Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

This article was downloaded by: [Dewald Van Niekerk] On: 31 May 2012, At: 12:00 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Hazards Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tenh20

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment a

Gideon Van Riet & Dewald Van Niekerk

b

a

Political Science, Faculty of Arts, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, North West Province, 2520, South Africa b

African Centre for Disaster Studies, Research Focus Area: Social Transformation, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, North West Province, 2520, South Africa Available online: 31 May 2012

To cite this article: Gideon Van Riet & Dewald Van Niekerk (2012): Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment, Environmental Hazards, DOI:10.1080/17477891.2012.688793 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2012.688793

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

research paper

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment GIDEON VAN RIET1 AND DEWALD VAN NIEKERK2,* 1

Political Science, Faculty of Arts, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom,

North West Province, 2520, South Africa

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

2 African Centre for Disaster Studies, Research Focus Area: Social Transformation, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, North West Province, 2520, South Africa

In this paper a large-scale community-based disaster risk-assessment project, undertaken in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality in the North-West Province of South Africa, is evaluated. In contrast to other disaster risk management consultancy projects in South Africa, this project included a significant skills transfer component to the at-risk communities and local government officials. In this evaluation, the authors draw on their own experiences in implementing this and similar projects, a review of the project management documents is undertaken, and a focus group interview with facilitators involved in the project is used as a primary source. The discussion is further contextualised in terms of community-based disaster risk assessment theory and the existing literature on disaster risk assessment in South Africa. Logistical and data quality issues as well as staff turnover were found to be concerns during the project. From the findings, it is argued that the common practice of outsourcing disaster riskmanagement projects is not conducive to effective disaster risk management. Local government entities should take responsibility for disaster risk assessment as a continual activity. This is in contrast to the view currently manifesting in South Africa as a set of bureaucratic actions undertaken by consultants to achieve ‘legislative compliance’ for municipalities. Keywords: community-based disaster risk assessment; disaster risk management; disaster risk reduction; Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality; South Africa

1. Introduction Over the last few decades of the 20th century, and in light of increased losses due to seemingly ‘natural’ disasters, disaster risk reduction (DRR) has emerged as a field of practice in development circles. DRR in summary implies reducing sociopolitical , political, environmental and economic vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic hazards such as droughts, floods, fires, earthquakes and chemical or radioactive spills, to mention only a few. Disaster risk management can be understood as the day-to-day acts of implementing DRR measures (such as policy, legislation, guidelines, codes of standards and administrative decisions) or as the various

activities at community, municipal and other levels whereby disaster risks are managed. Numerous countries are signatories to DRR conventions such as the Yokohama Strategy for Action (UN, 1994) and Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) (UN/ISDR, 2005). South Africa is one such signatory. During the second half of the 1990s a legislative process was initiated in South Africa whereby disaster risk management as opposed to pure disaster response was introduced into policy (Van Niekerk, 2006). In 2003, the new Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (South Africa, 2003) was promulgated. This piece of legislation places various responsibilities on local government including disaster risk assessment (DRA) and management.

B *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS iFirst article (2012) 1–13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2012.688793 # 2012 Taylor & Francis ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online) www.tandfonline.com/tenh

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

2 van Riet and van Niekerk

However, the particular model of disaster risk management that has emerged in South Africa, since the legislation on disaster management was passed, is the partial outsourcing of DRA and disaster risk management to consultants. These service providers produce DRA and disaster risk management plans periodically, while there seems to be little evidence of day-to-day disaster risk management at the municipal level (Van Riet and Diedericks, 2010). This paper evaluates a disaster risk management project implemented in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality (KKDM) in the North-West Province of South Africa. In particular, the community-based disaster risk assessment (CBDRA) segment of the project is evaluated, particularly in terms of a skills transfer or capacity development component it included, whereby local government officials were trained to facilitate such assessments and interpret and write up the results, in order to prevent the entrenchment of dependency on consultants. The risk assessment methodology devised in South Africa and reported on by Holloway et al. (2008), was chosen as this source is readily available and considered suitable to the South African context. The paper is structured in the following way. First, a theoretical understanding of CBDRA is provided. This is followed by a discussion on the South African legislative mandate in this regard as well as a review of the limited published analyses of DRA in South Africa. This is followed by an abbreviated discussion on the project methodology as well as the lessons learned. In conclusion, a summary of the theoretical and practical significance of these lessons learned is provided and some useful recommendations for future projects are suggested.

