Natural Disasters and Resilient Communities

Solvor Lauritzen The University of York

All corners of the world are repeatedly hit by disasters. Climate change increases this rapidity, and community resilience grows in relevance accordingly. In times to come it is likely that dry areas will get drier, and wet areas wetter, the weather will become more extreme, and droughts will be longer and more intense, sea levels will rise, and water supplies will decrease (Norwegian Church Aid and Church of Sweden, 2007). As often is the case, poor countries are the most affected by these changes. The Haiti earthquake and Pakistan flood are examples of two great tragedies of the year 2010. How can communities be resilient in times of such tragedies? This paper will explore the concept of resilience, and give examples of how aid organisations can strengthen the resilience of communities in connection to natural disasters. Through risk reduction and strength enhancing, communities worldwide can be given a greater chance to survive and keep an acceptable level of living despite disasters. One way of doing this is presented in the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, which will be discussed in further detail below.

What is resilience? Resilience is not a new phenomenon as such, but is relatively new in research. Werner and Smith pioneered in the area when they carried out a study on children growing up under difficult circumstances in Hawaii in the 1950s (e.g. Werner and Smith, 1992). Their study was unique in the focus it took on those children with a positive development, rather than those with a negative. The research on resilience had begun.

Resilienz ist die Fähigkeit Krisensituationen zu bewältigen; or Resilience is the ability to overcome a situation of crisis. (Lang et.al 2009: my translation)

1

This definition is the working definition of the interdisciplinary resilience team at Internationales Forschungszentrum (ifz)1 (Lang et.al, 2009). In their explanation of the definition, three points are emphasised through further explanation. First, ability in the definition refers to an acquired rather than an innate ability. Although the resilience of an individual may build on innate characteristics, the resilience itself can be learned and forgotten. I would argue that this supports the understanding that it is possible for 'the outside' to foster resilience in the individual. Second, the ifz team draw attention to the definition of 'crisis', which is defined as a situation in which one doesn't have an immediate coping strategy. They claim that a situation can thus be difficult and wearing without it being a crisis by definition. This is worth noticing, as they claim resilience only to exist in the presence of a crisis. In this paper, the crisis in question will be disasters. Disasters will here refer to situations caused by natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, cyclones and drought. Although these disasters have their reason in nature, and are commonly referred to as “acts of God”, it is important to remember that they often occur partly because of human action (Doyle, 2010). Third, ifz draw attention to what is meant by bewältigen; coping or overcoming. They claim there to be at least four different levels of outcome from this process; dysfunctional overcoming, overcoming with loss, overcoming through recreation, and overcoming with growth. Further, ifz argue that a strict definition of resilience only would include the last possibility; overcoming with growth, whereas a more open definition also would also include the second last; overcoming through recreation. Resilience applies to every level, from individual to global. The definition proposed by Lang et.al uses the individual as an example, but claims itself to be relevant to other levels as well. Rutter, an acknowledged resilience researcher writes on resilience at individual level in psychology. She supports the open understanding of resilience proposed by ifz in the following definition:

Resilience is operationally defined in terms of a relatively good outcome despite the experience of situations that have been shown to carry a major risk for the development of psychopathology. (Rutter, 2000: 653)

The goal for resilience is in this definition seen as relative good outcome. In my opinion, this fits to the last two points emphasised from ifz's definition of Bewältigen, if not the last three; overcoming with growth, overcoming through recreation and overcoming with loss. This because the outcome is 1

Ifz, internationales Forschungszentrum, is an international research centre in Salzburg working on social and ethical questions. See www.ifz-salzburg.at for further information.

2

seen relative to the crisis in question, which could mean that despite an outcome that is not on the same level as before the situation of risk occurred, it is an outcome that is good relative to the strength of the crisis. Interesting in this definition is also that no crisis is in question, but that resilience can occur in “situations that have been shown to carry a major risk for the development of psychopathology” (Rutter, 2000: 653). For Rutter, it seems to be the risk that is of importance, not the crisis as such. The emphasis from ifz on the connection between a crisis and immediate coping strategy doesn't seem to be of importance to Rutter. In addition to the two definitions mentioned so far, I would like to cite Luthar (2006), another acknowledged researcher within the field of resilience:

Resilience by definition encompasses atypical processes, in that positive adaptation is manifested in life circumstances that usually lead to maladjustment. (Luthar, 2006: 739)

