African Perspectives
on Disaster Risk Reduction
For disaster reduction and emergency management

Issue 1
June 2017

WORKING TOWARDS A DISASTER-PREPARED AFRICAN CONTINENT
Building Resilient African Nations Through Preparedness

About Gravitazz Institute
The Gravitazz Institute for Disaster Reduction and Emergency
Management was established in 2012 and since its inception has
managed to acquire a name for itself as a reputable consultancy,
research and capacity-strengthening institute across Africa andeven beyond its continental border. Gravitazz` scope of work thus
focuses on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies towards naturaland human-induced disasters, Climate Change Adaptation (CCA),
Sustainable Development (SD) as well as complex emergencies
around the world. The institute was further created to provide
crucial technical and practical support to various stakeholders –ranging from governments, private sector companies, UN agencies,
as well as NPOs – in the field of DRR, CCA, and resilience-building
amongst others through its vast international network of expertconsultants. Although Gravitazz mainly operates on the African
continent, it does not limit itself geographically and seeks to
act wherever technical expertise is needed through its work andcapacity-strengthening projects.

Follow us on Social Media!
Website: www.gravitazzcontinental.com
Facebook: Gravitazz Institute for Disaster Reduction
Twitter: @Gravitaz_GIDREM
LinkedIn: Gravitazz Institute
DIMA Connect (Whatsapp group): This networking and informationsharing platform is aimed at linking DRR practitioners and experts
from across the African continent. Currently, the platform brings
together around 250 participants from a variety of sectors andcountries, allowing for a fruitful exchange of information and bestpractices among like-minded professionals.
Should you be interested in joining the group, kindly send yourWhatsapp number to info@gravitazzcontinental.com, requesting
to be added to the group.

C

ontents5 			

Editorial

6 			Leveraging the Sendai Framework to Respond 									 to Transnational Impacts of Drought in East Africa
				Joseph Kimuli Balikuddembe and Regina Nakiranda

10			
				

Can we ‘Build Back Better’? Lessons from floods recovery 		
framework development and implementation in Malawi

				Stern Mwakalimi Kita				16				 Utilising TVET as a tool to achieve Disaster Resilience among				 disaster prone countries: Cross countries analysis of				 experiences from Nigeria and Thailand
Shubham Pathak				22 		 		Building Resilience and Increased Preparedness in the 							midst of devastating floods in Africa
			 Jessica Johmann
27			
Expert Interview				 On the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster				 Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) in Africa
				Statements by: Dr. Audrey Cash and Dr. Bapon FakhruddinA				nnexes29				I.
30

List of Acronyms

			

II. Presentation of Gravitazz Editorial Board

32				

III. 2017 Highlights of the Gravitazz Institute33				

IV. Further Reading on Disaster Risk Reduction

4

E

ditorial

Since 1980, eight of the world’s ten deadliest natural disasters haveoccurred post-2000, the most devastating being the 2010 earthquake
in Haiti. In 2015, a total of 1,565 earthquakes with a magnitude of 5
and above were recorded worldwide. According to the 2013 World
Disasters Report, floods accounted for 44 % of deaths caused bynatural hazards – more than any other natural disaster, includingstorms, which accounted for 41 % of total casualties. There is
therefore a clear concern worldwide among decision-makers, experts,
businesses and communities regarding the rising number of disasters
and their severe impact on livelihoods.
Continentally, Africa has experienced its fair share of disasters, justlike other continents. Although the scale of disasters in Africa isgenerally smaller than in other continents such as Asia, their effects
on affected populations have been devastating. This is largely due
to the high levels of vulnerability of populations in African countries.
Out of 100 disasters reported worldwide, only 20 occur in Africa, yet
the continent suffers 60% of all disaster-related deaths.
The World Risk Index indicates that out of the 15 countries withthe highest level of vulnerability to disasters, 13 are located on the
African continent. Indeed, countries like Liberia (ranked 56th), Zambia(ranked 66th) and the Central African Republic (ranked 71st) havehigh levels of vulnerability yet low levels of exposure to hazards.
Natural hazards interact with human-induced hazards such as armed
conflicts, air, road and railway incidents as well as industrial hazards
such as mining accidents and chemical spills. Other contributing
factors include rapid urban population growth, forced migration,
environmental degradation, precarious urbanisation, food insecurity,
poverty, fragile economies, infrastructure and institutions and culturaland political instability.