2. Community-based risk assessment Research has shown that CBDRA yields the best results and most trustworthy primary data in understanding the disaster risk profile of communities (Wold and Shriver, 1997; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Abarquez and Murshed, 2004;

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

UNDP, 2007, 2009, p. 2; Holloway et al., 2008; Pelling and Wisner, 2009). Community-based assessment of hazards, risks, poverty and vulnerability has globally enjoyed growing interest since the 2000s (DiMP, 2005; Morrisey, 2005; Pelling, 2007; GNDR, 2009). Disasters tend to have the greatest impact on the poor, and their consequences strengthen the prevailing poverty trap, especially in least developed countries (World Bank, 2001). For this reason, the locus of CBDRA is at the grassroots level. The aim of a CBDRA is not only to have a transformative effect on a community (i.e. make a community safer and more resilient) (Pelling, 2007), but also to identify, assess and monitor risk at a community level with the objective to inform the ‘design’ of locally appropriate risk reduction programmes and ‘assist in the monitoring and surveillance of risk at a community level’ (DiMP, 2005). According to Morrisey (2005), community-based assessment is conducted in order to examine how local livelihoods might respond should a disaster occur, or if any other social or physical changes take place that might affect the wellbeing of a community. There is a general desire for DRR to be accomplished by enhancing the skills, knowledge and capacities of local communities (GNDR, 2009; Hagelsteen, 2009). At the Kobe/Hyogo World Conference on Disaster Reduction in January 2005, one of the pivotal deductions was to acknowledge the fact that the different actors involved in DRR need to emphasise DRA in project application and advocacy (DiMP, 2005), especially within communities. The (HFA) 2005 – 2015 (a global agreement emanating from the above-mentioned conference and signed by over 180 countries) promotes the notion of engaging more meticulously with DRA and related processes by affirming: ‘Both communities and local authorities should be empowered to manage and reduce disaster risk by having access to the necessary information, resources and authority to implement actions for disaster risk reduction’ (Pelling, 2007). The viewpoint of the HFA is that the communities should benefit from the decisions taken at

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 3

a strategic level. The argument can therefore be made that it defies the point of DRR, if good policy, legislation and strategies regarding disaster risk are promulgated, yet not implemented with the aim of reducing communities’ vulnerabilities. A strong community-based approach with local ownership of the DRA process is therefore necessary. Pelling (2007), however, questions the difference between what he calls participatory assessment (CBDRA) and other kinds of assessment. The complexity of answering this question is further exacerbated by the fact that every attempt to determine the difference between the diverse kinds of assessments includes the words participatory, community-based or local, and each one of these approaches is notably difficult to determine. At present, there is no single definition for CBDRA, also called participatory disaster risk assessment by Pelling (2007). The absence of an agreed definition is not necessarily negative for it typifies the multi-faceted nature of disaster risk. Similarly, Pelling (2007) makes the point that a rigid policy focus on CBDRA issues might undermine the importance thereof. Regardless of the difficulty to define CBDRA, Wisner (2005, p. 9) defined CBDRA as a method of self-assessment to determine coping and capacity against the impact of hazards. Wisner’s definition of CBDRA emphasises that the process of CBDRA is about evaluating the coping capacity of a community in the face of a certain disaster or hazard. When a community’s coping capacity is determined, it is possible to develop tools that will enable that community to be more resilient towards hazards and/or disasters. The UN/ISDR Africa (2005) defines DRA as ‘the process of collecting and analyzing information about the nature, likelihood and severity of disaster risks. The process includes making decisions on the need to prevent or reduce disaster risks, what risks to address, and the optimal approach to tackling those risks found to be unacceptable to the target groups and communities’. Community DRA is critical in identifying, assessing and monitoring disaster risk at a community level, with the purpose of informing the design of locally

appropriate DRR programmes and assisting in the monitoring and surveillance of risk at a community level (De Bios, 2002). Chen et al. (2006) say that through a community-based participatory approach community members would learn how to analyse vulnerable conditions, find ways to solve hazard-related problems, develop strategies for DRR and establish an organization to implement disaster risk-management tasks. Such an approach also facilitates the collection of views and ideas from the community residents about disaster experiences, hazard problems and potential solutions through an informal, flexible and relaxing atmosphere. For the purpose of this paper, it would therefore be safe to argue that CBDRA could be defined as direct participatory action by at-risk communities with the aim of applying local knowledge and experiences to analyse their own coping capacities (including local resource mobilization), elements of vulnerability and hazard problems, in order to develop tools and strategies for DRR, and to find potential solutions to the identified problems in a relaxed and flexible atmosphere. Besides the definition of CBDRA above, it is crucial to realise that CBDRA can take on various formats linked to various focuses, within various disciplinary arenas.

3. Different types of participatory DRAs Simply sharing a place of residence does not mean that there are any social relations between the community members (Roos et al., 2010). According to Pelling (2007), one of the concerns about community as a unit of analysis and intervention, is that in ‘the focus on majority rule in community processes, minority groups may lose out’. The varieties of local actors that are involved in CBDRA suggest that there is no single correct manner in which to perform CBDRA. Preferably CBDRA ought to aim at empowering a community, but in fact CBDRA stretches from conscientisation (making residents aware of dangers), to the empowering potential of participatory methodologies and a more instrumental use of local

