4 Bilateral partnerships on disaster risk reduction
The Government intends to strengthen long-term, strategic cooperation with Norway’s bilateral, multilateral and regional partners on measures to prevent humanitarian crises, with a particular focus on environmental and climate change, urbanisation and growing humanitarian needs in fragile states.
To be effective, disaster risk reduction measures, such as adaptation to climate change, must primarily be implemented at local and regional level, but extensive international coordination is also required to provide the long-term perspective needed to ensure that such measures are effective and help to reduce vulnerability and poverty.
The Government’s priorities are based on what it believes will be the key risk factors in the years to come, as well as on the gaps in and shortcomings of the international system. There is a particular need for stronger political leadership and better international coordination, both within the UN system and between the UN and the international financial institutions. This will also raise awareness in donor and recipient countries.
The Government also regards knowledge, knowledge development and capacity-building in the education and research sector as a key tool in all the priority areas in Norway’s foreign and development policy, including the prevention of humanitarian crises. 1
4.1 Local mobilisation
The Government has noted that preparedness and response mechanisms at local level have been found to be the most effective, for example by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition 2 . It is families, neighbours, friends and local institutions such as churches and mosques that provide help during the first critical hours of a humanitarian crisis. This is why strengthening civil society in cooperation with the local authorities should be one of the main priorities in efforts to enhance local disaster risk reduction and preparedness.
The lessons learned from the tsunami also showed that areas with intact mangrove forests sustained less damage, as the natural vegetation reduced the impact of the tsunami on land. This is why maintaining local ecosystems must be a key element of efforts to prevent natural disasters.
The Government therefore considers it important for Norway’s dialogue on risk reduction efforts with national authorities and multilateral organisations to be based on the principle of subsidiarity.
However, the practical implementation of the principle is challenging. In the acute phase of a crisis, emergency relief measures implemented by the UN and international NGOs can easily push aside local resources and efforts. The reasons for this include time pressure, lack of knowledge about the local community and local conditions, the desire to maintain control of humanitarian funds, and the fear of corruption. On the other hand, the use of local partners ensures better use of resources. And international coordination of emergency relief is generally better if local risk reduction and preparedness capacity is available.
The most important means of implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (Kobe, 2005) is to establish national disaster risk reduction platforms. Only a very few of the most vulnerable countries have done so thus far. 3
It is the authorities in each country that are responsible for implementing risk reduction measures, while donor countries are responsible for ensuring that humanitarian organisations do not bypass local authorities, organisations and networks in their humanitarian efforts. In countries where there is no effective central government, or where the authorities themselves are causing a humanitarian crisis, for example through warfare, local and regional structures need to be found that can fill the vacuum, such as local councils, schools, churches and mosques, social movements and clinics.
The decentralisation of power, authority and resources to local authorities is crucial for good governance. Without a certain degree of decentralisation, it becomes difficult to motivate civil society and individuals to make an effort. It is also important to improve communication and cooperation between the local and national bodies wherever possible, to ensure that risk reduction measures help to reduce the vulnerability of the target groups. The principle of subsidiarity is important, but is not in itself enough to achieve the goal of increased resilience.
The Government would like to emphasise that precisely because a humanitarian crisis acts as an incentive to implement disaster reduction measures that will reduce vulnerability, it is vital that ownership of the reconstruction process lies with the local people themselves and the local and national authorities. Self-help during the reconstruction process reduces vulnerability because it also builds competence. Disaster risk reduction measures are not only a means of improving people’s resilience, but can also improve livelihoods.
Local communities where property and/or user rights are clearly established are much more likely to manage natural resources sustainably than societies where rights to natural resources are unclear, as this situation often encourages short-term strategies and a race for potential profits. Sustainable management, which results in greater resilience to humanitarian crises, is only possible where the local people have reason to believe that long-term strategies will benefit both them and their descendants.
Textbox 4.1 The principle of subsidiarity
This principle has been incorporated into all crisis management efforts, in Norway as well as other countries. It entails dealing with crises of different kinds at the lowest possible level. This white paper uses the following interpretation of the principle in the context of disaster risk reduction:
the people who are closest to the problem generally know most about which solutions are appropriate;
local consultations will give the best information on effective and sustainable measures and suitable priorities;
decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level with a view to developing a good emergency response system and rapid, flexible crisis management;
existing local resources should be mobilised as far as possible; and
the closer you are to the problem, the easier it is to take a conflict-sensitive («do no harm») approach.
