|
|
|
In-Depth:
Disaster reduction and the human cost of disaster
|
|
AFRICA: Interview with Anthony Spalton, senior officer at the Disaster Preparedness. IFRC
|
Interview with Anthony Spalton, senior officer at the Disaster Preparedness / Response Department of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Anthony Spalton has worked in East Africa and South-East Asia with the Federation and different British NGOs for 25 years.
At the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, in January 2005 he spoke to IRIN about the importance of prevention strategies to mitigate the devastation caused by the increasing number of natural disasters. Here are excerpts from that interview:
QUESTION: How real is the separation of finance for disaster mitigation or prevention from the finance for development or emergencies?
ANSWER: Very real. All too often we find ourselves in situations with generous amounts of finance to deal with the aftermath of disasters, but we’re skimping around for modest amounts for preparedness and recovery. The ratio being used is about seven to one in terms of what may be available for emergenc[ies] in contrast to preparedness.
One of the main reasons we are here [Kobe] is to see that become reality. For governments to come up with cash and resources, for investment in local, regional and national disaster mitigation and preparedness.
We [the Federation] are an international organisation, principally humanitarian, and a lot of our work involves investment in the membership of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, who are auxiliaries to national government. There is lots of overlap with what we do and with developing civil society.
Q: How important are grassroots structures in dealing with disaster-risk reduction (DRR)?
A: An example illustrating this was given this week during the conference. In India, one individual, who learnt through a TV programme about the relationship between tsunamis and earthquakes, used his bike to go around the coastal area and warn people and save thousands of lives.
It is the local people who are important. In Bam, it was the local people who mattered. By the time the first international SAR [search and rescue] teams came, the locals had already done first-line relief.
What we need to do is invest in local response. In Bangladesh in the 1970s, where repeated flooding from cyclones was causing a lot of disruption, the Federation invested heavily in early-warning, developing a system where volunteers on bikes [go] around warning people when a cylone is about to hit.
Also we have been using village theatre and building on traditional practices.
Q: To what extent are we all trying to defy nature through disaster-reduction intervention?
A: A natural hazard does not have to result in a disaster. If people can go to higher ground, in the case of a tsunami, death is averted. Hazards will always exist.
The number of disasters is increasing in the world, but the number of deaths is decreasing. It is all about vulnerability, and the answer lies in people rather than technology.
Q: Some delegates have already suggested that this conference is another talk-shop, and that we know no more than we did 20 years ago. How is this conference any different?
A: It is easy to be sceptical, but certainly the Red Cross has been able to influence the outcome documents in Geneva in preparation for this conference - also through local Red Cross societies working with governments.
We are hoping to see governments working towards targets and goals. Donors are coming forward with ideas to set up international-recovery platforms amongst others, and if we don’t move forward on issues such as these after this conference, it will be a sad day for the international community.
Q: Is the tsunami - and particularly the deaths of westerners in this disaster - somewhat fortuitous for the urgency/relevance of this conference?
A: Of course the tsunami has been very timely in terms of this conference and it has been a wake-up call for everyone in the international community. Had we invested in risk reduction before, the damage that the tsunami has done to achieving the Millennium Development Goals would be far less.
One thing that is vital is that risk assessment is a significant element in any recovery programme. Often people are re-housed after a disaster on marginal land, for example, and this can actually increase people’s vulnerability.
In other situations, highly vulnerable conditions within mega-cities can be created by providing the poor with structurally unsound housing.
Q: To what extent is disaster-risk reduction a priority for the Federation?
A: In the Federation, DRR is a major priority. In our organisation it is a huge and significant part of what we do.
But, because it falls between the humanitarian and development sectors, it is therefore under-resourced and under-valued as a whole. Only recently have we as a sector better understood the relationship between disasters and the erosion of development gains.
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|