TOPIC FIVE: DISASTERS AND DEVELOPMENT: Developing national policy on

disaster and development

There is a close link between disasters and development.

 Disasters can both destroy development initiatives and create development opportunities.
 Development schemes can both increase and decrease vulnerability.

The widespread position has always been that disasters, especially natural ones, were an act of
nature and as such were beyond human control; accepting death and damage to property was part
of the costs. With such an attitude, most development plans were designed without consideration
for the effect disasters would have on community plans and vice versa. When a disaster did
occur, the response was directed at meeting emergency needs and cleaning up. Now it is realized
that much more can and need to be done to reduce the severity of hazards and disasters.

A growing body of knowledge on the relationships between disasters and development indicates
four basic themes as follows:

a. Disasters set back development programming, destroying years of development

initiatives.
b. Rebuilding after a disaster provides significant opportunities to initiate development
programmes.
c. Development programmes can increase an area’s susceptibility to disasters.
d. Development programmes can be designed to decrease the susceptibility to disasters and
their negative consequences.

Decision-makers who ignore these relationships between disasters and development do a

disservice to their people, who place their trust in them. Development projects in the context of
disaster mitigation are thus being designed to include disaster recovery programmes and with
long term development needs in mind.

Development requires institutional and structural transformations of societies to speed up

economic growth, reduce levels of inequality, and eradicate absolute poverty. Over time, the
effects of disasters can seriously degrade a country’s long-term potential for sustained
development and cause governments to substantially modify their economic development
priorities and programmes.

At the same time, disasters often provide opportunities for development. They can improve the
atmosphere in favour of change and create a rationale to establish development programmes such
as job training, housing construction and land reform. However, poor management of the relief
and rehabilitation responses may have severe negative implications for development for years to
come, and may even increase vulnerability to future hazards.

The impact of disasters on development programmes

Disasters can considerably hamper the effectiveness of the allocation of development resources.
The damage is done in many ways and the impacts can be as complex as the economy itself. It is
for specific reasons that practitioners explore the issues of lost resources to determine what will
no longer be available to the country after a disaster such as assessing the effects of programme
interruptions and the switching of crucial resources to other, shorter-term needs as disasters often
change the political, economic and social conditions within a country. There will also be a need
to consider the negative impacts on investment climates (of the now declared disaster zone) to
determine what opportunities will be left to attract local and international investment capital to
the area or country that has been devastated by the disaster. And lastly, in what state will the
disruption of the non-formal sector leave the disaster area in terms of citizens proceeding with
their lives in ways closest to conditions before the disaster. This non-formal sector may involve
the way private citizens conduct business in their lives after the disaster.

Vulnerabilities caused by development

Lack of access to education and information often has wider implications. Local people may
simply be unaware of the options open to them in reducing their vulnerability. Poor people, for
example, have fewer assets to invest in resources which may reduce their vulnerability; they may
also be unwilling to make any significant investment without clear and obvious benefits. Poor
people are also less likely to be in a position to organize collectively to reduce common risks,
partially because these groups usually have a higher proportion of women, young children,
elderly people, the sick and disabled. Furthermore, after a disaster, the effects of malnutrition and
chronic illness put people at additional risk. Although in aggregate terms development will
usually contribute to a reduction in vulnerability to natural disasters, any development activity
may substantially increase particular types of vulnerability. Illustrations of such development
activities are as follows:

 Urban development often leads to an influx of low-income groups such as large-scale

settlements on marginal land or in high densities with poor quality housing. Buildings
may be situated on earthquake faults, in flash-flood zones, or on slopes prone to
landslides.
 Marine and coastal zone development leads to concentrations of populations exposed to
possible storm-surges, high winds, flash floods, and landslide risks. Tourist development
can increase potential vulnerability substantially when low-lying beach areas are targets
for infrastructure and capital investments. Tsunamis and tropical storms can quickly
destroy these improvements as well as placing tourists and workers at substantial risk to
death and injury.
 Construction of transportation lines and poorly managed forestry programmes will often
lead to deforestation and increased risks of landslides.
 Water resource management projects, including dams and irrigation schemes, potentially
increase risks to large populations, either by displacing natural habitats, increasing risks
of severe flooding, or by increasing the risk of dam failure.
 Investment in poorly controlled hazardous industries may lead to concentrations of
population around the plant; increases in air and water pollution; and exposure to hazards
from both chronic and catastrophic release of toxic materials.
 Livestock development projects can lead to severe loss of vegetation cover and
conditions of near-desertification around specific natural points such as wells.
 Agricultural projects promoting cash crops may reduce the production of staple foods.

Each of these examples illustrates the importance of including risk assessment as an integral part
of programme planning and evaluation, and highlights the critical importance of training and
education in these areas.

Development programmes can decrease vulnerability

The term mitigation is increasingly applied to measures which reduce economic losses, as well
as those which reduce death and injury. The distinction between the two types of mitigation is as
follows:

Structural mitigation includes measures to reduce the economic and social impact of hazardous
agents and involve construction programmes, especially dams, windbreaks, terracing and hazard
resistant buildings.

Non-structural mitigation is most commonly used to refer to policies and practices, including
land-use policies, zoning, crop diversification, building codes, and procedures for forecasting
and warning. In a broader context, non-structural mitigation can also include education,
awareness, environmental understanding, community organization, and empowerment strategies.

