World Disasters Report 2010 - International Federation of Red Cross ...

CHAPTER 7
Photo opposite page:
On 27 May 2006,
an earthquake
caused widespread
destruction around the
city of Yogyakarta on
Java, Indonesia, killing
some 6,000 people.
The Indonesian Red
Cross Society, backed
by the IFRC, launched
a massive relief
operation to help the
injured and those who
were displaced
by the quake.
© Spanish Red Cross
144
where the lack of attention to disaster risk reduction by local governments becomes
evident – even as politicians and civil servants hide behind the term ‘natural disaster’ or
find fault with their predecessors. But it is also at the local level that risk management
becomes possible. Vulnerability and hazards interact generating specific risk conditions,
which are socially and geographically specific, dynamic and in constant flux. It is
at the local level that civil society can interact with government and together plan for
disaster risk reduction within a local development framework.
The 1990s – the International Decade for Disaster Risk Reduction – brought a shift
in the way disasters are understood with much more attention being paid to the links
between development, disasters and environmental degradation. From this came a
widespread consensus that risks are a social construction and that risk reduction should
be implemented locally and with local actors. For Latin America, two key factors contributed
to this: decentralization processes and state reforms in many countries; and
the occurrence of several major disasters in the region which affected large population
centres. Several countries enacted new legislation or are in the process of making
amendments so as to meet the challenges of development and disaster risk reduction;
in many cases this includes the transformation of emergency response agencies into
national risk reduction systems.
Governments – many at the local level – have assumed new roles and responsibilities,
including modifying their approach to risk management, integrating different actors
into the process and implementing risk management within development planning.
But these remain the exception and a wide gap exists between rhetoric and practice.
Many governments at different levels continue to focus only on emergency and reconstruction
efforts and the latter often fail to incorporate long-term actions that would
reduce risk and vulnerability to disasters. Disaster risk reduction is not a one-off activity
but a continuous process.
What makes cities and municipal governments
address disaster risk reduction?
Some city governments have shown how to incorporate disaster risk reduction into
development, i.e., to go beyond provisions for disaster preparedness. They have implemented
the development initiatives and associated controls, regulatory frameworks
and governance mechanisms that are essential to reducing risks. These have included
upgrading programmes for informal settlements, urban land-use management with
associated zoning and building codes, housing improvements and expanding coverage
of city-wide infrastructure and services. Most examples of this come from nations or
cities where popular pressure and political reforms have made local governments more
accountable and responsive to their citizens. Obviously, this has to include local governments
which develop relations with those who live in informal settlements and develop
the capacity to govern with, and for, them. One of the most important innovations in