In this definition, resilience is highlighted as process. This relates to the claim in ifz's definition that resilience is not an innate, but acquired ability; the resilience ability can be acquired and developed through process. This process points to the interaction between the abilities of the individual, and the factors in the environment (Gjelsvik, 2007). Whereas early research on resilience mainly focused on identifying factors of risk and factors of resilience, later research has engaged itself more with how these factors interact with each other. Rather than it being single factors that determine the resilience of an individual, it is the process of many factors that is of importance. The interaction process happens over time, and resilience is not seen as a static concept, but changes during this time span. Resilience is consequently not only an outcome that has to be reached, but must be maintained and recreated (Helmen Borge, 2007). Resilience is a complex concept, and consequently many definitions have been proposed. The core developed from the three definitions above, however, seem to be a process of good functioning relative to circumstances of risk. The words despite and why are important; good functioning despite risks. One of the tasks for research on resilience is to investigate why this process takes place.

Community resilience The definitions of resilience mentioned so far have provided a base for further discussion of resilience on community level, which is the main focus of this paper. Before going into this in further detail, I would like to pay some attention to the term “community”. 3

According to Twigg (2007), communities are usually described in spacial terms in emergency management.

[Communities are] Groups of people living in the same area or close to the same risks. (Twigg, 2007: 6)

Although this is a useful definition when discussing disaster resilient communities, it overlooks important aspects of communities such as common interests, values, activities and structures. Communities are more complex than the definition proposes, as the “people living in the same area” can have different status in terms of wealth and social status, as well as undertake different labour activities (Twigg, 2007). Also, individuals often belong to different subgroups determined by religion, interests and gender, and belong to several groups at the same time. Although “community” as a spacial term may be the most fruitful in connection with disasters, one must not overlook the other dimensions. When disasters occur, some groups or individuals may be more vulnerable than others (UNICEF, 2009). I will argue that a truly resilient community is one that does not leave anyone behind. Thus it is especially important to identify vulnerable groups, and understand the factors that contribute to vulnerability.

Understanding how communities work is considered key to understanding resilience and a precondition for helping strengthen people's capacities to cope with and recover from disaster. (IFRC, 2004: 27).

Resilience cannot be understood in isolation, but must be seen in its context. All communities are different, and resilience will therefore accordingly mean different things in different communities. As will be discussed below, both vulnerabilities and strengths vary. A great deal of local knowledge is therefore necessary when fostering resilience.

Understanding resilience also requires understanding the policy and institutional environment, how people relate to it, where power lies, and what influences decisions and change. (IFRC, 2004: 31)

4

In addition to knowledge about the people, one must also be aware of the relations of power in a community. As will be described later, under “social capital”, a crucial aspect in fostering resilience is that the whole community, regardless of power relations, work together towards the same aim. I will argue that the creation of resilient communities can be approached from two angles. First, I will present how the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) argue that resilient communities can be built through risk reduction, where the focus lies on risk and vulnerability, and ways of lowering these. Second, I will provide a discussion on the approach from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), where the focus is moved from vulnerability to strength, and where the resilient community is seen as built through enhancing the strengths of a community.

Building resilient communities through risk reduction “Sign up today to make your city resilient to disasters” is one of the first things you read when entering the site of UNISDR. This is one of the campaigns from UNISDR aiming at reducing the risk for disasters. In the middle of January 2005, delegates from more than 160 countries met in Hyogo, Japan for the “World Conference on Disaster Reduction” convened by the United Nations General Assembly. The conference was held only shortly after the dreadful 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami where 220,000 lives in 12 countries were taken. The topic of disasters was highly relevant, and one of the outcomes of the conference was that a framework for action was written; “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” (ISDR, 2005). Making cities “sign up” is one of the practical results from this. Gjelsvik (2007) claims resilience and prevention to be closely related. She argues that resilience research is at its most effective when it concerns itself with informing strategies for prevention. The UNISDR does exactly this; they work on community resilience worldwide with focus on disaster risk reduction. They say the following in their definition of resilience formulated in Geneva in 2004:

[Resilience is] the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organising itself to increase the capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures. (Cited in UNISDR, 2005:4, my italics). 5

