开题报告ngo initiatives in risk reduction

1、Disasters, 2001, 25(3): 199215NGO Initiatives in Risk Reduction: An OverviewCharlotte BensonIndependent consultantJohn Twigg University College LondonMary MyersDevelopment communications consultantNGOs appear to be well placed to play a significant role in natural disaster mitigation andactivities.

2、This paper reports the findings of a study seeking to address that gap. It confirms that NGOs are involved in a diverse range of DMP activities but that a number of them are not labelled as such. Moreover, evidence of the demonstrable quality and benefits of DMP involvement is poor. The paper conclu

3、des that a number of problems need to be overcome before DMP can be satisfactorily ma treamed into NGO development and post-disaster rehabilitation programmes. However, there are some early indications of momentum for change.Keywords: NGOs, natural disaster mitigation and preparedness, vulnerability

4、, risk.IntroductionDisasters caused by natural hazards, such as earthquakes, floods and droughts, are a major global problem. Between 1973 and 1997 they caused each year, on average, more than 84,000 deaths and affected the lives of 144 million people, with the majority of victims in developing coun

5、tries (IFRC, 1999). Major natural catastrophes also result in heavy economic losses, averaging an estimated US$54bn per annum (in 1999 prices) during the 1990s (Munich Re, 1999). Moreover, there is clear evidence that the costs of disasters are rising, with a 14-fold increase between the 1950s and 1

6、990s.Poor and socially disadvantaged groups are usually the most vulnerable to and affected by natural disasters, reflecting their social, cultural, economic and political environment. Natural disasters are a source of transient hardship and distress and a factor contributing to persistent poverty (

7、World Bank, 2000). This is most apparent in the economic pressures forcing people to live in dangerous locations (such as flood pla ) but other major underlying causes of vulnerability include population growth, governments economic and other policies, unsustainable management of natural resources a

8、nd rapid urbanisation (Blaikie et al., 1994). Overseas Developmenttitute, 2001.Published by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Matreet, Malden, MA 02148, USA.200Charlotte Benson, John Twigg and Mary MyersSuch vulnerability is not inevitable. Disaster prevention, mitigation and prepared

9、ness (DMP) measures can play a major role in minimising the physical and human consequences of disasters, via a wide range of structural and non-structuralmeasures.However, it is recognised that governments alone cannot achievesignificant, sustainable hazard risk reduction and that greater emphasis

10、must be placed upon local-level and community-based approaches and indigenous knowledge and coping strategies supported by NGOs (IDNDR, 1994; OECD-DAC, 1994).Indeed, NGOs appear to be well placed to play a significant role in this area.NGOs tend to work with poorer and more marginalised groupsociety

11、. Moreover,the participatory approach to development pursued by many NGOs offers them anopportunity to examine the nature of communities vulnerability and, on the basis of this analysis, to incorporate appropriate DMP measures into their work.From this, one might expect considerable NGO sensitivity

12、to hazard vulnerability and extensive involvement in DMP. Anecdotal evidence and the limited published material available do, indeed, provide glimpses of DMP activities (for example, Schilderman, 1993; Witter, 1994). However, there is little information on the scale or nature of NGO DMP activities o

13、verall, particularly in relation to sudden-onset hazards. The precise nature of their activities, factors affecting application, problems encountered and lessons learnt in implementation have been poorly documented. Moreover, DMP is rarely identified as a specific objective of ma tream development N

14、GO programmes, implying that NGOs do not specifically report such activities.These factors suggested to us that much could be gained by systematically documenting NGO experiences in DMP. A research study was therefore launched focusing specifically on natural hazards with four basic aims: to draw to

15、gether information on current NGO DMP activities; to identify ideas for low-cost and easilyreplicable DMP practices; to examinetitutional factors and circumstances whichinfluence DMP activities; and finally, to identify good practices in incorporating DMP features into relief and development project

16、s.The projects fundamental objective was to increase NGOs awareness of thescope for increased adoption of DMP measures in development and post-disaster rehabilitation programmes.This paper presents the overall findings of that study, drawing together case studies of experiences in the UK (among inte

17、rnational NGOs), Bangladesh, Nicaragua,the Philippines and Zimbabwe. It begby considering the role of, and attentionattached to, DMP in the broader analytical discussions of NGOs, their recent growth and the issues and challenges they face. The paper then provides an introduction to NGOs and DMP via

18、 an examination of their understanding of some basic concepts before considering the attention accorded to DMP in NGO policies, strategies and operations, and the characteristics of NGOs DMP projects and programmes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of external influences in determin

19、ing NGO DMP policies and actions.MethodologyThe study was comprised of three basic components:A study of the work of 22 relief and development NGOs based in the UK, working in developing countries.Initiatives in Risk Reduction: An Overview201Studies of local NGO activities in four developing countri