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

4 van Riet and van Niekerk

qualitative data, for example, as evidence which might form the basis for activism. Pelling (2007) discusses three different dimensions along which CBDRA may be classified: procedural, methodological and ideological. These will be briefly alluded to. The procedural dimension distinguishes participatory assessments according to the arrangement of power and ownership in the assessment process. ‘At one extreme are approaches that are initiated, planned and conducted by local actors at risk, who might also be the audience for and owners of the results. At the other extreme are assessments that include local actors only as subjects for study, or as sources of data or future project inputs’ (Pelling, 2007). The methodological dimension differentiates between whether the methods of data collection are quantitative or qualitative. In this range of participatory assessment, those at-risk are only seen as sources of data. CBDRA is used here because it is thought of as more economical or faster than social survey-type data generation. The ideological dimension differentiates between emancipatory and extractive approaches to CBDRA. More emancipatory approaches use CBDRA as a longterm process that, in the end, influences the distribution of vulnerability and decreases that marginalization of a particular community, by placing them in a position where they can to a large extent manage local risks themselves. More or less extractive approaches are mostly concerned with the collection of data to be used by ‘external actors’. When choosing which approach to use, one should consider the objectives one wants to achieve, in a given context. In light of the context of CBDRA sketched above, the following section considers the legal imperatives to CBDRA in South Africa.

4. Legislation and DRA in South Africa The need to conduct DRAs is enshrined in the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (South Africa, 2000), the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (South Africa, 2003), as well as the National

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Disaster Management Policy Framework (South Africa, 2005). Sections 20, 33 and 47 of the Disaster Management Act explicitly state that national, provincial and municipality disaster management centres must conduct DRAs and that these assessments, according to section 17, should be community based and informed by at-risk populations. The national disaster management policy, which supports the implementation of the Disaster Management Act, devotes a full chapter to DRA (Key Performance Area 2). Section 2.1.4 of this policy framework states: ‘disaster risk assessment efforts must actively include the participation of vulnerable communities and households’. The guidelines and political will to enforce the assessment of disaster risk at, and within communities, are thus clear. It would therefore be valid to assume that most of the DRAs conducted in South Africa, post-2002, should have a significant community focus and engagement. It is also required that the findings of risk assessments be incorporated into risk management and development planning at the municipal level, in the spirit of what is known as ‘developmental local government’ (see for example Van Donk et al., 2008). The following section will shed more light on the DRA as it relates to the South African environment.

5. Community-based DRA in South Africa A literature search found only five publications documenting and evaluating DRA in South Africa. Three of these are single-community case studies, which formed part of a larger Provention Consortium Community Risk Assessment Toolkit (MacGregor et al., 2005; Van Staden et al., 2006; DiMP, 2007). These reports have been published on that organisation’s website (www.proventionconsortium.org). The other two studies (Van Riet 2009a, b) focus on the more common practice of municipal level DRA, which typically coincides with ‘periodic’ DRA and management, outsourced to consultants, referred to above.

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 5

MacGregor et al. (2005) employed various methods in assessing fire risk in the Imizano Yethu informal settlement near Hout Bay (South Africa), with special reference to the experiences of children. The assessment was also used as a teaching tool. Most of the research team were honours students in Environmental Science at the University of Cape Town. The methods employed included secondary data analysis, a literature review, individual household interviews, group interviews and focus groups interviews. Important lessons learned were that greater cognisance should be taken of local power relations and antagonisms when conducting such interventions and that though community DRA may serve as a useful teaching aid, this makes it difficult for adequate follow-up on recommendations and plans to take place. Van Staden et al. (2006) conducted an assessment in the Itereleng informal settlement in the City of Tshwane (CoT). Aerial photographs of the area were studied. These informed discussions with community members during a subsequent transect walk. The exercise was conducted as part of a professional capacity-building course in community-based DRR. The hazards identified included sinkholes, fires and flooding. Lessons learned from the process were that the transect walk is a useful tool for creating awareness. However, it should ideally be supplemented with other methods of data collection to provide more depth and richness of information, especially regarding the relationship between processes of vulnerability and specific hazards (Wisner et al., 2004; Wisner, 2005). A DRA workshop was conducted in Haarlem in the Western Cape Province (similar to those analysed below) (DiMP, 2007). Tools such as problem trees, seasonal calendars, but also household semi-structured interviews, household wealth surveys and focus group interviews were used. Various hazards were identified including fire, hailstorms, flooding, environmental health and crime. Overall, the process was reported as a great success, notably with regard to the extent to which it enhanced community solidarity and awareness, to the relevant local departments

responsible for disaster management. However, no concrete actions to mitigate hazards and their impacts were noted. Van Riet (2009a) conducted an analysis of DRA reports, covering most of the major South African disaster risk management consultancies. These projects typically took place in relatively narrow time frames and were meant to serve as an assessment for an entire municipality. He identified a few trends that were in need of improvement. In general, DRAs did not make use of fieldwork. Reports were often desktop exercises, typically driven by geographical information systems (GIS), whereby certain extrapolations were made based on, for example, land use data. The DRAs in addition often did not clearly articulate the link between the hazards identified and the socio-political processes which drive the vulnerability of communities to these hazards. The result was that DRAs often do not produce very detailed analyses that may significantly enhance decision-making. Van Riet (2009b), analysed the Fezile Dabi District Municipality (FDDM) DRA conducted in 2008. This project made use of mixed methods for DRA. It included a rapid appraisal phase (through transect walks) and a quantitative survey component. Both methods were used in 16 sites selected in consultation with the local municipalities. A few important lessons were learned from this intervention. Most significantly, the tight time schedule and the number of sites that had to be covered led to a situation where the survey component of the project became dominant, while the rapid appraisal component did not produce sufficient qualitative data. The strict time constraints made for strained project management. Van Riet (2009b) following Twigg (2004) describes the assessment as a collection of 16 separate community level analyses as opposed to CBDRA. The latter term carries the connotation of a more emancipatory agenda, while the FDDM project was more of an extractive exercise (see the argument of Pelling above). In both cases, Van Riet (2009a, b) makes the argument that workshops might prove to be a more useful data-gathering method, but that the