The words in italics will be discussed further. In this definition, resilience is seen as the capacity to adapt. This adoption can happen through either resisting or changing. In line with the definitions from ifz and Luthar, resilience is in this definition not seen as a static characteristic, but as an ability that that can be developed through process. Part of this process is to learn from past disasters. Worth noticing is also that the capacity can be measured and strengthened before the crisis occur as it says that the community is potentially exposed to hazards. Resilience can thus be seen, in line with Rutter, in the presence of risk, and not necessary in a crisis as such. Although the difference between risk and crisis may not seem to be particularly important at first glance, it touches on a great debate in resilience research. Whereas many scholars (e.g. Longstaff 2004) argue for a distinction between resistance and resilience, UNISDR stand in a different tradition. They argue that facilitation of resilient communities could mean reducing risks, or preventing disasters from taking place. Prevention is part of resilience as it occurs in the presence of risks. The suggestion that resilience can exist in the presence of risk is important, as the main aim for UNISDR is to create resilient communities through risk reduction. The definition from UNISDR also suggests a measure for if a community is resilient or not: “reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure”. Two important points can be drawn from this; resilience can be reached, and it can be maintained. Resilience changes over time, and although a community may seem resilient in the short term, this is not necessary true in the long run, and the other way round. Also, UNISDR's definition claims that the resilient community does not necessarily need to be strengthened by the crisis, but reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is in line with the definition proposed by Rutter, which claimed the outcome of resilience to be relatively good outcome, and the open definition by ifz, which included overcoming through recreation, and overcoming with growth. The last point I want to emphasis from the UNISDR definition is that resilience is claimed to be determined by two factors; protection and risk reduction. The definition of resilience proposed by UNISDR was written in the context of disaster risk reduction. Due to this, it places a strong emphasis on prevention, which may contradict to the conventional understanding of resilience. In my opinion, risk reduction, as described in the definition above, represent important aspects of resilience. However, I would also argue that it is important to look at the community after the disaster has occurred, and enhance the strengths the community need in order to respond resiliently. The next section discusses this approach in further detail.

Building resilient communities through focus on strengths Whereas UN/ISDR (2004) mainly focus on the importance of prevention and risk reduction for resilient communities, the “World Disasters Report” published by the International Federation of 6

Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) the same year puts a stronger emphasis on the strengths already present in the communities. Perhaps more in line with the definitions proposed by ifz, Rutter and Luthar than the one by UNISDR, IFRC claim resilience mainly to be about enhancing strengths. The report even radiates certain scepticism towards the strong focus in aid on risk reduction:

Even practice concerned with mitigating, preventing or preparing for disasters is often defined under the general rubric of disaster risk reduction, implying a certain level of risk and ways of lowering it, rather than an equally explicit identification of levels of resilience and ways of strengthening it. (IFRC, 2004: 16)

Important in the IFRC report is that every community has strengths, and that identifying and strengthening these would be as effective or more effective when mitigating, preventing or preparing for disasters as identifying and lowering risks. IFRC argues that in humanitarian, risk reduction and development work, resilience should replace need and vulnerability at the heart of the debate. Traditional response to disaster reduction is criticised for the strong emphasis on vulnerability and needs assessment. This insufficient approach seems to be the most common practice despite the findings in resilience research showing that it is far more effective to enhance the strengths already present in the communities. Outside organizations can act as catalysts for creating resilience in this way (IFRC, 2004). As part of this shift in humanitarian aid, IFRC claims it necessary with further research into how individuals cope and adapt to adverse circumstances. Through this knowledge it will be possible to build interventions on the strengths rather than vulnerabilities. As previously mentioned, local knowledge of the community is central in the understanding of resilience. Although international aid organisations come in as experts to help, it is critical that they listen to communities at risk, and learn how they cope with crisis. Through this knowledge, the organisations can in turn activate programmes to facilitate resilience building on the human skills and resources already present. Resilience is strongly interconnected with context and culture, and supporting disaster resilience may therefore need different kinds of interventions in different communities. One possible outcome of research on community resilience is to indicate how communities might respond to a crisis, so that interventions could be activated before the situation turns into a disaster. This is a potential way to combine the two approaches of risk reduction and focus on skills 7

and resources. However, despite risk reduction and enhancing of strengths, it will always be impossible to predict exactly how resilient the community is. I would argue that in order to create a truly resilient community, one must both reduce the risks, and facilitate strengths. A focus on only one of the aspects could leave the community vulnerable. The next part of the paper, which will present and discuss the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, will give examples of how resilient communities can be fostered through a mutual focus on prevention and risk reduction, and enhancing strengths.

Discussion of the definition for this paper I would like to summarise the discussion on resilience provided so far in four points. First, from the definition created by the ifz research team I would like to highlight that resilience can be learned and developed. There is therefore hope for every community, and aid organisations can take the role as teacher or facilitator. Second, Rutter claimed in his definition that resilience is seen in relative good functioning. In line with this I will not search for strengthening through crisis, but rather look at how communities at risk can keep an acceptable standard of living. Third, Luthar emphasises resilience as process. Together with ifz's emphasis on resilience as an acquired rather than an innate ability, this could be taken in account for the possibility for aid organisations to catalyse resilience in communities at risk for disasters. Lastly, UNISDR draws attention to the function of risk reduction for resilience, whereas ICRC argues for a shift towards strengthening the strengths already present in the community. I would argue the two approaches to be of equal importance, and they will both be included in the discussion of practical implication in the next section of the paper. Thus, a basic principle behind this article is the belief that cities, nations and communities can at least to some extent develop resilience to disasters. Risk and resilience are opposite sides of the same coin; resilience does only exist in the presence of risks. However, when talking about resilient communities, both need to be in focus. The risks have to be reduced, and the resilience strengthened.

