thus, in the process of capacity development for post-‐disaster reconstruction, they are the entities which gain or lose from the success or failure of the process. According to Newcombe (2003)6 stakeholders of a construction project are groups or individuals who have a stake in, or expectation of, the project’s performance and include clients, project managers, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users and the community. Similarly, stakeholders of post-‐ disaster reconstruction are the groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by the achievement of a reconstruction project’s objectives. Incidentally, capacities necessary for reconstruction emerge from different parties in the society, such as government and local governments, international agencies, academia and professional bodies, private organisations and non-‐government organisations, and the local community. All these parties might be considered as stakeholders to the post-‐disaster reconstruction process. In this context, the capacity of all these stakeholders must be considered if the goals of reconstruction are to be achieved efficiently, effectively and sustainably. Freeman and Reed’s (1983)7 definition of stakeholders as, ‘any identifiable group or individual who can affect the achievement of an organisation’s objectives, or who is affected by the achievement of an organisation’s objectives’, is widely cited across the literature. Nickols (2005) adds that a stakeholder is a person or group with an interest in seeing an endeavour succeed and without whose support the endeavour would fail. This implies that stakeholders are individuals, groups of people, organisations and institutions who can influence the strategic decisions of an organisation. Stakeholders can be at any level or position in society, from the international to the national, regional, household or intrahousehold level8. The priorities of each stakeholder group will vary, depending on the country, role and the resource availability. Engaging with each stakeholder group will be vital if the objectives of the reconstruction project or programme are to be achieved efficiently and effectively. It is therefore important to identify a suitable classification for the stakeholders that emerge. Incidentally, understanding existing institutional level and individual level capacities is very important for understanding the potential impact of future disasters and deciding how to intervene and enhancing the capacities. All these parties might be considered as stakeholders . In this context, the capacity of all these 4
Pardasani, M. (2006) Tsunami reconstruction and redevelopment in the Maldives: a case study of community participation and social action. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15, 79–91.
5
Mithell, R., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
6
Newcombe R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics. 21, 841–848.
7
Freeman, E.R. and Reed, D.L. (1983) Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review (pre-‐1986), 25, 88–106. 8 Siriwardena, N. & Haigh, R. (2011) Stakeholder Consultation in the Reconstruction Process. In Amaratunga, D. & R. Haigh, eds. Post-‐Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Building for resilience. Wiley-‐Blackwell: Chichester, 7.
5
stakeholders must be considered if the goals are to be achieved efficiently, effectively and sustainably. Accordingly, the subsequent section discusses the relevant existing capacities under aforementioned stakeholder categories9 : National and local government Government performs a critical role in development since it has a unique capacity as a mediator between private and public interests and as an actor with local, national and international connections10. National and local governments of a country hold the main responsibility for the coordination of different stakeholders at different levels. Coordination among different stakeholders and different levels of authorities such as local, provincial, national and international should be ensured in order to achieve success in disaster management of a country. Government’s capability as a mediator and coordinator can facilitate a country by transferring technical know-‐how and good practice that are useful for integrating disaster risk reduction from other countries. Similarly, it can bring finances and other resources to a country through its international relations. Further, national and local governments of a country have the authority to develop and enforce rules, laws and regulations. In relation to disaster risk reduction, governments have administrative and legislative power to enforce regulations and policies on construction operations. Thus, regulating the process of construction to ensure that necessary disaster mitigation and prevention measures are integrated into the practice to reduce disaster risk through enforcement of policy and legislation becomes a duty of national and local government. According to Bosher et al. (2007)11, building codes, proper engineering design and construction practices, and land-‐use plans and regulations are critical for disaster mitigation. Thus this group of stakeholders is defined as public and semi-‐public entities that have the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations in this categorization. International community Non-‐profit making organisations which possess membership of more than one country and set up as intergovernmental organisations or international non-‐governmental organisations are considered as the international community under this categorisation. International organisations can be seen in two main types, namely, intergovernmental organisations and international non-‐governmental12. The first type is set up by intergovernmental agreements such as United Nations whilst the second, which are voluntary and open to any one who wishes to join, is formed by private individuals and groups. International community also performs a significant role in formulation of policies, guidelines and regulations for disaster risk reduction. International entities such as the UNISDR and the UNDP are some leading performers in relevant policy making. The policy guidelines such as Hyogo Framework for action and United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are globally agreed international agendas for integrating disaster risk reduction for development activities around the world. Thus, international community attempts to bring different nations together to achieve disaster risk reduction under common agendas. In addition, international community provides necessary assistance for disaster risk reduction for nations in need. Incidentally, capacities and experiences of international community in the field of disaster management are vitalmainly because, in many developing countries, the lack of knowledge, resources and expertise can be overcome by adequate global cooperation in tackling natural disasters13 (El-‐Masri and Tipple, 2002). Thus, in the context of disaster risk reduction, international community is able to provide necessary skills and knowledge, technology and financial aid. 9
Ginige & Amadatunga, D. (2011) Capacity Development for Post-‐Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment In Amaratunga, D. & R. Haigh, eds. Post-‐Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Building for resilience. Wiley-‐Blackwell: Chichester. 10 UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development. Geneva: UNDP. 11 Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P. and Glass J. (2007a) Built-‐in resilience to disasters: a pre-‐emptive approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14 (5), 434-‐446. 12 Iriye, A. (2002) Global community: the role of international organisations in the making of the contemporary world, California: University of California Press 13 El-‐Masri, S. and Tipple, G. (2002) Natural disaster, mitigation and sustainability: The case of developing countries. International Planning Studies, 7(2), 157-‐175.