Local capacity is a broad term that includes local NGOs, networks and official structures that have the necessary knowledge and capacity to identify vulnerable groups, humanitarian needs, relevant preventive measures, etc. and have a role to play in implementing measures. It is equally important to bear in mind that such actors have valuable local knowledge, for example as regards environmental measures, and are able to determine priorities.
The Government considers that a vital first step is to improve the dissemination of information and raise general levels of knowledge, particularly about risk and vulnerability. There are a number of tasks in this area for international organisations and media networks, in cooperation with schools and higher education institutions, journalists’ organisations and the voluntary sector. The media also have an important watchdog function vis-à-vis national and local authorities regarding the management of scarce resources, planning, and so on.
These efforts must build on traditional knowledge of crisis management and survival strategies, and be supplemented with support for organisational and capacity-building efforts. Local knowledge of topographical, environmental, social and technological and other factors is often ignored. In the worst case, this can increase vulnerability to humanitarian crises.
A number of local and regional organisations are producing information and training material that is tailored to local needs, and Norway is prepared to increase support for such measures. Disaster risk reduction begins in schools. There is a school in every local community, and teachers are often the largest group of public employees in a country. They are an important resource in efforts to increase the knowledge and political will needed to strengthen the resilience of local communities, for example through teaching programmes for children and young people.
The Government therefore intends to focus on better integration of disaster risk reduction into Norway’s efforts in the education sector. In this connection, the relevant embassies have a particular responsibility for carrying out analyses and evaluations and for suggesting possible activities. Several of the countries where Norway has a broad engagement in the education sector are among those that are most vulnerable to humanitarian crises.
If we are to take the principle of subsidiarity seriously, we must also focus on the importance of local markets in connection with disaster risk reduction. Increasing purchasing power in response to a humanitarian crisis can help to reduce vulnerability if the local markets are able to provide sufficient volumes of necessities and transport is available. As yet, we have very little experience of the use of direct cash transfers insurance schemes, etc. in response to a humanitarian crisis and as means of developing welfare and social protection, but there are strong indications that this is a more effective approach in many situations than for example providing food aid.
The Government will:
request UN organisations and NGOs that receive funding from Norway for humanitarian efforts to cooperate with local partners and networks, with a view to reducing vulnerability to future disasters;
give priority to efforts by authorities, NGOs and other relevant partners at local level that can help to reduce vulnerability to humanitarian crises;
consider giving direct support to local organisations that can help to reduce vulnerability and disaster risk;
strengthen its partnership with the Red Cross and Red Crescent and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) on local disaster risk reduction and preparedness, and help to strengthen cooperation between the IFRC and the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR);
increase support for implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, in close cooperation with the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the World Bank;
ensure that Norway’s bilateral and multilateral support for the education and health sector is used to strengthen public health services and increase their capacity for responding to crises;
include disaster risk reduction programmes in Norway’s efforts within the education sector;
develop partnerships with the private sector with regard to investment in infrastructure, increased food security, job creation for vulnerable groups, etc; and
enhance knowledge and exchange of experience on innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. cash transfers) that can help to reduce vulnerability.
Textbox 4.2 Cooperation between public and private actors
Broad cooperation between public and private actors on disaster risk reduction is one of the pillars of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015. The underlying principle is that no private actor of any size can escape social responsibility; in other words, private actors are responsible for working together with the public sector to prevent natural disasters. This approach also recognises that it is in the interests of individuals, firms, organisations and others to reduce humanitarian suffering and the social and economic costs that natural disasters entail.
Cooperation of this kind expands the resource base for carrying out preventive measures. It also strengthens the social ties between different groups at local and national level, which can reduce conflict. Firms in high-risk areas are dependent on properly functioning infrastructure, and the business sector, the authorities and civil society all share an interest in reducing risk and reducing the impacts of any natural disasters. Firms can also benefit from being able to use safety measures as an important element of their market profile. One example is that hotels in Phuket in Thailand are deliberately using the recently installed tsunami warning system, including clearly marked escape routes, as a competitive factor.