Understanding disaster risk is the first priority for action of the
SFDRR. Drawing on the current lack of DRR-related journals in Africa,
the Gravitazz quarterly research publication series therefore seeks topublish a wide array of views, experiences and best practices fromacross the continent and beyond, in order to:•••Contribute to building solid DRR knowledge in the continent;
Provide a renowned, specialised and peer-reviewed publication
platform for practitioners and experts to publish on issues
related to DRR and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA); and to
Promote evidence-based and applied research, knowledge
exchange and best practices.

The Gravitazz Publication Series entitled African Perspectives on
Disaster Risk Reduction presents a selection of articles drawing fromthe institute’s extensive network of experts on the African continent
with the purpose of providing compelling research-based knowledge
on DRR in order to inform the scientific community, media, policyand decision-makers as well as the broader public on pressing topics
and future research areas in this particular field. The series will be
published on a quarterly basis resulting in four editions per yearwith a special edition as an outcome of the Africa Conference on the
Economic Costs of Disasters: the Role of the Private Sector (ACECD
2017). The institute thereby aims to showcase an array of findings
and good practices from the African sub-regions, thus ensuring abalanced representation of sources.
Jessica Johmann
Editor-in-Chief

In 2016, Africa was hit by the worst drought in over 30 years as aresult of the El Nino phenomenon, affecting over 40 million people in
the Southern African region alone. This crisis prompted the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) to launch a USD 2.4 billion
appeal to assist populations in need of urgent food assistance.
It is especially at the national and local level in Africa that capacities
need to be strengthened urgently. Although the continent’s science,technology and academic capabilities in the disaster risk domain
may not be as advanced as elsewhere in the world, in recent years,
its capacity to produce high quality disaster risk research has gained
considerable momentum. Moreover, the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) is people-focused andaction-oriented in its approach to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) andapplies to the risk of small-scale and large-scale disasters caused byhuman-induced or natural hazards as well as related environmental,
technological and biological hazards and risks. International
agreements can therefore play a substantial role in catalysing DRR
activities in disaster-prone countries and leverage on this momentum.

5

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

The world is currently experiencing an alarming increase in theoccurrence and magnitude of disasters (UNISDR, 2016). This has
been attributed largely to global climate change.

Figure 1. Somali displaced people fleeing drought arrive at
the Dadaab camp in Kenya (Source: Voice of America News)L

everaging the Sendai Framework to Respond toTransnational Impacts of Drought in East Africa
Joseph Kimuli Balikuddembe and Regina Nakiranda

Abstract
Over decades, natural and human-induced disasters compounded by complex emergencies (CEs) have been plunging
the world especially in the developing countries of the Global South. The Eastern Africa (EA) region and particularly
the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) region, which forms part of it, remain some of the African regions most afflictedby disasters and complex emergencies; whenever one country is affected its neighbouring states or region are also
affected in one way or the other.

Joseph is a Ugandan, holding a PhD in
Disaster Management and Emergency
Health from Tehran University of
Medical Sciences. He is currently
a part-time consultant of Safe
Afghanistan Humanitarian Assistance
Organization and a researcher at
the East African Center for Disaster
Health and Humanitarian Research.
Prior to that, he worked with the One
World One People Company – UK,
Informatici Senza Frontiere and the
Catholic University of South Sudan.
While pursuing his PhD studies,
Joseph was also a Teaching Assistantin the Department of Disaster andEmergency Health. He is passionate
andpossesses
multidiscipline
knowledge and skills pertaining
to natural and human-induced
disasters, disaster risk management/
or disaster risk reduction, publichealth, emergency medical services,humanitarianism, climate change, androad injuries and safety researches.
So far, Joseph has authored andco-authored some peer review
articles related to these researchareas whilst others are forthcoming.

6

The present paper discusses how the second priority of the Sendai framework, which is aimed at strengthening
disaster risk governance in order to manage disaster risk and promote collaboration at national, regional, and global
levels, is leveraged to respond to the transnational impacts of drought in the EA region. It is noted that Ethiopia, Kenya
and Somalia remain more susceptible to the transnational impacts of drought in terms of conflict, displacement, foodinsecurity, poverty, unemployment and health risks.
The prolonged drought experienced in the GHA region shows how the Global South is suffering severely from thedevastating effects of climate change. Therefore, any regional initiatives prompted to address and respond to thecommon challenges that affect the EA as a whole such as drought are to be applauded. However, the second priorityof the Sendai framework needs to be emphasised and focused on. That should also be augmented by conducting
evidence-based research, which comprehensively investigates and advances not only the most relevant mitigation
measures, but also addresses other transnational disasters in the EA region.
Keywords: Sendai Framework, Disaster Risk Reduction, Drought, East Africa, Horn of Africa
Introduction
Over a period of decades, natural and human-induced disasters have been disproportionately plunging some partsof the globe, especially in developing countries of the Global South (UN, 2015). Often when a disaster strikes, it isaccompanied with extensive fatalities, injuries, disabilities, displacement, disease outbreaks, physiological distress,
property and environmental damage, and devastating economic losses - some of which exceed the ability of theaffected community or society to cope using its own resources (UNISDR, 2017). Spiegel et al (2007) showed how
disasters in the past years have been overlapping with the complex emergencies. Currently, the most significant
cause of disasters worldwide is thought to be associated with climate change, which is estimated to be involved in
more than 70% of disasters (IPCC, 2007). Common disasters include: droughts, floods, storms, landslides, mudslides,
earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, fires, epidemics, pandemics, pests and extreme temperatures (Spiegel et al,2007; UN, 2015; CRED, 2017).