Introduction to Sustainable Livelihoods and 'layers of resilience' The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) has communities in focus, and central to the approach is the principle to build on strengths, which supports a resilience perspective. The approach was first proposed in the mid 1980s, but it was first after a paper published by Chambers and Conway in the early 1990s that it became a common way of thinking about development work (Glavovic et.al., 2002). SLA is not a set strategy as such, but proposes a shift in focus, with the elimination of poverty as its final goal. 8

Chambers and Conway (1991) draw attention to development work which often has set its main aim to increase the economic situation of people. The two researchers claim that this is not sufficient, as rural communities not only have their strengths and weaknesses in economy, but are far more complex. They argue natural, financial, human, social, and physical capital to be of importance. These capitals can be compared to what in psychology is commonly referred to as resilience factors, or what Glavovic et.al (2002) label levels of resilience. Before going into the five capitals in further detail, I would like to pay some attention to these two concepts, resilience factors and layers of resilience, as they provide a unique connection to SLA. Central concepts in the research on resilience are “resilience factors” and “risk factors”. Resilience research does as we have seen in the definitions above concern itself with satisfactory development despite risks. Factors of risk are the circumstances in the individual or the environment which threatens good functioning and development. Werner and Smith (e.g. 1992), the two forerunners in research on resilience, conducted a previously mentioned study on children growing up in poverty and under risk on the Kauai island of Hawaii. Examples of the factors of risks were somatic or mental illness among the parents, divorced parents, and serious child diseases. Normally, these factors would lead to negative development among the children. They found, however, that many of the children challenged this presumption. Among the children with relatively good functioning despite the factors of risk, some abilities or components occurred repeatedly (Werner and Smith, 1992). Characteristics in the individuals were for example that they had high level of activity as babies, hobbies and interests, and good communicative abilities. In the surroundings, close friends, structure and rules at home, more carers than the mother, and a good relationship to the siblings were seen frequently. These aspect, which seemed to play a role in the relatively good functioning were labelled resilience factors. The resilience factors have many variables, including gender, culture and time. In a study conducted among children in the war zone of Palestine, for example, Punamäki (1987) found that greater responsibility at home functioned as a resilience factor for the girls. Greater responsibility gave them a positive feeling of being needed, as well as giving more opportunities for interaction in the family, which in turn strengthened their independence and self confidence, and reduced the risk of developing mental illnesses. One could also imagine that great responsibilities at home could add to pressure under different circumstances, and function as a factor of risk. The studies above provide examples of what factors of risk and resilience could be at an individual level. Glavovic et.al (2002) provides a similar approach to resilience on community level through their concepts of “waves of adversity” and “layers of resilience”. Waves of adversity can be linked to factors of risk. Human beings are experts on dealing 9

with change, it being seasonal change, political changes in the society, or changes in the family through marriage, death or birth of a child. Such changes do not necessarily propose a threat to the resilience of people and societies, but when the adaptive capacity is reduced, all changes can propose a threat to good functioning. According to Glavovic et.al (2002), one of the characteristics of poverty is exactly this; reduced capacity to adaptiveness. The waves of adversity are the factors of risk that hit a community; in this paper these will be natural disasters such as heatwaves, floods, drought and earthquakes. On the opposite side of the coin from waves of adversity, is the concept of “layers of resilience” to be found.

The integrity of the livelihood system, coupled with the 'robustness' of livelihood strategies, comprises 'layers of resilience' that enable people to cope with 'waves of adversity'. ( Glavovic et.al, 2002: 3)

Resilience is thought of as a layer concept because it applies to different levels, ranging from individual, household and community, to ethnic group and global. Different circumstances propose threats to different levels, and resilience at one level does not necessarily mean resilience at another.

When we turn our attention to those layers, and the issues facing poor people, the key challenge is to build resilience and to strengthen the layers that protect them from adversity. ( Glavovic et.al, 2002: 4)

As we have seen so far, resilience is build of many factors, and can have many layers. One way of seeing these layers, is through the five capitals proposed by the SLA; natural, financial, human, social, and physical capital. These capitals allow aid organisations to focus on different aspects of a community which could be a layer of resilience. I will in the final part of this paper present the capitals in further detail, and give example of how they have been threatened and strengthened during natural disasters.

