Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Mitigating the impacts of disasters
283
Box 12.4 Integrating disaster risk reduction, urban planning and housing in El Salvador
Since Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and earthquakes in 2001, development
and housing organizations in El Salvador have begun to
integrate risk reduction within their programmes and projects.
Increased work at the municipal level, greater focus on participation
and changes in housing finance during the 1990s triggered the
adoption of new operational approaches in providing social
housing. Changes in the delivery of housing were accompanied by
the uptake of new tools that have enabled an integrated risk reduction
approach. Key among these tools have been:
Risk checklists for improved housing quality control. These
were introduced after the earthquakes of 2001 to fill a gap in
national construction legislation and enforcement.
Risk maps and assessments. Guidelines for local risk mapping
have been available since 1992, but have only been applied comprehensively
by municipalities since the recent disasters. Maps have
been used for local awareness-raising and in digitized format for
land-use planning.
Strategic frameworks. A strategic framework for integrated
housing and risk reduction was introduced by the Fundación
Salvadoreña de Apoyo Integral (FUSAI) 13 in 2004. Within this plan,
housing is repositioned and is no longer seen as a final goal, but as a
component that, with other activities, can contribute towards
sustainable development. Guidelines for integrated land-use
planning and risk reduction were also introduced by the German
Government’s International Development Agency, the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in 2003.
Risk indicators. These have been developed with the aim of
building a more quantitative instrument to aid policy decisionmaking,
supported by the Inter-American Development Bank.
To enable the implementation of integrated projects, some organizations
have adapted their internal structures and other new
organizations have been created. Existing organizations have broadened
their mandates to incorporate new collaborations. This is
also reflected in statements in strategic plans and the creation of
focal points for risk reduction inside urban planning and housing
organizations. Since 2001, legislative changes have included the
updating of laws and regulations for construction and urban
planning; the integration of risk reduction within national housing
policy and within a draft policy for land use; change in government
housing finance; and the integration of risk reduction within municipal
land-use and related enactments.
Source: Warmsler, 2006a
conceptual framework for broadening the portfolios of
humanitarian and development actors.
Yet, key challenges to a more integrated and sustainable
approach persist, perpetuated by institutional
structures at all levels. International progress on joint
funding for sustainable reconstruction is tangible but slow.
At the municipal level, challenges vary, but include differences
in institutional capacity and political will. Box 12.4
presents the findings of a review of innovations in El
Salvador that have overcome some of these barriers and
enabled a more integrated approach to risk reduction.
It has been argued that the failure to integrate risk
reduction and urban development starts with overly specialized
training, which serves to compartmentalize disaster
management and urban planning, rather than foster a
culture of interdisciplinarity. 14 This is exacerbated when
urban planners have limited post-disaster experience, until
their city is hit by a disaster, although city exchanges and
training in post-conflict reconstruction can help to overcome
this challenge. This disciplinary and experiential gap is all
too often translated into the absence of urban development
professionals from disaster response and reconstruction
efforts, particularly in the planning and management of
temporary housing. This misses an opportunity for disaster
response to integrate the knowledge of local urban planning
professionals.
Professional separation results in the use of different
working priorities, concepts and terminologies that maintain
barriers between the different professionals. 15 Institutional
differences and competition for funding breeds scepticism
about the tools and capacities of other disciplines. Urban
planning is criticized for predominantly employing a physical/engineering
approach, often related to expensive
large-scale engineering measures, which has only limited
relevance to the language and working priorities of risk
reduction. Potential for developing more integrated, interdisciplinary
risk reduction projects is further limited by
donors’ separate budget lines for development and
emergency relief. 16
Ways beyond the impasse in communication between
disaster management and urban development professionals
are opening up; but more work is needed. International
organizations, as well as national and local governments, can
develop internal mechanisms to foster interaction between
these practitioner communities. Funding cycles for reconstruction
and relief projects are often rapid and target
specific aspects of reconstruction, rather than taking an
integrated approach. This undermines capacity for building
integrated teams. At the national level, legal structures for
risk reduction and urban planning are frequently separate,
absent or lack national–municipal collaboration.
RISK REDUCTION
THROUGH LAND-USE
PLANNING
Effective land-use planning requires evidence-based and
transparent decision-making. Without up-to-date and
accurate information, as well as clear decision-making criteria,
effective urban development planning becomes difficult.
…the failure to
integrate risk reduction
and urban
development starts
with overly specialized
training