20、es: Bangladesh, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Zimbabwe.A survey of the literature on NGOs and DMP.The UK research was based on interviews and documents supplied by 22 UK-based NGOs, covering a range of NGOs in terms of a number of basic criteria. NGOs were selected on the basis of their age, size (

21、income), area of interest and mode of work. The sample ranged from large, long-established NGOs with incomes of more than 20 million to smaller niche organisations and those with annual expenditure of less than1 million.A range of staff was met within each NGO, including regional programme or desk o

22、fficers, funding officers and technical advisers. In total, 125 people were interviewed, employing a semi-structured format covering the following:type of NGO and mode of work; organisational structure;aims and objectives, covering regional and thematic, as well as overall, policies and strategies;g

23、eneral understanding of disaster-related issues and terminology;DMP activities, including origof interventions, achievements and failures;information systems and sources of information, with particular reference to DMP;information sharing, training and advocacy activities;finance and funding, consid

24、ering allocation of funds to DMP and experience ecuring DMP funding; andexternal influences on DMP work.The four developing-country studies were carried out by local independent researchers using a methodology broadly similar to the UK study, but with a smaller sample of NGOs (40 NGOs; 79 interviewe

25、es in total).The understanding with all NGOs involved in the study was based on confidentiality. The purpose of the research was not to critique individual NGOs policies and activities in DMP but to understand the factors encouraging or inhibiting work in this area and to promote good practice. Ther

26、efore it is not possible to reveal the identity of the NGOs studied.Background: NGOs, development and disastersNGO activities form an important part of international development and relief work. In 1993 there were an estimated 4,000 non-governmental development organisations based in Organisation fo

27、r Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, working with or alongside 10,00020,000 developing-country NGOs who, in turn, assisted up to 100 million people (Edwards and Hulme, 1992: 13). With donors and the United Nations now relying heavily on NGOs as implementing partners in humanitari

28、an operations, NGO capacity has also become crucial to the functioning of the international relief system (Borton and Macrae, 1997: 45; Hendrickson, 1998: 16).202Charlotte Benson, John Twigg and Mary MyersThe NGO sector worldwide has grown rapidly in the past two decades, due largely to the widespre

29、ad perception among communities, aid and development professionals, academics, donors, governments and the general public that NGOs are particularly effective actors in development and relief. Some of the key features normally cited to justify this perception are that:NGOs choose to work with those

30、most in need;they take a participatory approach, responding to the needs of local people; they make long-term commitments;operationally they are quick, flexible and cost-effective;they are innovative in identifying emerging issues and trying out new methods; andthey attempt to give disempowered or m

31、arginalised people a voice in policy discussions with the rich and powerful.As already mentioned, a number of commentators have also encouraged or endorsed NGO involvement in disaster mitigation, for similar reasons:they have direct links with the grassroots and work with the most vulnerable; they c

32、an easily identify potential threats and vulnerabilities;they can support local coping strategies and mobilise peoples capacities; they are well placed to test, develop and disseminate innovations;their often broad-based approach to community development opens the way towards a more holistic approac

33、h to disasters than that of many other influential actors who address the subject from a single scientific or technical angle (Zomer, 1997; OECD/DAC, 1994: 19; Davis, 1990; Skinner, 1992).The NGO sectors popularity with governments and official aid agencies is a response to recent developments in ec

34、onomic and political thinking alsoprincipally the so-called New Policy Agenda that sees the market and private sector as the most efficient mechanisms for achieving economic growth and providing services. With the retreat of the state, aid agencies and governments have increasingly encouraged NGOs t

35、o provide welfare services. NGOs are also seen as essential components of civil society, acting as a pluralist counterweight to state power. This shift in attitude has led to an increased proportion of official aid being channelled to and through NGOs, which has greatly influenced the rise and growt

36、h of the sector North and South in recent years (Edwards and Hulme, 1996: 45; Wallace et al., 1997: 1325).NGOs growing popularity with donors and the increased funding that has resulted has led to increased dependence on official aid, with the risk of being co- opted onto the agendas of others and s

37、eeing their independent social base eroded (Edwards and Hulme, 1996: 45; Wallace et al., 1997). Development NGOs in the 1990s have been well aware of such risks and have begun to question some of the standard assumptions upon which the perception of their effectiveness is based. Pressures on the int

38、ernational humanitarian system have also been immense during the escalating complex emergencies of the 1990s. NGOs, which have increasingly becomethe international communitystruments of humanitarian aid, have found themselvesopen to criticism for failing to challenge the political factors underlying

39、 crises and, inInitiatives in Risk Reduction: An Overview203some cases, for lack of professionalism in relief (ODI, 1998; de Waal, 1997; Hendrickson, 1998).The main issues facing modern development and relief NGOs are substantial ones: how to increase and evaluate impact (Edwards and Hulme, 1992); a

40、ccountability, particularly to beneficiaries (Edwards and Hulme, 1996); how NGOs relate to other actors in relief and development (Clayton, 1996); the real nature of partnership between Northern and Southern NGOs (Smillie, 1995: 1816; Buchanan, 1996); and obstacles to organisational learning (Nimpun