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

6 van Riet and van Niekerk

situation is complicated by certain legislative requirements. In particular, the manner in which DRA is framed as an activity that should take place at municipal level implies that those conducting the assessments are pulled simultaneously in the direction of breadth of scope, and depth of analysis. Van Riet (2009b) concludes that the latter should be favoured, as better data gathered in fewer sites are likely to be more useful than very superficial data over a vast area. However, the question must be asked as to how such an approach would stand up to the time constraints that are the very nature of project work. Analyses such as those by Van Riet and Diedericks (2010) and Botha et al. (2011) have indicated how local government in South Africa has not as yet progressed significantly in terms of compliance with the South African legislation. This analysis is useful in indicating a general indifference to ideas of DRA as local government level. However, there is a risk that such analyses might lead to the conclusion that legislation is above critique. Indeed, such an approach might lead to understandings of DRA as merely once-off activities, performance criteria in itself, which local government must undertake, in order to comply with legislation, and thus be seen to be engaged in disaster mitigation. There is already some evidence of the above, as outside consultants largely conduct DRA in South Africa. This partial ‘outsourcing’ of DRAs, as mentioned above, typically occurs in cycles of a few years, when DRAs and disaster risk management plans are produced. Under such circumstances, the consistent application of DRA principles in daily activities may well not be the case. It was with the above knowledge that the project analysed in this paper was conceived. The project drew heavily on the methodology outlined by Holloway et al. (2008).

6. Methodology of this paper In addition to the authors’ experiences of this DRA project, this paper is based on a focus group interview conducted as a debriefing

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

exercise with workshop facilitators. In addition, DRA reports, the final project report and planning documents were reviewed. Themes emerging from the research were identified and cross-referenced. The sections below utilise the various themes to analyse the project under investigation.

7. The KDM project The KKDM consists of four local municipalities as designated by the Municipal Demarcation Act No 27 of 1998 (South Africa, 1998). In consultation with the local municipalities and the KKDM, 22 at-risk communities were identified. These communities became the focus of the DRA intervention. The DRA project employed a qualitative method of investigation. Data were collected by means of community-based workshops and transect walks. The research methodology was initially tested by means of a pilot study. This helped to ascertain whether the methodology was executable, and whether any revisions were required. The research also included a capacity development component. Staff from the KKDM and its local municipalities were trained as workshop facilitators. This was done to build internal capacities and ensure that similar studies in future could easily be replicated.

7.1 Initial stakeholder consultation and literature study Prior to conducting the DRA, an initial set of interviews and workshops with key informants of all local municipalities and the KKDM unveiled more about the study area (the entire geographical area of the KKDM). Key informants provided an initial ‘indicative’ disaster risk profile of the area, which included hazard and vulnerability identification. The main objective of this intervention was to assist in site identification (atrisk communities). Other sources of data were also utilized and included base maps indicating basic topography, land use and land cover,

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 7

historical weather patterns, and recorded incident call-outs.

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

7.2 Training of facilitators Various workshop facilitators were selected and trained in conjunction with the KKDM Disaster Risk Management Centre. In order to obtain the most reliable data possible from the workshops, it was decided to ensure the communities could converse in the language of their choice. Thus, the correct identification of facilitators enabled workshops to be conducted in English, Setswana and Afrikaans. Besides the KKDM and local municipality staff members, post-graduate university students were also employed as facilitators. This provided practical experience for the students and also provided the local government facilitators with additional research support. Training of facilitators spanned over 2 days. Facilitators were inducted in relation to the entire research process, including the literature study and community consultations. Thus, they had a clear contextual understanding of the process employed and what was required of them. They were also provided with a detailed document outlining a step-by-step process to be followed during workshops as well as the expected outcomes. During this 2-day session all exercises included in the workshops were practised. After each exercise, facilitators were provided with examples of typical results from each exercise. These results were utilised in the data analysis. Facilitators were asked to contribute to the report writing process and thus needed to understand the theory used to inform data analysis. Furthermore, this induction provided guidance regarding the data needs and outcomes required from the workshops.

7.3 Community consultations The second phase of the research included 3-day workshops, including transect walks in the most at-risk communities. These workshops drew

heavily on the work by Holloway et al. (2008). The project did not significantly depart from the methodology outlined by these authors. The bulk of the data gathered for the DRA were obtained during this phase. The workshops included the sessions, spanning approximately one to three hours each.

