Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

204Natural and human-made disastersBox 8.8 Using the law to fight technological risk in Durban, South AfricaSouth Durban Community in South Africa is a highly polluted area where 200,000 largelyvulnerable and disadvantaged residents live side by side with heavy industries. In 2002, successfullegal action was taken by the community to prevent the development of a paper incineratorby Mondi, a paper manufacturing company. This legal case was taken up by the community afterthe provincial government granted permission to Mondi to construct an incinerator withoutfollowing proper procedures. The Legal Resources Centre lodged an appeal on behalf of thecommunity in the Durban High Court on 11 October 2002, restraining the Minister ofAgriculture and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province, from approving the Mondiincinerator. The minister was interdicted pending the finalization of a judicial review.The legal recourse was taken on the grounds that government granted an oral exemptionto Mondi from conducting a full environmental impact assessment (EIA). It was argued thatthis exemption was invalid, according to statutory requirements, and that the failure to appointan independent consultant, conduct a full IEA and examine the necessary alternatives was inbreach of existing legislation. The Legal Resources Centre also pointed out that a proper interpretationof the EIA showed that sulphur dioxide emissions from Mondi’s incinerator wouldexceed World Health Organization (WHO) standards and national guidelines of 1998. This, thecommunity noted, was against their constitutional right to live in a healthy environment.The verbal exemption from conducting an EIA given to Mondi was overruled by a highcourt judge and the company’s proposal had to be processed again, taking into account thenecessary EIA requirements.Sources: South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, 2003a, 2003bplanning is the best way of protecting households from theseand other risks. Box 8.9 presents eight ways in which thiscan be done.Box 8.9 Microfinance for disaster risk reductionIt is important that gains made through microfinance are protected from the economic andhuman impacts of disaster. Here, eight ways of protecting microfinance clients from disaster riskare presented:1 Meet with clients to discuss preparations for, and responses to, natural disasters.2 Create accessible emergency funds to provide clients with a financial safety net in times ofcrisis.3 Microfinance groups can provide a ready social network for promoting primary healthcarein order to build resilience pre- and post-disaster.4 Microfinance coordinators can aid in the building of resilience through encouraging clientsto diversify into disaster-resistant activities.5 Housing is arguably the most important asset in urban livelihoods. Microfinance initiativesshould consider providing savings or loan products to encourage clients to move to saferareas and to invest in more durable housing.6 Insurance products provided by multinational financial institutions to their clients aretypically designed to protect against individual crisis and not crises that affect the entireportfolio of clients. Some microfinance agencies have begun experimenting with insuranceproducts for disaster response, in some cases turning to the re-insurance market tospread aggregate risks.7 Microfinance coordinators can disseminate information on providers of emergencyservices and safe shelter in times of emergency.8 The social network of the microfinance organization can act as an information conduit forearly warning.Challenges of building local capacity for riskreductionLocal potential for disaster risk reduction can only berealized in supportive social, economic, legislative and politicalenvironments. In a recent study of slum settlements insix African countries, ActionAid found that a lack of collectiveaction to reduce risk was a major determinant in shapingvulnerability and reducing capacity to recover fromflooding. 37There is also an uneasy tension between the empoweringof local actors to confront local causes of risk and theoffloading of state or private-sector responsibilities.Decentralization of urban governance has seen many municipalitiesstruggling with a gap between responsibilities thathave been devolved from central government and theresources, which have, in many instances, not been madeavailable. There is a danger that the same flow of responsibilitywithout resources will result from the increasingemphasis on local actor involvement in risk reduction.It is also important not to lose sight of the deeperhistorical and structural root causes of disaster risk in thenational and global political economy. Community-basedapproaches inherently focus on the concerns of particularplaces and are often directed by the most immediate localdevelopment challenges. On the surface, this is reasonable;but without care, it can mask deeper social and economicstructures and physical processes that are the root causes ofinequality, vulnerability and hazard.The challenge of bringing together top-down, scientificand strategic policy-driven risk reduction priorities withbottom-up, experiential and often tactical priorities of grassrootsactors lies at the heart of all planned interventions forlocal capacity-building. Building local capacity is difficult incontexts where disaster risk reduction is not perceived to bea priority by local actors. In areas where disasters are infrequentor have had only a limited impact, it is quite rationalfor those on a low income, with little time to spare andsubject to many hazards – from police harassment and streetcrime to the threat or reality of homelessness – not to wantto participate in disaster risk reduction initiatives as a priority.The tension between local and external priorities ismade especially visible, but also difficult to reconcile, whenexternal actors engage with community actors throughparticipatory methodologies. This can mean that long-termrisks, including low-frequency, high-impact hazards and lowlevelchronic hazards, such as air pollution, are not identifiedas priorities by local actors and therefore might not beaddressed.Strategies for reconciling local everyday and externalstrategic visions of risk are needed in order to maximize thepotential for local capacity to build resilience to disaster.Three strategies are to:Source: Microenterprise Best Practice (undated)