Paper details
| Paper authors | Ronak Patel |
| In panel on | Disaster Risk Reduction in Fragile, Conflict-Affected, and Vulnerable (FCV) Contexts: Strategies for Protracted Crises |
| Paper presenter(s) will be presenting |
In-Person / |
Abstract
A significant challenge lies between the focus on fragile and conflict-affected contexts and the long-term goals of disaster risk reduction. The complexity of the issues identified in the call for papers can be paralyzing for practitioners. Government-citizen relationships and institutions are key to fragility. However, addressing these issues may go beyond the scope, resources, or capabilities of many DRR programs, even if tools or approaches identify critical gaps and opportunities among these key actors. If the fragility typology indicates an extremely weak state apparatus, achieving effective DRR becomes difficult. Program activities may have to work around and compensate for poor governance, which could hinder building robust local resilience. While there may be opportunities to place DRR programming within the context of work by other actors in the target country, any effort must still contend with this challenge. Consequently, the fragility typology, coupled with available resources, may dictate the short and medium-term goals of the program, and consequently, the tools and measures applied.
To enhance the operationalization of DRR in such contexts, we propose a focusing approach that helps chart a pathway according to the specific context. We recommend a three-component process to guide a program's initial focus and prioritization of actions, tools, and measures. This process also allows for a modular approach in selecting specific tools and measures as needed, based on a core set of tools. The process can then be revisited at intervals determined by program staff.
The first step involves conducting a system mapping exercise, such as network map of the sources of vulnerability and risk along with the system and processes responsible for risk mitigation. This exercise provides an understanding of the key factors driving disaster risk. The mapping exercise establishes a baseline understanding of the existing systems of interest, identifies key stakeholders and actors, and evaluates partnership and leveraging opportunities. It also helps identify specific intervention opportunities.
Next, the program goals and activities should be anchored to a fragility typology or fragility context analysis as this characterizes the environment. Three progressive fragility types—complimentary recovery, transition, and development—represent environments with varying degrees of opportunity for engagement and capacity building at the governmental and institutional levels. Decisions on resource allocation and program focus may be better informed by aligning them with the specific fragility context.
Finally, the available resources, capacities, and timeline must be considered in combination with the fragility context. This resource and capacity mapping exercise should consider factors such as program funding, overall development and humanitarian funding for the country, program and local staff capacity, the capacity of coordinating partners and key stakeholders, and the overall program timeline. This exercise would help determine what resources can be brought to bear to achieve program goals and adequately allocate those resources most effectively.
By combining these parts, the program can identify the most suitable focus within the context. It can range from specific interventions at the individual level, despite their limitations in building effective resilience, to more holistic interventions targeting systems and state-level capacities