Mitigation is most effective as part of a medium- to long-term development programme which

incorporates hazard-reduction measures into regular investment projects. Under these conditions
risks can be assessed analytically and explicitly in the context of national planning and
investment programme reviews. The cost effectiveness of specific emergency preparedness
measures and hazard reduction activities can be assessed. There are opportunities to build links
between government and international organizations involved in relief and recovery and to
provide opportunities for investment institutions to help governments gain access to new
developments in hazard-reduction technologies. In regular investment project design and sector
loans, attention can be given to early warning systems and other elements of emergency
preparedness through financial or technical assistance.

There is a wide range of options for incorporating mitigation measures into regular development
programmes. Each of the following examples suggests ways of protecting populations and
critical economic assets against hazards and of reducing the overall impact of a disaster.

1. Strengthening urban utility systems and industrial support infrastructures is a

common aim of development projects. This is achieved through a variety of external
inputs including loans, technical assistance, and support for institutional development.
“Lifeline systems” – such as water, electric power, transportation links and
 communications – can be made more effective as well as more selectively resistant to
particular hazards.
2. The incorporation of hazard resistant building techniques in housing and other
construction programmes. These opportunities are usually specific to the type of
housing used in the region and the nature of local hazards. Such measures can
substantially reduce injuries and deaths from earthquakes and tropical storms.
Additionally, these programmes can protect high value economic resources, reducing the
total costs of damage and improving the chances of more rapid recovery. On a wider
scale, the application of building codes, associated training programmes, and more
extensive use of zoning regulations in urban development reduce the risk for the local
population, and the likelihood of damage to industrial facilities. Improved drainage
systems and flood protection measures can further protect people and facilities in
hazardous areas.
3. Investments in improving administration and strengthening the resource-base of
public institutions will have a general positive impact on the effectiveness of
preparedness arrangements, emergency responses and the quality of longer-term
recovery planning. Training programmes in general, and especially those with a
management or technical focus, can be expected to improve the implementation of
mitigation and response measures.
4. Agricultural and forestry programmes provide a range of opportunities for
mitigation. Reforestation programmes reduce risks of erosion, landslides and flash
flooding. Changes in cropping patterns can also ameliorate erosion problems and losses
due to floods and drought. The introduction of pest-resistant crops can reduce the
economic and other impacts of infestations. Programmes for soil conservation, water
harvesting and improving on-farm storage can mitigate the effects of drought.

Each of these examples represents an opportunity for mitigation. Each also requires investment
of scarce resources.

According to USAID:
 The operation must be directed at restoring assets or productivity in a long-term
development perspective - not relief.
  The prospective economic returns should be high.
 The effects of the emergency should be significant.
 The event triggering the emergency should have a low probability of happening again
soon.
 The need for an urgent response should be evident.
 Emergency lending is limited to cases where effective action can be felt in two to three
years.
 There should be some prospect for future reduction in the hazard.

Developing a national policy on disaster and development

USAID developed a policy framework for bilateral foreign aid for development initiatives for
countries faced with disasters. The framework highlights three areas of concern as follows:

a. Partnership:

Development cannot be unilaterally mandated and implemented. The success, or lack thereof, of
development initiatives requires close collaboration among donors, governments, communities,
nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and universities. Partnerships build ownership
and capacity and achieve significant results through joint efforts, based on comparative
advantage and common objectives.

b. Flexibility:

Local conditions for development vary widely and can change rapidly – for better or worse.
Development agencies must be efficient and flexible; adaptable to local environments and
capable of adjusting to changing conditions and seizing opportunities when they arise.

c. Selectivity:

Development resources are limited relative to the world’s needs. They are a public asset that
must be invested prudently to achieve maximum impact. Assistance allocations among countries
should be based on three criteria: need; the foreign policy interests of the country supplying the
aid (e.g., the United States); and the commitment of a country and its leadership to reform. At the
country level, resources should be invested where they have maximum impact in achieving
priority strategic objectives.

Given the scope of the degradation to infrastructures, human and social systems, political and
economic that a country can suffer from disasters to its development, no private individual or
company will have the resources to take disaster preventative steps to manage its developmental
growth. Therefore, the government of a country is to develop policies that will steer disaster
prevention that will lead to sustainable development in the long term. Therefore, effects of
disasters should be counteracted using policies aimed at sustaining development at national,
regional and local levels. If development policies are developed adequately, they can achieve the
following:
 Permit governments to define rehabilitation and reconstruction methods in response and
recovery in the disaster management cycle.
 Set standards to manage public and private resources and their distribution for recovery
by disaster victims.
 Back local laws and regulations, interagency cooperation and collaboration to benefits
sustain the development. Provide for local communities to access resources for recovery
that sustains development.
 Design risk reduction strategies for communities such as early warning measures.
 Allow government officials to use hazard vulnerability mapping information to control
relocation.
 Enforce land elevation and set procedures for compliance with zoning laws and
regulations.
 Provide for the development of land preservation in danger zones.
 Establish the framework for disaster assistance in the form of loans and public assistance
for immediate recovery.
 Set out procedures for land use including maintaining natural mangrove for storm surge
protection.

Quarantelli (1997) claimed that “policies can be established and steps can be taken that will
reduce and weaken some negative effects of the probable catastrophic disasters of the future.”