7.4 Data gathering sessions and tools A timeline exercise provided a general history of the communities. The objective was to obtain potentially useful contextual information. This exercise was meant to help the facilitators understand what the communities’ have historically considered as problems. The data obtained were later linked to the hazard and vulnerability analysis. Following the above, the basic elements of disaster risk were discussed with participants. Concepts such as hazard, vulnerability and risk were explained and were then applied to the community context. Participants were asked to discuss the various prioritised hazards (see initial consultation above) in terms of causal factors and how they affect the local community. In particular, participants were asked the following six questions (Holloway et al., 2008): (1) Who is affected? (2) How are these people affected? (3) Why are they affected? (4) When are they affected? (5) What happens when they are affected? (What are the outcomes?) and (6) How do they currently cope with these hazards? Each identified hazard was discussed in detail by smaller groups who then reported back to the larger group. Seasonal calendars were also employed to ascertain when hazards typically occur. On day 2, a hazard-specific timeline exercise was used, which considered the historical occurrence of hazards in the community. An analysis of stakeholders who might be useful in mitigating hazards was undertaken. Subsequently, a mapping exercise was used whereby the perceptions of the physical impact of hazards were recorded on a large geo-referenced aerial photograph. This

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

8 van Riet and van Niekerk

was followed by a transect walk through the community via a pre-planned route, utilizing the above-mentioned map and other information generated in the workshops. A transect walk is an investigative mapping tool where a research team and selected key informants from the community (e.g. community leaders and ward councillors, i.e. locallevel politicians) walk predetermined routes across the area under study (Minnie and Van Schalkwyk, 2004). The group explored spatial differences or land use zones by observing, asking, listening and producing a transect diagram. Typically, aspects such as livelihood patterns, infrastructural facilities and deficiencies were recorded during a transect walk. Transect walks can further be informed by a set of guiding questions that are framed according to the purpose of the activity. Digital cameras were utilized during the transect walk, though with caution and selectively, in order to minimise aspects such as objectification and invasions of privacy. Every community’s physical features, for example, infrastructure, development, hazards, observable vulnerabilities, livelihood patterns and overall surroundings were captured on camera. Thereafter, the location of the recordings was mapped by using global positioning system devices. This information was in turn processed in a GIS to produce digital maps. During transect walks, participants were asked to assist the researchers in pointing out the various aspects pertaining to the prioritised hazards highlighted in the workshops. Day three of the workshops focused on all of the main factors that contributed to vulnerability to a specific hazard, using a problem tree. This was followed by a session on current coping mechanisms and DRR strategies. During this session, participants were encouraged to indicate gaps in the existing DRR measures. During the final session of day 3, various strategies for action were debated, until a reasonable degree of agreement was achieved. Action steps, the actors/stakeholders involved, including the communities most at risk, as well as timeframes for action (urgency of actions) were recorded.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Thus, three forms of data were gathered during workshops. Firstly, participatory tools such as problem trees were recorded on pieces of flipchart paper. This information was also photographed and referenced. Secondly, transect walks provided rich contextual data. Finally, facilitators also made notes of information emerging during discussions. The reason for this threefold technique was to ensure that should a data source go missing, the same information would still be available in another form. It was also considered important that data be written up as soon as possible, even during the workshops (with the assistance of students), while this was still fresh in the minds of the facilitators.

8. Data analysis and interpretation and report writing Final analysis of the data built on the interpretative approach already initiated during the workshops. The methods of data analysis as proposed by Tesch (1990) were used. A thorough reading of all research materials was followed by a consideration of the substance and underlying meaning. A list of topics was compiled and these were clustered into themes. The identified themes (hazards, vulnerability, capacities, livelihoods etc.) were then analysed. To add more local relevance and enhance capacities, the facilitators primarily wrote site level reports. These reports were not written in accordance with an exact template. That would have defeated the purpose, which was to offer insight into the various nuances of the local context. Although this might have been one of the limitations in the interpretation of the data, some guidance was provided to the facilitators. A few initial reports were written and distributed as examples. Local- and district municipal-level reports were also drafted through a scaling-up process. Community-level reports were collated into local municipal-level reports, and these reports were collated into one district-level report. Priority hazards were identified for each local municipality, as well as the main dynamics of vulnerability

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 9

and capacity for each. Priority hazards for the entire district were identified and the dynamics of vulnerability and possible capacities pertaining to those hazards were discussed. The data gathering and analysis process provided some valuable lessons for future replication of the project.

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

9. Lessons learned A number of lessons were learned during the course of the project. These relate to logistical issues, data quality and capacity development. All three of these themes speak to many of the aspects discussed above, such as the distinction between more extractive and emancipatory CBDRA, local ownership, producing meaningful analyses, recommendations, clearly linking processes of vulnerability and hazards and the need for meaningful disaster risk management, as opposed to periodic exercises for ‘legislative compliance’. It might have been expected that logistical issues would arise when such a vast number of workshops (22 in total) were conducted over a period of 3 months. This project was the first large-scale exercise of its kind in South Africa, and it is understandable that there would be some logistical problems. Most importantly, local government staff members, especially those employed by local municipalities could not always fulfil their commitments to the project. There were various reasons for this, many of which were not the fault of particular individuals or institutions. For example, the fire services (also fulfilling the disaster risk management function) in one local municipality had a total staff capacity of four. The local fire engine requires a staff of six to function effectively. That being said, these four staff members also had to work shifts in order for someone to be on call 24 hours a day. It might have been naive to implement such capacity development initiatives under these conditions. However, the authors were unaware of the severity of these constraints when the project was planned, local government having initially supported the project enthusiastically.