Natural capital Natural capital includes water, land, rivers, forests and minerals; all crucial aspects for survival for both rural and urban populations. From a risk reduction perspective, strengthening the natural capital is a difficult task. This is partly because it is likely that climate change contributes to natural 10

disasters (Doyle, 2010). Working against the climate change is, however, a difficult task as it takes a long time, and doesn't always give easily visible results. Organisations try to increase environmental resilience, however, through small-scale projects at community level (IFCR, 2004). Hopefully this will reduce the impacts of future disasters. Approximately 10,000 people were killed when a cyclone hit the state of Orissa in India in 1999 (IFRC, 2000). In an area where 70% live from agriculture, the cyclone had immediate and serious consequences for the lives of the population (Kar and Kar, 2008). The tragedy led to, however, that the community on its own initiative rediscovered indigenous drought-resistant seeds and traditional farming techniques (IFCR, 2004). This increased the farmers' resilience to drought and floods in the future, giving an excellent example of what UN/ISDR (2004) describe in their definition of resilience

[Resilience] is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organising itself to increase the capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures. (UNISDR, 2004)

Resilience was perhaps not shown in the short run, but certainly in longer term measures, as they learned from the disaster, and developed strategies that would protect them from the agricultural systems being destroyed in future disasters. In the mid 1980s, a famine killing approximately 95,000 people hit Darfur in Sudan (Corbett, 1988). The development analyst Alex de Waal (1989) made interviews with 1,182 households after the disaster in order to map their coping strategies. His report gives touching examples of the extreme human capacity to be future oriented, and illustrates how resilience can be seen in long term. One of his stories tells of a mother who mixed her seeds with sand to prevent her hungry children from eating them. Resilience was maybe not seen in the short term, but when it came to the planting season, she had seeds to put in the soil, giving more food in the next harvest. During this famine, IRCR (2004) can also tell of people leaving the food-aid centres in order to be home in time for planting. International trade has imported and sold seeds to farmers in India and elsewhere that only lasts for one season, making them dependent on buying seeds every season (Hoggen, 2009). International trading agreements, including the EFTA agreement, also threatens the resilience of Indian farmers, as the agreement makes it difficult for the farmers to sell, buy and exchange seeds from each other. Due to the EFTA agreement, farmers may be less resilient in times of natural disasters. This because the biodiversity is kept and developed through the old practice, and it helps 11

the farmers to find seeds resistant to plant illnesses, drought, floods and other disasters. Aid organisations could under such circumstances enhance resilience through supporting and developing the old practice. Similarly, drought and pest sometimes attack cash-crops such as cotton, wheat and rice. In the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, dalit (low caste) women got the opportunity to share their knowledge of traditional seeds which were able to grow under tougher circumstances (IFRC, 2004). In this way the community became more resilient, and the women gained more status at the same time. As IFRC (2004) highlights, aid is most fruitful when it both helps populations bounce back from disasters, and help building a natural resource base capable of dealing with future disasters.

Financial capital Access to financial capital, such as savings, income, remittances, pensions, credit and state transfers, is the second layer of resilience, or capital, mentioned. Financial capital is a crucial resilience factor, but difficult to distribute with enough cultural and gender sensitivity (IFRC, 2004). Access to cash does not necessarily protect from disasters. It could, however, mean quicker recovery from disaster. The earthquake in Bam in Iran in 2003 hit the rich as hard as the poor when destroying 85% of the buildings, killing more than 26,000 people, and leaving an even greater number injured (IFRC, 2007). Although financial capital didn't protect the inhabitants in this case, IRCR (2004) found that the wealthier could recover faster due to access to financial resources. The less financially fortunate were offered aid handouts in the beginning, but the handouts were soon replaced by cash-vouchers. In this way, the affected population could spend the money where they themselves felt it was most needed at the same time as fresh cash was brought into the economy. Similarly, Oxfam (2005) organised cash-for-work projects after the tsunami, where everyone was equally paid. Equality in this sense was not the tradition, and it helped lifting families out of poverty. Another example of strengthening the financial capital is micro finance. Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Prize in Peace in 2006 for his initiative and work on micro lending through the Grameen Bank (Grandin, 2007). Poor people are given the opportunity to take up small loans at low interest rates enabling them to, for example, start a small enterprise, like opening a stall to sell food, or buy a goat or a cow to sell milk. 'Care' is another organisation providing micro credit loans and micro finance (Care). Through micro finance programmes, communities are advised through small groups on how to save money, invest, and better make a living. Unique in these groups is that they are not given any money, but advised on how to make the best out of what they have. Rather than seeing their lack of 12