A great deal has already been done to establish closer cooperation between public and private actors in this field, particularly since the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe in January 2005. Organisations such as the ISDR and the ProVention Consortium, which Norway supports, are playing a key role in creating meeting places. The World Economic Forum in Davos has also become involved in this type of cooperation, as has the Global Humanitarian Forum, which was recently established in Geneva by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Such initiatives are important, but here too, we would like to stress that the best results can be obtained through grass-roots initiatives and by involving both traditional actors in local communities and local firms. In both Japan and Bangladesh, for example, good results have been obtained through constructive cooperation on disaster risk reduction between actors who have realised that this serves both their own interests and those of the community.
Norway is supporting several actors who are working actively to encourage closer cooperation between the public and private sectors. Support for these efforts should be continued, and Norway should also encourage innovation in this field.
4.2 Risk management and poverty reduction
Fighting Poverty Together (Report No. 35 (2003–2004) to the Storting) sets out Norway’s policy on poverty reduction. The premise is that extreme poverty is the greatest human rights challenge of our time and that development and poverty reduction are national responsibilities. But they are responsibilities that the international community must share.
Vulnerability to humanitarian crises is largely synonymous with poverty. Poor people are more vulnerable in a crisis, and intensifying efforts related to disaster risk reduction and emergency response is a vital part of our efforts to reduce poverty. Most of the world’s poor are women, and efforts to strengthen women’s rights are also an integral part of the fight against poverty.
Most developing countries have drawn up national poverty reduction strategies and sectoral plans based on the MDGs. Norway is supporting these efforts through direct budget support, as well as through sector programmes and individual projects. Most of Norway’s funds for long-term development assistance, whether bilateral or via the World Bank or the UN, are used to support such plans.
In its dialogue with relevant countries, Norway should emphasise the need to relate development plans and strategies more closely to the underlying causes of humanitarian crises, including the political, economic, social and environmental causes. Efforts should be based on thorough, local analyses of the risk factors that are most relevant in each case, for example earthquakes (construction methods, fire protection, land-use planning), flooding (forest protection, afforestation, protection of river banks and infrastructure), extreme winds and precipitation (warning, evacuation and protection, drought (sustainable resource management, protection of traditional rights to land and water), epidemics (investments in infrastructure, emergency stocks, health services, education), low food security (early warning systems, adaptation of agriculture to climate change, including diversified production and new production methods, effective distribution systems) and conflict (dialogue, democracy-building and reconciliation measures, conflict-sensitive development assistance). Plans and measures should also provide opportunities and arrangements for economic compensation for the victims of conflicts, such as micro-credit and systems for the return of property.
It is also important for Norway to direct efforts towards building up education and research capacity in its partner countries, so that they are able to make thorough local analyses of risk factors and disaster risk reduction measures.
There are a number of middle-income countries, for example in Latin America, that have not drawn up poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs), but that in fact have a poverty problem because of large internal economic disparities. This means that a large proportion of the population is vulnerable to humanitarian crises. In such countries, relevant measures may include institutional reform and the establishment of national insurance schemes similar to the Norwegian National Fund for Natural Damage Assistance.
The amount Norway can achieve on its own or through bilateral assistance is limited. We must therefore seek to ensure that risk reduction measures are given priority in relevant national political bodies and in international forums that focus on poverty reduction. It is here that we can achieve the greatest results. The Government needs allies in its disaster risk reduction agenda, and we must channel our efforts in the way we consider will have the greatest practical impact on implementation of disaster risk reduction measures at local and global levels.
The Government will consider utilising new networks and forms of cooperation in this regard, such as the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative, in which the foreign ministers of Norway, Brazil, France, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africa and Thailand are working together in an effort to bring health into greater focus in foreign policy. Disaster and conflict management, preparedness and disaster risk reduction are at the top of this network’s agenda.