The result was that many data from the workshops were not immediately captured and written up. Even though this was the intention, the short space of time between workshops and the capacity issues, meant that a bottleneck developed in data analysis. Subsequently, and despite a number of counter-measures, a lot of information went missing. Furthermore, some facilitators started to combine two different sites into one workshop (with the aim of saving time and effort). This had serious implications for making useful deductions. The sites had been identified as separate units for various reasons including geography, disaster risk profiles, ward boundaries and the like. For these reasons, some areas had to be re-assessed. The local municipality, in which the at-risk community was situated, was responsible for the logistical arrangements. In some cases, facilities were not arranged in time. On one or two occasions no participants arrived, because the local community had not been informed of the workshop. In more than one instance where a municipal ward councillor had been approached to assist with these aspects, none of these arrangements were in place and the councillor clearly, and sometimes deliberately, avoided the local government officials when attempts were made to contact the person concerned.1 It is most likely that the tight schedule significantly impacted on the above. Large-scale projects such as this are understandably a significant logistical challenge. Had the schedule been a little less strenuous, there would likely have been more time to check and recheck that logistical arrangements had been taken care of. The above issues were exacerbated by the ‘basic conditions of employment’ in the municipalities. For example, certain post levels at the KKDM are eligible for specific amounts of overtime payment. Certain key disaster risk management staff members, relatively early on in the project, had exhausted their overtime allocation. The result was that disaster risk management staff members were not willing to leave Klerksdorp (where the district municipality disaster risk management centre is based) for sites in neighbouring

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

10 van Riet and van Niekerk

towns, before 08:00 am. This meant that a lot of time was lost during the workshops. The authors find it quite disconcerting that disaster risk management staff members have limited eligibility for overtime payment. Disasters can occur at any time, surely not only between 08:00 am and 17:00 pm. The lesson that can be learned from the above is that DRAs should be spread out over a significant period of time (i.e. 8– 12 months). It is most unlikely that staff capacities and availability will not be a constraint in South Africa, or in other parts of the world. Thus, local government or NGO staff conducting such assessments would do well to heed this recommendation. Disaster risk management should be a day-to-day activity. Thus, DRAs should ideally take place consistently, as vulnerability is a dynamic process that is constantly changing. Local government staff should thus treat these assessments as a continual cycle that is performed at a given site every few years. This will likely alleviate bottleneck issues as experienced by this research. It should be clear that the outsourcing of DRAs, which typically implies terms of reference that stipulate too specific and limited periods of time, is not conducive to proper CBDRA. The quality of the data gathered was not always very good, and often lacked detail. It seems as though facilitators and participants rushed through the step-by-step guide to conducting the workshops. The result was that certain key elements, such as the ‘problem tree’ (and resulting discussion) lacked detail. The notes taken during discussions, in general, did not contain much detail. In many instances, only the flipchart paper containing the various diagrams used during group work was provided and in certain cases these diagrams contained very little detail. Although the data gathered, at times, could arguably have been a bit more detailed, one should be careful not to lose sight of what is important. The workshop conducted by DiMP (2007), also did not render very detailed findings (judging by the report). However, perhaps a principle of ‘good enough’ should be applied,

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

especially if dependence on outside consultants is going to be relieved. The report by DiMP (2007) and the final reports of this project do contain the most pertinent basic information on the local disaster risk profiles, such as who is affected? how? why? and so forth. Furthermore, it is less likely that the data issues mentioned here would emerge in a context where CBDRA is a continual local government function, where the strict timeframes of consultancy projects do not apply. One should guard against viewing technical, scientific analysis, coupled with extended narratives as an end in itself. Such analysis stands in the way of actual disaster mitigation, which is the actual end to be achieved. Sufficient data should be gathered so that meaningful actions may be taken. The DRA reports compiled during the projects have been included in risk management plans, which in turn are meant to be incorporated into the integrated development planning processes of the KKDM (South Africa, 2000, 2003, 2005). However, the ideal would be that local municipalities follow up with communities on community-centred disaster risk management strategies identified during the workshops. In such a way actual community-based disaster risk management might take place. This would imply a more emancipatory outcome, as opposed to a purely extractive one. There are often already many community development or mitigation initiatives that can be built on. For example, in one instance a community, using its own initiative, constructed a barrier to floodwater from a nearby gully. If community-based disaster risk management does not take place, and interventions delineated in the planning process do not filter through to the community level, then CBDRA would have been no more than a meaningless, bureaucratic exercise. Another aspect where CBDRAs, such as those employed in this project, might still need to improve is that of the use and incorporation of hazard specific technical expertise. The community-based approach does not allow for sophisticated and scientific hazard assessments. Mostly

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 11

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

communities do not understand or have the prior knowledge to contribute to such an assessment. Hazard assessments during CBDRAs are typically conducted by generalists and might lack specialised knowledge. For example, parts of the KKDM are prone to sinkhole forming. However, the nature of this risk cannot conceivably be comprehended without the aid of geologists. This knowhow should be sourced and fed into whatever initiatives are planned in relevant areas. The vulnerability context of communities therefore becomes ever more important to understand.