money as a weakness, the little they have is seen as a strength, and in line with resilience thinking, this strength is enhanced through education and supervision. A survey carried out in Bhuj in India showed that after the earthquake in 2003, the slum dwelling population invested a significant amount of money on improving their homes. The nearly 10,000 families interviewed, had invested 13 million rupees (€ 219,000) of their own money in the recovery during the two years following the quake (IFCR 2004). In this way, the community improved their standard of living compared to before the disaster. This is an example of what ifz describes in their strict definition of resilience; overcoming the crisis with growth.

Human capital

Ill-health and lack of education are recognized as core dimensions of poverty as well as of vulnerability to disaster. (IFRC, 2004: 22)

Human capital is perhaps the capital with the strongest impact on resilience (IFRC, 2004). Knowledge, skills, health and physical ability are all part of the human capital. Following the quote above, I will now pay attention to health in connection to HIV/AIDS and education. HIV has hit parts of Africa beyond belief, making the most productive adults unable to continue farming, leaving households to poverty and hunger (Donnelly, 2002) . During drought and other natural disasters, the communities stand without enough power to respond with the same extent of resilience as before the pandemic (IFRC, 2004). Rather than building on the resources they have, many are forced to sell sex and vital livestock for food or cash. In terms of human capital, and resilience to disasters, it is extremely important to strengthen the population's resilience to HIV/AIDS. This cuts across many sectors, including the health and educational sector. Medication can prolong lives more than 20 years, and increase the quality of life significantly (Coombe and Kelly, 2001). In addition, awareness campaigns, knowledge transmission and reduction of stigma have the potential of stopping the spread of the virus. Education is labelled 'the social vaccine' against HIV/AIDS, emphasising the importance of knowledge, awareness and stigma reduction for preventing it from spreading. Education is often more highly valued by the community at risk than one would think. IFCR (2004) can tell the story of a woman living under a bridge in Mumbai, in great risk of floods and water-borne disasters. She owns a flat in town, but rather than living in it herself, she rents it out in order to be able to pay for the education of her child. 13

Education, knowledge and awareness are critical to building the ability to reduce losses from natural hazards, as well as the capacity to respond to and recover effectively from extreme natural events when they do, inevitable occur. (Wisner 2006: 4)

The quote above provides another example of how interlinked resistance and resilience are for resilient communities. Resilient communities are those in which the risks are reduced, and the “capacity to respond to and recover effectively” is strengthened (Wisner, 2006: 4). Education, knowledge and awareness can play an important part in both of these areas. The woman living under a bridge in Mumbai was willing to offer her short term resilience in exchange for long term resilience for her daughter through education. The report “Let our children teach us!” is concerned with the role of education and knowledge in connection to disasters, and identifies three important roles schools can play in this context (Wisner, 2006). Firstly, teaching about hazards and risk reduction in schools, secondly how schools can be used as centres for community based disaster risk reduction, and last physical protection of schools from natural hazards. This illustrates that schools can have multiple roles. I will now pay particular attention to teaching in schools, and how the transmitted knowledge can act as a facilitator for both resistance and resilience. Although the negative impacts of disasters must not be undermined, they also present an opportunity for change in the society. In educational terms, restarting schools gives an opportunity for rethinking, which could mean change for the better in terms of both quality and equality (UNICEF, 2009). In the Pakistan earthquake in 2005, for example, the school enrolment increased significantly in certain areas, and more girls were reached by distance programmes (ibid.). This is a positive development, as all children have the right to education (e.g. OHCHR, 1989) and it is part of the Millennium goals to provide education for all (UN). The fact that education is intended to reach out to all children, education is a tool that affects the whole community. The title of the report provided by Wisner in 2006 “Let our children teach us!” illustrates how reaching the children could mean reaching the whole society, when the children are given the opportunity to spread their knowledge. According to Freire (1974), the role of education is to collectively study the reality and problem solving. This could also be applied in communities where risk of disasters are a part of the reality and a problem that needs solutions. Unicef (2009) report of women drowning during the tsunami because they were wearing too heavy clothes, refused to get into a rescue boat together with men, or refused to come out of the water because their appropriate clothing had been ripped off. Similarly, women have died inside 14

their houses during earthquakes for reasons of clothing. Religious practices can indeed be a strength, but in these cases it was proven to be a weakness. Unicef (2009) calls for greater attention towards religious education that would build strengths not weaknesses. The Koran indeed includes solutions and alternative practices for emergency situation, and building on these would enhance the strengths of having a religion, as have been done in Iran (ibid.). Another factor that could save lives and reduce the vulnerability to a tsunami is through recognising that it is coming (Unicef, 2009). Access to knowledge, such as a forecast indicating that it is on the way could make the difference between life and death, as could learning how to swim, and knowing that when the water withdraws, it may come back as a massive wave. These are example of practical ways in which the resilience could be strengthened through preparing the community for disasters.