41、o, 1989). Under the pressures of these fundamental questions and challenges, NGOs everywhere have lost some of the self- confidence that characterised their work during the growth years of the mid- to late 1980s. The weaknesses of the old aid agenda are apparent to NGOs, but the shape of the future

42、agenda is not yet clear (CCIC, 1996; BOND, 1998).The issues and challenges arising for NGOs from the new policy agendas in development and relief have not been echoed, however, in discussions about naturaldisaster mitigation and preparedness. Indeed, the literature contalittle seriousdiscussion of t

43、he role of NGOs or CBOs in this area or the particular challenges they face. Perhaps this is an indication of the way in which mitigation commonly falls intothe gaps between development and relief and of the fact that it is often seen merely as a type of activity rather than something more intr ic t

44、o sustainable development. Calls for NGOs to be more active advocates for risk reduction on behalf of vulnerable people (Maskrey, 1990, 1992; Winchester, 1989) have been rare and have largely gone unheeded.In the 1980s, some writers felt that NGOs were beginning to take mitigationseriously, counteri

45、ng the oldertitutional separation of relief and developmentprogrammes (Cuny, 1983: 257; Clarke Guarnizo, 1991: 50103). By 1990, with the added impetus of the new UN International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (UN General Assembly, 1987, 1989), the question of disaster mitigation appeared to

46、befirmly on the international aid agenda at all levels. In the literature, though, evidence of NGO commitment to natural disaster mitigation in the 1990s is limited and gives a mixed impression of the extent and quality of involvement (for example, Sykes, 1989; Nimpuno, 1989; Rosberg and Desrochers,

47、 1992; Berke and Beatley, 1997; Mason, 1994; R&R Fund, 1994; ITDG, 1994; Sharma, 1998). It seems that, with complex emergencies dominating humanitarian concerns and development agencies preoccupied with broader issues arising from the post-Cold War era, natural disasters have been marginalised withi

48、n NGOs aid agendas. However, NGO involvement in risk reduction has always been difficult to chart and is often invisible, especially within development work.Understanding disaster terminologyThe literature on disaster-related issues provides a range of definitions of disaster mitigation and prepared

49、ness (for example, Alexander, 1993; Blaikie et al., 1994; Cuny, 1983; Smith, 1996; UNDP-UNDRO, 1991). Some authorities define mitigation as long-term hazard risk reduction measures; others also include post-disaster actions undertaken to minimise the impact of a disaster that has just occurred. Simi

50、larly, preparedness is sometimes used to define immediate, pre-disaster events to minimise loss of life, sometimes to include longer-term measures as well and sometimes to include post-disaster activities.204Charlotte Benson, John Twigg and Mary MyersIn undertaking interviews for the study, an initi

51、al gauge of the true importance of hazard-related issues within NGO thinking and activities, their awareness and understanding of the issues and their approach in tackling the subject was therefore provided by exploring choices and definitions of terminology with NGO staff. It was also important to

52、discuss terminology simply to ensure that conversations were not held at cross purposes.Interviewees had a good intellectual grasp of disaster issues in general but many were not comfortable with the terms mitigation and preparedness, particularly the former. Moreover, the majority of interviewees d

53、id not use either of these terms on a regular basis. Indeed, in the specific context of food and livelihood security, NGOs including those covered in the Zimbabwe case study and others tend to use an entirely different set of terms, in part reflecting the fact that such projects deal with problems t

54、hat occur with relatively high frequency and are intended to support communities in the management of both good and bad years. The fact that the word mitigation is not translatable or does not have an equivalent in many world languages is also significant.Nonetheless, when prompted for definitions o

55、f mitigation and preparedness,most respondents were broadly in line with the usagetandard disaster literature (forexample, Blaikie et al., 1994; Cuny, 1983; UNDP/UNDRO, 1991), if not actually familiar with it, drawing on their more general familiarity with concepts of vulnerability.Most respondents

56、saw mitigation as actions to be taken before a hazard struck to minimise the scale of a disaster. Most comfortable with concrete examples, they talked of mitigation in terms of, for example, flood and seismic proofing, crop diversification, reafforestation and the construction and operation of cyclo

57、ne shelters. In the case of Nicaragua, there was constant reference to the most recent devastating event, Hurricane Mitch, and a particular need for environmental protection. Others again, particularly in an African context but also many of those covered by the Bangladesh case study, suggested that

58、all their work could ultimately be viewed as mitigation because it contributed to food or livelihood security and thus strengthened peoples capacity to cope with shocks.Most people took the word preparedness to mean action in anticipation of a hazard, again to minimise its impact, but were divided as to how long or short term itshould be. Indeed, the specific examples cited indicated substantial overlap between some peoples understanding of mitigation and preparedness. Elsewhere, DMP was sometimes used as a catch-all to describe essentially short-te