Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Mitigating the impacts of disasters283Box 12.4 Integrating disaster risk reduction, urban planning and housing in El SalvadorSince Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and earthquakes in 2001, developmentand housing organizations in El Salvador have begun tointegrate risk reduction within their programmes and projects.Increased work at the municipal level, greater focus on participationand changes in housing finance during the 1990s triggered theadoption of new operational approaches in providing socialhousing. Changes in the delivery of housing were accompanied bythe uptake of new tools that have enabled an integrated risk reductionapproach. Key among these tools have been:Risk checklists for improved housing quality control. Thesewere introduced after the earthquakes of 2001 to fill a gap innational construction legislation and enforcement.Risk maps and assessments. Guidelines for local risk mappinghave been available since 1992, but have only been applied comprehensivelyby municipalities since the recent disasters. Maps havebeen used for local awareness-raising and in digitized format forland-use planning.Strategic frameworks. A strategic framework for integratedhousing and risk reduction was introduced by the FundaciónSalvadoreña de Apoyo Integral (FUSAI) 13 in 2004. Within this plan,housing is repositioned and is no longer seen as a final goal, but as acomponent that, with other activities, can contribute towardssustainable development. Guidelines for integrated land-useplanning and risk reduction were also introduced by the GermanGovernment’s International Development Agency, the DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in 2003.Risk indicators. These have been developed with the aim ofbuilding a more quantitative instrument to aid policy decisionmaking,supported by the Inter-American Development Bank.To enable the implementation of integrated projects, some organizationshave adapted their internal structures and other neworganizations have been created. Existing organizations have broadenedtheir mandates to incorporate new collaborations. This isalso reflected in statements in strategic plans and the creation offocal points for risk reduction inside urban planning and housingorganizations. Since 2001, legislative changes have included theupdating of laws and regulations for construction and urbanplanning; the integration of risk reduction within national housingpolicy and within a draft policy for land use; change in governmenthousing finance; and the integration of risk reduction within municipalland-use and related enactments.Source: Warmsler, 2006aconceptual framework for broadening the portfolios ofhumanitarian and development actors.Yet, key challenges to a more integrated and sustainableapproach persist, perpetuated by institutionalstructures at all levels. International progress on jointfunding for sustainable reconstruction is tangible but slow.At the municipal level, challenges vary, but include differencesin institutional capacity and political will. Box 12.4presents the findings of a review of innovations in ElSalvador that have overcome some of these barriers andenabled a more integrated approach to risk reduction.It has been argued that the failure to integrate riskreduction and urban development starts with overly specializedtraining, which serves to compartmentalize disastermanagement and urban planning, rather than foster aculture of interdisciplinarity. 14 This is exacerbated whenurban planners have limited post-disaster experience, untiltheir city is hit by a disaster, although city exchanges andtraining in post-conflict reconstruction can help to overcomethis challenge. This disciplinary and experiential gap is alltoo often translated into the absence of urban developmentprofessionals from disaster response and reconstructionefforts, particularly in the planning and management oftemporary housing. This misses an opportunity for disasterresponse to integrate the knowledge of local urban planningprofessionals.Professional separation results in the use of differentworking priorities, concepts and terminologies that maintainbarriers between the different professionals. 15 Institutionaldifferences and competition for funding breeds scepticismabout the tools and capacities of other disciplines. Urbanplanning is criticized for predominantly employing a physical/engineeringapproach, often related to expensivelarge-scale engineering measures, which has only limitedrelevance to the language and working priorities of riskreduction. Potential for developing more integrated, interdisciplinaryrisk reduction projects is further limited bydonors’ separate budget lines for development andemergency relief. 16Ways beyond the impasse in communication betweendisaster management and urban development professionalsare opening up; but more work is needed. Internationalorganizations, as well as national and local governments, candevelop internal mechanisms to foster interaction betweenthese practitioner communities. Funding cycles for reconstructionand relief projects are often rapid and targetspecific aspects of reconstruction, rather than taking anintegrated approach. This undermines capacity for buildingintegrated teams. At the national level, legal structures forrisk reduction and urban planning are frequently separate,absent or lack national–municipal collaboration.RISK REDUCTIONTHROUGH LAND-USEPLANNINGEffective land-use planning requires evidence-based andtransparent decision-making. Without up-to-date andaccurate information, as well as clear decision-making criteria,effective urban development planning becomes difficult.…the failure tointegrate risk reductionand urbandevelopment startswith overly specializedtraining