Social capital Social capital, can in the context of sustainable livelihoods refer to networks, relations, affiliations, reciprocity, trust and mutual exchange (IFCR, 2004). Social networks are often kept more intact in rural than in urban areas. In urban areas, extended family structures are weakened, and it is for the individual to build new networks. On the contrary, social networks are often stronger in the rural areas, which is a strength that aid organisations could build on in times of disasters. The extent to which a community is able to work together towards a common aim is according to IFCR (2004) one of the most significant characteristics of resilient communities. They tell of Gram Vikas, an Indian NGO which in the previously mentioned state of Orissa refused to work with the community unless everyone was involved. One of Gram Vikas core values is social equity. Following is one of their principles illustrating this.

Social equity: Representation of all sections of the community in decisionmaking processes across caste, economic status and other barriers to ensure that a level playing field is created. (Gram Vikas, 2010). This “everyone or no one” policy illustrates the high value of social cohesion. When they managed to involve all the groups of the community in their work, the social networks were built across the groups, and the capital was increased for the lower casts in particular. Also informal social networks prove themselves to be of great importance over and over again. In the case of heatwaves, those elderly in close contact with networks of friends and neighbours are more likely to survive as their vulnerability most likely will be discovered earlier, 15

which could give them the help they need in time (IFCR, 2004). During the heatwave in France in 2003, the majority of the 14,802 people who died lived in caring homes or hospitals. Health personnel pointed to that it was not the heat as such that proposed the main threat to the elderly, but their isolation from family and other social networks. The elderly who stayed at home, or had more rapid contact with family experienced fewer deaths during the heatwave.

Physical capital The last capital, physical capital, is composed of the basic infrastructure, goods and services that are needed to support sustainable livelihoods (IFRC, 2004). This includes infrastructure such as affordable transportation and energy, shelter and buildings, adequate tools, clean water supply and sanitation and access to information and communication. The 'lifeline' infrastructure being built, including schools and hospitals, must be strong enough to stand through any natural disaster. Sadly, many lives have been ended due to poor physical capital. 17,000 children were for example killed inside their school buildings during the earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 (Wisner, 2006). This horrific number could have been significantly higher, as many schools fell apart out of school hours. Developing physical capital is a popular priority in aid giving communities and organisations (IFRC, 2004). Partly this is because the result often highly visible, like new schools, seawalls, hospitals etc. The results are also easy to measure, as the lives saved are seen as a direct result of the effort. Especially popular is the building of physical capital that protects communities directly from disasters. This means that a significant number of seawalls, dykes to contain flooding rivers or terraces to prevent soil erosion are being built. The building of such physical capital supports UNISDRs approach to resilience, as it mainly focuses on risk reduction. This is the trend IFRC (2004) critique when claiming that aid is at its most sufficient when it supports strengths already present rather than focus on the weaknesses. Although such 'hardware' can be lifesaving, it is important to back it up with 'software' such as skills, awareness and training. The hardware both protects and acts as a symbolic factor. Visible symbols, such as seawalls, may open up for discussion around the topic of disaster risk reduction and prevention. It could therefore be a door opener for focus on strengths present in the community in connection to disasters.

Conclusion In a time where natural disasters repeatedly strike all continents, community resilience is a highly relevant topic. Several definitions have been proposed to resilience by scholars and organisations alike, and debate is to whether risk reduction or facilitation of strengths should be at the heart of the 16

definition. I have argued in this paper that both are necessary in order to facilitate resilient communities. Recommendations have also been made to aid organisations, which to a larger extent should focus on risk reduction and facilitation of strengths rather than on vulnerabilities in connection to crisis. Ifz argued that “resilience is the ability to overcome a crisis”. This ability can be developed in a community through the five capitals presented in the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach; natural, financial, human, social and physical capital. Whereas development activities traditionally have concerned themselves with increasing financial capital, a resilience approach would argue for the importance of all the five capitals. There is a need for further research into how communities cope with crisis. This could inform aid organisations to facilitate resilience to natural disasters.

