Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

238
Towards safer and more secure cities
socially acceptable communication media to disseminate
early warning information has been found to be particularly
effective. Furthermore, knowledge derived from early
warning systems should be linked to local-level action plans
as these enable timely response and resource mobilization in
the face of disasters.
As highlighted in Chapter 12, city authorities can also
implement a number of strategies to reduce disaster risk
under the auspices of overarching national policies. Disaster
risk reduction should become an integral part of urban
planning and management, although this is not easy. A key
constraint at the city level is a lack of capacity for enforcing
regulations and implementation of plans. Differences in
professional training and work practices, and budget lines
that make a distinction between development and
emergency also hamper progress. Interdisciplinary and intersectoral
training, research and partnerships can be used to
enhance implementation capacity at the city level. Involving
the private sector in disaster risk reduction efforts can
further enhance the capacity of city authorities to reduce
loss from disasters.
Land-use planning is a particularly effective instrument
that can be employed by city authorities to reduce
disaster risk by regulating the expansion of human settlements
and infrastructure. Evidence-based land-use planning
at the city level requires accurate and up-to-date data, which
is lacking in many contexts, especially those with rapidly
expanding populations and informal settlements.
Technological innovation can help to fill part of this gap.
Participatory planning offers opportunities for extending
land-use planning into informal settlements and slums. For
instance, participatory GIS can be used to identify more
subtle local characteristics of places that lead to vulnerability
or risk.
Designing disaster-resistant buildings and infrastructure
in cities can save many lives and assets from natural and
human-made disasters. The technical expertise to achieve
this is available; but implementation is a major challenge.
The safety standards of buildings and infrastructure can be
improved through integrating risk reduction within
construction design and project management. Partnerships
between engineers, artisans and the public can help to
promote disaster-proof construction locally. Increasing the
prominence of disaster risk management in relevant
academic and training courses has the potential to improve
safer design and construction. Even where initial designs or
construction methods have not been sound, retrofitting
provides an option for ensuring safety standards. Indigenous
designs should not be cast aside in the rush to modernize
urban settlements, as valuable techniques for safe construction
can be lost in the process.
Finally, reconstruction efforts need to balance a range
of competing pressures. Hardest to reconcile are demands
for rapid provision of basic needs against the more timeconsuming
aim of ‘building back better’. This tension is
particularly evident in shelter reconstruction. Greater
partnership between humanitarian and development actors
is the most likely way beyond this impasse. If humanitarian
actors are to integrate development planning within their
work, appropriate budgetary and institutional changes are
necessary. Clear legislative frameworks should also be in
place to avoid uncoordinated and fragmented action by city
governments, local actors, donors and humanitarian
agencies. Innovative financial programmes, such as
microfinance or micro-insurance, are necessary for facilitating
the revival of household and community economies,
while avoiding the disempowering experience that can come
with international humanitarian aid. Mobilizing spare capacity
at the city level, such as medical stock and temporary
accommodation, can enhance response and recovery efforts.
All of the three chapters in this part of the report do,
in fact, propose specific pathways to resilience, as discussed
in Chapter 2. While working towards the goal of safer and
more secure cities, it is obvious that the efforts undertaken
at all of the various levels discussed in this <strong>Global</strong> <strong>Report</strong>
have to address, often simultaneously, a number of issues in
various arenas. Crime and violence cannot be addressed
solely through a focus on more police or more jails. Similarly,
security of tenure cannot be addressed through the provision
of title deeds alone, and people cannot be protected against
natural and human-made disasters if all efforts are concentrated
at disaster response. Safer and more secure cities can
only be realized through comprehensive initiatives that, at
the same time, incorporate aspects of institutional and policy
development, and international and national law, as well as
the potential contributions of all relevant stakeholders,
including civil society actors.