Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

212
Natural and human-made disasters
National budgets for
disasters tend to
prioritize relief and
emergency
responses
Box 8.15 Lessons in risk reduction from Cuba
Cuba’s integrated system of disaster risk management has
succeeded in saving many lives and has built resilience beyond the
level that might be expected from the country’s economic status.
Between 1996 and 2002, six hurricanes hit Cuba, causing 16 deaths
in Cuba out of the total of 665 deaths they collectively caused.
What is Cuba doing right?
Central to Cuba’s successful risk reduction is the government’s
stated priority that its fundamental commitment during a
hurricane is to save lives. The country’s risk reduction plan and
disaster preparedness structures support this commitment to save
lives through the following:
• a disaster preparedness plan, which incorporates a specific
focus on the most vulnerable, provides for monitoring their
situation and adapts plans to address their specific needs;
• the national civil defence structure, which uses sub-national
government at the provincial, municipal and local level for
disaster preparedness and response (in most disasters, local
knowledge and leadership play key but unacknowledged roles
in disaster risk reduction; the Cuban model incorporates
these as central);
• practical, effective lifeline structures, with particular emphasis
on mass evacuation and use of safe secure shelters;
• a ‘culture of safety’ that creates the trust and awareness
necessary to motivate people to cooperate and participate in
risk reduction;
• citizen participation by incorporating community mobilization
in a three-tiered system of participation in planning, community
implementation of lifeline structures and the creation and
building of social capital.
Source: Thompson, 2007
Since 75 per cent of Cuba’s 11 million people are urban, the
country’s disaster preparedness plan has a strong focus on being
operational in urban areas.
Cuba’s model also owes a lot to its unique system of
government and its socio-economic model, which has consistently
addressed risk reduction through policies of social and economic
equity and poverty reduction. These policies have produced ‘multiplier
effects’ that enhance risk reduction in many ways. The adult
population is 100 per cent literate and therefore can access educational
materials about disasters, and all children are exposed to
disaster preparedness in school curricula. There is an adequate
road system in the country that facilitates speedy evacuation and
building codes are enforced, which reduces the element of highly
vulnerable substandard construction. Approximately 95 per cent of
the households in the country have electricity and therefore can
access information about disasters through radio and television.
Finally, the intricate web of social, professional and political organizations
in the country provides organizational structures that can
be quickly mobilized in disaster. Surprisingly, the economic crisis
triggered by the collapse of the Soviet Union has not affected
Cuba’s success in protecting the lives of its population from hurricanes.
The Cuban government is unique in that it has paid an
equal amount of attention to the structural and physical aspects of
disaster preparedness, but also created a ‘culture of safety’ through
successful education and awareness campaigns. It has also demonstrated
the central importance of management capacity and
political will in successful risk reduction. This holds out real possibility
and hope for other countries, rich and poor alike, facing the
growing dangers of natural hazards.
…bilateral and
multilateral donors
… have a history of
supporting disaster
reconstruction
the capital city, Georgetown, from flooding. Political and
personal rivalry between the leaders of city and national
governments is, at times, interpreted as a cause for delay or
withdrawal of funds.
National budgets for disasters tend to prioritize relief
and emergency responses. Prevention and mitigation are less
attractive as funding choices. After all, governments get less
praise from the electorate and the international community
for reducing disaster risk than they do for a speedy and
generous emergency response. 79 A number of countries
have special calamity funds to cover the additional costs of
reconstruction (e.g. India, the Philippines and Colombia),
while some in Latin America and the Caribbean make special
mention of municipal-level support for risk reduction. 80
Social funds and public works programmes are more
normally associated with large-scale rural disasters as mechanisms
for supporting livelihoods; but they have potential for
urban areas too. In Nicaragua, following Hurricane Mitch in
1998, social fund financing was released through four
regional offices and used to build shelter, water and sanitation
systems, and bridges. This was essential for enabling
critical services and market access to smaller towns and rural
settlements. 81
Like national governments, bilateral and multilateral
donors, including international development banks, have a
history of supporting disaster reconstruction. The Asian
Development Bank (ADB), the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB), the UNDP, the World Bank and the African
Development Bank all have policies covering natural disasters
and implement projects in this area. Only the UNDP
funds relief; but all are active in reconstruction. With the
exception of the African Development Bank, disaster reconstruction
can be funded by drawing on funding already
allocated to development projects. The World Bank’s
approach to disasters, for instance, has tended to be reactive
rather than tactical (see Box 8.16). Disasters have been
treated as interruptions in development rather than as a risk
that is integral to development. Few Country Assistance
Strategies or Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)
supported by the World Bank mention disaster risk.
Recent initiatives, notably by the IDB, the Caribbean
Development Bank, the DFID and the Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), among others,
indicate a reappraisal and recognition of the value of investing
in risk reduction. For example, in 2006, the DFID
committed to allocating approximately 10 per cent of its