17

References:

Care. What we do. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from http://www.care.org/careswork/whatwedo/index.asp Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper, no. 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Coombe, C. & Kelly, M.J. (2001) Education as a Vehicle for Combating HIV/AIDS. Prospects, 31(3), 438-445.

Corbett, J.(1988) Famine and Household Coping Strategies. World Development, 16(9), 1099-1112.

Donnelly, J. (2002) AIDS Seen Spur to Africa Famine; Farmers Are Left Too Weak to Plant. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.thebody.com/content/prev/art18034.html

Doyle, A. (2010) Analysis: Pakistan floods, Russia heat fit climate trend. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6782DU20100809

Freire, P. (1974) Education for critical consciousness. Great Britain: Continuum.

Gjelsvik, B. (2007) Forebygging og Resiliens [prevention and resilience]. In: Helmen Borge, A.I. (2007) Resiliens i praksis. Teori og empiri i et norsk perspektiv [Resilience in practice. Theory and empiricism in a Norwegian perspective] (pp. 27-38). Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.

Glavovic, B., Scheyvens, R., & Overton, J. (December, 2002). Waves of Adversity, Layers of Resilience. Exploring the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Paper presented at the annual conference of the The Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://forum.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Glavovic_Overton_Scheyvens.pdf

Gram Vikas (2010). What we do. Core Values. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from www.gramvikas.org 18

Grandin, K (2007). Muhammad Yunus – Biography. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus.html

Helmen Borge, A.I. (2003) Resiliens. Risiko og sunn utvikling [Resilience. Risks and healthy development]. Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.

Helmen Borge, A.I. (2007) Resiliens i praksis. Teori og empiri i et norsk perspektiv [Resilience in practice. Theory and empiricism in a Norwegian perspective]. Polen: Gyldendal Akademiske.

Hoggen, H. (2009) EFTA-avtalen: En trussel mot indiske bønder [The EFTA-agreement: A threat for Indian farmers]. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/Aktuelt/Politisk-nyhetsbrev/EFTA-avtalen-En-trussel-mot-indiskebonder/

IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2000) Situation Report. India: Orissa Cyclone. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/99/289914.pdf

IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2004) World Disaster Report. Focus on community resilience. Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] (2007) Final Report. Iran:Bam Earthquake. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2007.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/RMOI-6ZZL8Wfull_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf

INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2004) Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm

INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 20052015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from 19

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf INSDR [International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] (2010) Making cities resilient: “My city is getting ready” - Campaign. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.unisdr.org/

Lang et.al. (2009) Unpublished paper. Ifz, Salzburg, Austria.

Longstaff, P.H (2004) Security, Resilience, and Communication In Unpredicatable Environments Such as Terrorism, Natural Disasters and Complex Technology. Program for Information Resources Policy, Harvard University. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://pirp.harvard.edu/pdf-blurb.asp?id=606

Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 740-795). New York: Wiley.

Kar, M.J. & Kar, M. (2008). Environment and Changing Agricultural Practices: Evidence from Orissa, India. Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 2(2),119-128.

Norwegian Church Aid and Church of Sweden (2007). Understanding the issue. Climate Change Threatens the Fight Against Poverty. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/Webbplats/System/Filer/abccada5-64df-478c-b0e5-f73417d014eb.pdf

OHCHR [The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights] (1989) Convention on the Right of the Child. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Oxfam (2005). Targeting Poor People: Rebuilding Lives after the Tsunami. Oxfam Briefing Note. Oxford: Oxfam.

Punamäki, R.L. (1987). Psychological stress of Palestinian mothers and their children in conditions of political violence. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9, 116-119. 20

Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications. In: Shonkoff, J.P. & Meisels, S.J. (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention. Second edition (pp. 651-683). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Twigg, J. (2007). Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community. A Guidance Note. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/characteristics/community_characteristic s_en_highres.pdf

United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml UNICEF (2009) Education in Emergencies in South Asia. Reducing the Risks Facing Vulnerable Children. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNICEF.

UNICEF (2010). UNICEF helps schools resume in China earthquake zone. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from http://www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/unicef-helps-resume-schools-in-chinaearthquake-zone.html

UNISDR (2009) Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://www.unisdr.org/preventionweb/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

de Waal, A. (1989) Famine that Kills. Darfur, Sudan. USA: Oxford University Press.

Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to adulthood. New York: Cornell University Press. Wisner, B. (2006). “Let our children teach us” A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction. India: Books for Change.

Wustmann, C: Resilienz. (2004). Widerstandsfähigkeit von Kindern in Tageseinrichtungen fördern. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag

21