10. Capacity development Although the capacity development element of the project did have some success, there were also some challenges. The most important challenge was the issue of staff turnover. Two disaster risk management staff officials, including the head of the disaster risk management centre at the KKDM, took up different positions shortly after the workshops had been completed. Such staff turnover at the local government level poses a major threat to disaster risk management capacity development initiatives. As has been discussed above, it was a major challenge to firstly train enough local government officials, and secondly to maintain their participation throughout the project. The fact that those most consistently involved in the project were subsequently lost represents a major setback for capacity development and institutional memory. If, as proposed above, DRA becomes a more regular activity within a municipality, issues of institutional turnover are less likely to have such a major effect on institutional memory (Hagelsteen, 2009). New staff members might then consistently learn from others, by way of first-hand experience.

11. Conclusion CBDRA is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, for various reasons. This might be contrasted with Van Riet’s (2009a) analysis of other

DRA methodologies. CBDRA still poses its own set of challenges as highlighted in the literature review (DiMP, 2005; Morrisey, 2005; Pelling, 2007). The scaling up of approaches, such as those proposed by Holloway et al. (2008), is much more time and labour intensive than the desktop approaches discussed by Van Riet (2009a). However, they arguably produce more useful and relevant data. Even though, as mentioned above, these analyses were not always very detailed, they were carried out at the lowest level of analysis and thus produced more valid data (as discussed by Pelling, 2007). Furthermore, if CBDRA becomes a more consistent activity driven by local government, the communitybased approach will facilitate relationship building between local government and communities, which in turn might lead the way for better service delivery and development. It would therefore imply that these CBDRAs are not merely community level data extraction exercises, but also community-based disaster risk management activities (Pelling, 2007). Local government therefore should continue to work with local populations in order to reduce disaster risk. A fixation on sophisticated methodologies may divert attention from the overall objective of taking action. The principle of ‘good enough’, as proposed above, should therefore be applied. This recommendation is in line with the findings of Van Riet (2009a), which indicate more ‘sophisticated’, often quantitative approaches followed by consultants produce less valid data. Participation, it might be argued, fits well within the spirit of ‘developmental local government’ (Van Donk et al., 2008) and its emphasis on participatory democracy. DRA should therefore not, as a rule, be outsourced as highlighted by DiMP (2005). This project proves that local municipal staff members could carry out DRAs with initial guidance from consultants. The project deliberately followed a methodology developed in South Africa, which is easily accessible to local government staff and locally applicable. Disaster risk management remains the responsibility of various community and governmentbased actors (UN/ISDR, 2005; GNDR, 2009;

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

12 van Riet and van Niekerk

Hagelsteen, 2009). However, it is the responsibility of local government to drive the process. It is essential that local government build relationships with local communities so that more emancipatory disaster risk management, understood as a consistent and evolving activity at the community level, can take place. It is argued that such an approach is also in keeping with the participatory spirit of developmental local government. Other lessons learned from this experience also add weight to this position. Staff turnover implies a pressing need for CBDRA to be a more consistent action at municipal level. This will ensure more regular learning opportunities for officials, so that institutional memory is not lost (refer back to Pelling, 2007; GNDR, 2009; Hagelsteen, 2009). It is also clear that such a large-scale project has numerous logistical challenges. This too is something that can be mitigated by ensuring that CBDRA is a more regular local government-driven activity. Finally, the reliance on outside ‘experts’ is an unfortunate by-product of the knowledge economy. Even though data production and management issues did emerge during this project, it is possible for local officials and communities, with sufficient commitment and capacity development, to sustainably execute a CBDRA methodology, which produces useful information.

Note 1. The use of a ward councillor in this respect might also not be advisable for other reasons. The ward councillor might fill the workshop with ‘his/her people’ (from their specific political party). The presence of the ward councillor might also affect the outcome of the workshop, as it might influence what participant feel comfortable discussing.