Creating good incentives is an important element of efforts to improve disaster risk reduction. Lack of incentive is one reason why it is difficult to ensure sufficient political focus on precautionary measures. Many governments view such measures as expenses that there is no room for in a tight budget, rather than as investments in and insurance for society as a whole. There is an urgent need for sound economic analyses of the increase in risk resulting from insufficient investment in risk reduction measures. The Stern Review 4 has helped to increase awareness of this issue.
However, there have been encouraging developments in recent years in international financial mechanisms and schemes in the UN system, the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Most of these are relatively new and are still competing with each other to win ground and attention as a means of financing development and humanitarian action, but they are helping to increase awareness of the challenges many countries are facing in this area. The Government will consider more closely how Norway can create better economic frameworks and incentives for investments in disaster risk reduction measures.
The international community, including the UN and the World Bank, has so far taken too reactive an approach, and should take the offensive more, using strategies to identify and respond proactively to new, complex patterns of risk. We are seeing clear signs of greater political will to integrate risk reduction measures into long-term development efforts, and it is important to strengthen incentives for this and to coordinate the implementation of practical measures. This will make new demands on our dialogue with international organisations, national authorities and other actors in the countries we cooperate with, as well as making new demands on Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) and the embassies in the countries in question.
The Government will:
give higher priority to disaster risk reduction and preparedness in its poverty reduction and development efforts;
emphasise measures to reduce risk and vulnerability in relation to different types of humanitarian crises in dialogues with the authorities in relevant partner countries concerning the development and follow-up of PRSPs and other relevant planning and policy documents;
further develop partnerships with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and ProVention on the provision of advice on the practical implementation of strategies and plans for disaster risk reduction in fragile states; and
further develop the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative, among other things with a view to international mobilisation and policy development in relation to humanitarian disaster response efforts.
4.3 Building bilateral partnerships
In the Government’s view, a more integrated approach to development cooperation in a broad sense will highlight the strategic links between poverty reduction, vulnerability and targeted measures to increase resilience to humanitarian crises, particularly in the countries where Norway is engaged. We need to develop a better understanding of how poverty is affected by the combined impact of environmental and climate change, urbanisation and the development of fragile states. The complex interaction between these risk factors will also have consequences for the conflict situation in many countries.
A recent evaluation report on Norway’s humanitarian efforts in response to natural disasters states that:
«The challenge for Norway as a donor lies not only in contributing to increased response capacity through improved funding and coordination, but also in helping to put in place strategies that focus on long-term vulnerability reduction and local response capacity. This indicates a need for selective choices of channels on the basis of three overarching objectives: (1) effective humanitarian relief, (2) rehabilitation, livelihood development and vulnerability reduction, and (3) coordination of relief, rehabilitation and livelihood development.» 5
The Government agrees with the findings of the report, which highlight the need both for a more streamlined organisational approach, across the relief–development spectrum, and for greater expertise in this area. A number of units in the Ministry are involved in local capacity building, disaster risk reduction and preparedness, better international coordination and setting priorities for risk reduction measures, and these efforts are not adequately coordinated.
Both donor countries and international organisations have dealt with humanitarian assistance and development cooperation as two separate areas, and have taken different approaches and set different priorities according to the different needs in these two areas. However, this has led to institutional barriers that have prevented the development of a clear, comprehensive and proactive policy for disaster risk reduction.
This has particularly affected the embassies, which play a key role in ensuring the necessary focus on disaster risk reduction and in supporting local and national initiatives in this area. The embassies need more streamlined organisationof foreign policy initiatives and measures across traditional areas of responsibility, and they need better follow-up from the Ministry.
Disaster risk reduction and preparedness efforts are highly complex. This is an area that is constantly changing and involves many actors, some of them new. We must expand our knowledge. disseminate it and use it systematically. Coordination of humanitarian assistance and long-term development can be strengthened by actively drawing on and developing Norad’s disaster risk reduction expertise. It is particularly important that Norad plays a greater role as regards systematic use of evaluations and lessons learned in connection with risk reduction measures, in close cooperation with the Ministry and external expertise. These efforts must be closely linked to our ongoing efforts to enhance our understanding of conflict and to strengthen the gender equality perspective in development.