6
Community Community is identified as the individuals and groups sharing a natural and built environment that is vulnerable to hazards. In other words, community is the general public; the users and occupants of the built environment and the beneficiaries of disaster risk reduction. Thus, special community needs and concerns require to be necessarily integrated into disaster risk reduction initiatives. According to Lawther (2009)14, involvement of the beneficiaries and the wider community in the reconstruction can lead to more sustainable outcomes of projects. As UNISDR states, disaster risk reduction strategies need to build on people’s local knowledge and cultural practices, and apply tools and approaches that people can easily understand and integrate into their lives. In particular, members of local communities represent the greatest potential source of local knowledge of hazardous conditions, and are the repositories of traditional coping mechanisms suited to their individual environment UNISDR. Thus, experience and participation of local community are extremely important in disaster risk reduction. Their leadership and involvement in the relevant initiatives, and their knowledge and experiences related to the disaster vulnerabilities of the area, safe locations for construction and local resources that can be used for construction are significant in this context. Civic society This group includes the non-‐governmental organisations (NGOs) that participate in disaster risk reduction activities, including not-‐for-‐profit and voluntary groups that are organised on a local, national or international level. These are the voluntary and social organisations that are non-‐state owned who appear for the purposes of disaster risk reduction. The UNISDR Secretariat believes that building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters cannot be done without the active participation of NGOs. In this context, UNISDR is determined to build a Global Network of NGOs for Community Resilience to Disasters, with the aim of addressing disaster risk reduction issues at subnational and community levels. UNISDR highlights following activities as the most important of NGOs’ role in disaster risk reduction. • NGOs can operate at grassroots level with communities and local organisations as partners, and take a participatory approach to development planning. This allows them to respond better to local people’s priorities and build on local capacities. • NGOs enjoy higher operational flexibility as they are relatively free from bureaucratic structures and systems, and better able to respond and adapt quickly and easily. • NGOs often work with and on behalf of most needy groups: the poorest and the most vulnerable. Thus, the assistance extended by the civic society towards risk reduction can be through policy development and advocacy, education and awareness raising, technical assistance and human resources for risk and vulnerability assessments and enhancing community participation into local construction activities. Private and corporate sector This category consists of privately owned profit-‐orientated business and industrial groups. In most societies, the private sector has been the driving force behind socio-‐economic development. According to UNISDR, the private sector adversely suffers from the consequences of disasters and therefore it has a role to play in reducing disaster risk. In general, the private sector has a role to play in moving towards sustainable development that incorporates an awareness of disaster risk15. In this context, the UN Global Compact, launched in 2000 to bring businesses together with UN agencies, labour, civil society and governments requests businesses to integrate disaster prevention into their decision-‐making. Incidentally, there are various private and corporate sector institutions which have a direct interest in disaster risk reduction. 14
Lawther, M.L. (2009) Community involvement in post disaster reconstruction-‐ Case study of the British red cross Maldives recovery programme, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, June 2009 15 UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development. Geneva: UNDP.
7
In particular, the majority of the developers, consultants, contractors and subcontractors, banks and finance institutions that design, construct, maintain and finance the environment can be categorised under this stakeholder group. They are the entities who are responsible for implementation of policies, regulations or guidelines including building codes and construction standards for disaster risk reduction in actual practice to minimise disaster vulnerabilities. Academia and professional associations This group of stakeholders are universities, research organisations, and professional associations engaged in research, and training and development of individuals and organisations involved in disaster risk reduction. Academia and various professional associations are the prominent stakeholders in disaster risk for related education, training and research and development for professionals and other workers, invention of methods and techniques for reconstruction and development of technical standards and guidelines for reconstruction
Discussion The framework introduced provides an insight to the capacity enhancement process in disaster mitigation and reconstruction from a stakeholder perspective. The framework identifies four stages of capacity enhancement; namely, analysis, development, utilisation and retention whilst establishing national and local governments, international community, non state actors, the private sector and local community as the stakeholders of the process. The analysis stage of the framework provides the basis to identify required areas for capacity enhancement through analysing existing capacities and identifying gaps. There are many capacities that could be found in the context of disaster reduction and reconstruction. The paper found the institutions, strategies, frameworks, policies, laws & regulations, projects and programmes which have an orientation towards disaster reduction and reconstruction as the relevant capacities. However, regulations like building codes, construction standards and land use policies, and the skills and knowledge of the stakeholders including professionals and local communities on disaster mitigation and reconstruction are the key capacities in the given context. Although it has been noted that there are many capacities which exist in relation to post-‐disaster reconstruction, there are number of capacity gaps that need to be addressed in order to make reconstruction more effective. Lack of appropriate policies, deficiencies in policy implementation, deficiencies in state of the art technology for rapid and sustainable reconstruction, deficiencies in trained and skilled human resources for post-‐disaster reconstruction, and lack of disaster reconstruction related knowledge, experience and coordination among stakeholders can be highlighted as bkey capacity gaps in relation to post-‐disaster reconstruction. Thus, bridging these gaps is extremely important in achieving successful post-‐disaster reconstruction. Development of necessary capacities in a sustainable approach is essential to overcome the capacity gaps. Therefore, a framework has been introduced for capacity development for post-‐disaster reconstruction with a stakeholder perspective in this chapter. Capacity development for post-‐disaster reconstruction is referred to as the ability of relevant stakeholders to identify constraints and to plan and manage reconstruction effectively, efficiently and sustainably. The framework identifies four stages of capacity development; namely, analysis, creation, utilisation and retention. These stages are identified against the aforementioned stakeholder groups that are involved in post-‐disaster reconstruction. The capacity development framework brings several advantages by integrating a stakeholder perspective to capacity development and by fragmenting the process of capacity development for post-‐disaster reconstruction into smaller elements whilst emphasising the relationships among those elements
8