References Abarquez, I. and Murshed, Z., 2004. Community-Based Disaster Risk Management: Field Practitioners’

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Handbook. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Pathumthani. Anderson, M. B. and Woodrow, P. J., 1998. Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster. Lynne Rienner Publishers, London. Botha, D., Van Niekerk, D., Wentink, G., Tshona, T., Maartens, Y., Forbes, K., Annandale, E., Coetzee, C. and Raju, E., 2011. Disaster Risk Management Status Assessment at Municipalities in South Africa. South African Local Government Association (SALGA), Pretoria. Chen, L., Liu, Y. and Chan, K., 2006. Integrated community-based disaster management program in Taiwan: a case study of Shang-an village. Natural Hazards, 37(1 – 2). 209–223. De Bios, H. B., 2002. Participatory Capacities and Vulnerability Assessment: Finding the Link Between Disasters and Development. Oxfam, Philippines. Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme (DiMP), 2005. International Workshop on Community Risk Assessment. http://www. proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/ CRA_ws_report.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2011]. Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme (DiMP), 2007. Community Risk Assessment Haarlem, Uniondale, South Africa. Provincial Government Western Cape, South Africa. Global Network of Civil Society Organisations For Disaster Reduction (GNDR), 2009. ‘Clouds But Little Rain. . .’: Views from the Frontline – A Local Perspective of Progress Towards Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction, Teddington. Hagelsteen, M., 2009. Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction: Bridging Theory and Practice. MDMa thesis, University of Copenhagen and Lund University, Denmark and Sweden. Holloway, A., Roomaney, R., Pharaoh, R., Solomon, F. J. and Cousins, D., 2008. Weathering the Storm: Participatory Risk Assessment for Informal Settlements. Periperi, Cape Town. MacGregor, H., Bucher, N., Durham, C., Falcao, M., Morrissey, J., Silverman, I., Smith, H. and Taylor, A., 2005. Hazard Profile and Vulnerability Assessment for Informal Settlements: An Imizamo Yethu Case Study with Special Reference to the Experience of Children. DiMP University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Minnie, J. and Van Schalkwyk, E., 2004. Community Based Disaster Risk Management: Building Resilience and Enhancing Livelihoods. Module 5: Advanced Course in Disaster Studies African Centre for Disaster Studies. North-West University, Potchefstroom.

Downloaded by [Dewald Van Niekerk] at 12:00 31 May 2012

Capacity development for participatory disaster risk assessment 13

Morrisey, J., 2005. Livelihoods at Risk: The Case of The Mphanda Nkuwa Dam (Community Risk Assessment for the Proposed Mphanda Nkuwa Hydroelectric Dam). Justic¸a Ambiental, Maputo, Mozambique, http://www.open.ac.uk/technology/mozambique/ pics/d97778.pdf [Accessed 19 March 2011]. Pelling, M., 2007. Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4). 373–385. Pelling, M. and Wisner, B., 2009. Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa. Earthscan, London. Roos, V., Chigeza, S. and Van Niekerk, D., 2010. Coping with drought: indigenous knowledge application in rural South Africa. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 9(1). 1–11. South Africa (Republic), 1998. Municipal Demarcation Act No 27 of 1998. Government Printer, Pretoria. South Africa (Republic), 2000. Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000. Government Printer, Pretoria. South Africa (Republic), 2003. Disaster Management Act No 57 of 2002. Government Printer, Pretoria. South Africa (Republic), 2005. National Disaster Management Policy Framework. Government Printer, Pretoria. Tesch, R., 1990. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Flamer, New York. Twigg, J., 2004. Good Practice Review: Disaster Risk Reduction – Mitigation and Preparedness in Development And Emergency Programming. HPN, London. United Nations (UN), 1994. Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation. World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, 23 – 27 May. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2007. Discussion paper; Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2009. Supporting Capacity Development: The UNDP Approach. Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy, New York. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action: Building the Resilient of Nations and Communities to Disaster. Geneva, UN.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Africa (UN/ISDR Africa), 2005. Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Assessment in Development. Nairobi, UN. Van Donk, M., Swilling, M., Pieterse, E. and Parnell, S., 2008. Consolidating Developmental Local Government. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town. Van Niekerk, D., 2006. Disaster risk management in South Africa: the function and the activity – towards an integrated approach. Politeia, 25(2). 95–115. Van Riet, G., 2009a. Disaster risk assessment in South Africa: some current challenges. South African Review of Sociology, 40(2). 194–208. Van Riet, G., 2009b. Qualitative and quantitative community level approaches: disaster risk assessment in the Fezile Dabi District Municipality. Africanus: Journal of Development Studies, 39(2). 31–43. Van Riet, G. and Diedericks, M., 2010. The ‘optimal’ placement of disaster management centres in district, metropolitan municipality and provincial government structures. Administratio Publica, 18(4). 155–173. Van Staden, D., Rogers, E., Makaudi, I., Winkler, J., White, J., Kangale, M., Rudman, N., Nkosi, S., Dreyer, T. R. and Coetzer, T., 2006. A Transect Walk Undertaken in Itereleng Informal Settlement to Observe Community Vulnerability. City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality Disaster Risk Management Centre, Pretoria. Wisner, B., 2005. Community Risk Assessment: Past, Present & Future. International Workshop on Community Risk Assessment. Community Risk Assessment as a New Emerging Discourse, International Workshop on Community Risk Assessment, Cape Town 31 May–2 June. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I., 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London. Wold, G. W. and Shriver, R. F., 1997. Risk analysis techniques. Disaster Recovery Journal, 7(3). 46–52. World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000/ 2001: Poor People’s Exposure to Risk. http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/ WDR/English-Full-Text-Report/ch8.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2011].

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.