There are strong indications that humanitarian assistance to areas and groups affected by disasters does not result in any significant reduction in the vulnerability of these people. The growing focus on the need to reduce vulnerability, combined with the recognition that local capacity is decisive for disaster risk reduction, indicates that there is a need to reform the way international development assistance is provided. The key is a stronger focus on how vulnerable groups perceive their own risk and vulnerability, combined with concrete measures to encourage and support local capacity for overcoming this vulnerability.
This would primarily mean a closer international focus on local measures to reduce vulnerability and the development of local capacity to prepare for and respond to humanitarian crises.
The Government supports this approach, which will involve a number of organisational challenges for Norwegian development cooperation, such as how to improve internal coordination and cooperation, how to determine priorities for channels for Norwegian development funds, and the question of developing closer partnerships with NGOs on preventive measures. Similar challenges have been solved before. Norway has developed a long tradition of coordinating humanitarian efforts, conflict resolution and development. It is now time to go a step further and look at the links between humanitarian efforts, complex disaster risk reduction and poverty reduction.
The Ministry has undertaken an internal survey that shows some major variations in knowledge, competence and activity in this area between the embassies, and a need for more knowledge in the Ministry itself. We need to boost both knowledge and awareness in the Ministry in order to increase our ability to implement targeted disaster risk reduction measures across traditional dividing lines. More information and training is needed, and the Ministry, together with Norad, will give priority to providing information to the embassies on what disaster risk reduction involves, including the ways in which this work differs from the development efforts that are already being carried out, and how it can to a large extent be integrated into the ongoing development efforts.
The two main perspectives of this white paper – the MDGs and the humanitarian imperative – indicate the main thrust of our policy, but the details need to be determined. The Government’s priorities are intended to help in this work, but they must be further developed and concretised if we are to achieve the targets we have set ourselves.
The Government also proposes support for measures to raise levels of knowledge in Norwegian NGOs about reducing the risk of natural disasters and complex crises, for example in the light of environmental and climate change. Here we will draw on both Norwegian and international expertise.
A greater focus on long-term, strategic partnerships with relevant actors at different levels will mean that we must improve our ability to evaluate their expertise and capacity. We will therefore need to develop methods for evaluating our partners, including their efforts in the field. These evaluations will include political, technical and organisational evaluations carried out in cooperation between the Ministry, the embassies, Norad and external expertise. Partner evaluations will form a key part of the quality assurance of Norway’s development efforts, for which Norad is responsible.
In the Government’s view, there is a special need to analyse how developments in fragile states are creating new threats to vulnerable groups, who therefore need new forms of protection. Greater knowledge of risk factors and a focus on new opportunities for reducing poverty in vulnerable states will help us to develop partnerships with relevant actors.
The Government will:
strengthen coordination of Norway’s humanitarian efforts, transitional assistance and long-term development cooperation with a view to reducing vulnerability to humanitarian crises in vulnerable countries;
draw up guidelines for how disaster risk reduction measures can be integrated into Norway’s long-term development cooperation;
increase expertise in the foreign service on practical disaster risk reduction, use of risk and vulnerability analyses, conflict analyses and so on, particularly with a view to helping the embassies in this work;
strengthen Norad’s role in the evaluation of partners, general evaluations and quality assurance in this area; and
increase support for the development of expertise in this area in NGOs and other sources of expertise.
Footnotes
This is discussed in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mot en mer kunnskapsbasert utviklingspolitikk: Plattform for bilateral bistand til høyere utdanning og forskning i utviklingslandene ( Towards more knowledge-based development policy: platform for bilateral development cooperation on higher education and research in developing countries) (August 2007). In the Government’s view, Norwegian education and research institutions must be involved systematically in foreign and development policy efforts, Norway must help to strengthen national and regional higher education and research institutions, and multilateral organisations must make greater use of research results.
The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) was established in February 2005 to evaluate the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, with funding from various sources including Norad. Its comprehensive reports were published in July 2006.
See box 2.1.
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change , HM Treasury, London (2006). The ISDR and the World Bank are currently carrying out a joint study on the economic returns on investments in disaster risk reduction, which will be completed during the course of 2008.
Humanitarian Response to Natural Disasters: A Synthesis of Evaluation Findings , 1/2007 (Norad).