The GHA consists of Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,
Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Prolonged drought
and the continuation of unresolved and protracted conflicts remain
one of the most serious challenges affecting some of the countries in
the GHA region especially Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan andelsewhere (UNHCR, 2014). As a result there have been major internaland cross-border displacements, violence, widespread poverty, foodinsecurity, high levels of malnutrition, and dire humanitarian crisesin the GHA region (WHO, 2011). It is also imperative to note thatfrequently whenever one country is struck by disaster or crisis, it
inevitably spills-over to other neighbouring countries or the entire
EA region. This can often be attributed to the similar geopoliticalcharacteristics that are shared among the EA countries.
To respond collectively to common political and socio-economic
challenges such as drought affecting the EA as a whole, some regional
blocs were established. These include the East African Community(EAC), which was initially composed of five member states: Burundi,
Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, but was later on expanded to
six member countries after South Sudan joined in 2016 (EAC, 2017).
Another key bloc in the GHA is the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) that was created to respond to regional disasters
and crises, especially recurrent droughts and violent conflicts (IGAD,
2017). Similar to the EAC, the IGAD at first consisted of only 7 countries:
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda, but waslater joined by South Sudan after its independence in 2011. The IGAD
superseded the defunct Intergovernmental Authority on Drought andDevelopment whose mainstay was to coordinate efforts to combat
drought, desertification and environmental degradation, which werethe major causes of disasters on a number of occasions in the EA
region (Dersso, 2014).
As noted above, different parts of the world are affected by disasters
and CEs of varying degrees. According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all countries irrespective of theirdevelopment are predicted to experience climate change, but the mostdevastating effects are expected to be felt by developing countries in
Asia and Africa. Although there is no one-size-fits-all approach todealing with the climate change problem (IPCC, 2007), the regionallyoriented solutions, which tend to reflect different socio-economic
conditions and geographical differences are often vital in responding
to its impacts. To this matter, the present paper discusses how thesecond priority of the Sendai framework can be better leveraged torespond to the transnational impacts of drought in the EA region,
which include: conflicts, food insecurity, poverty, unemployment andhealth risks.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction2015 – 2030
So far the EAC and IGAD have prompted some Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR) measures to address the common challenges affecting theirrespective member countries. However, in order to adequately address
the transnational risk of disasters and their potentially devastating
physical, social, economic and environmental effects in the EA there
is a pronounced need for concerted actions to be coordinated acrossa wide range of sectors, institutions and disciplines (UNISDR, 2015).
That should also be aligned and implemented based on internationallyadopted frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015 – 2030 (SFDRR). 187 member countries of the United
Nations adopted the SFDRR in March 2015 at Sendai, Japan. It builds on
the solid achievements of the previous decade of fulfilling the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015. The Sendai Framework outlined
four invaluable priorities and seven global targets of responding todisasters for the fifteen years after its adoption (UNISDR, 2015).

The four priorities include:
1. understanding disaster risk in all its dimensions and to use
such knowledge for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation,
preparedness and response;
2. strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
and promote collaboration at national, regional, and global levels;
3. investing in DRR to enhance the economic, social, health andcultural resilience of persons, communities, countries and theirassets, and the environment;
4. enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to‘‘Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction(UNISDR, 2017).

Drought
Climate change continues to receive substantial global attention in
the scientific and academic communities. This trend largely beganwith the Group of Eight (G8) Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005.
Since then some scholars and pundits have argued that climatechange is a gradual phenomenon evolving with significant threats
which affect both the human and global security (Barnett, 2003; Tord
and McMichael, 2015). Indeed, the former United States President
acknowledged this theory (Obama, 2009).
He argued that climate change represents a serious and growing global
threat. Currently, drought is one of the most visible threats of climatechange. Wilhite and Glantz (1985) define drought “as the prolonged
rainfall shortage and its impact on climate, hydrology, ecology andagriculture”. It is also attributed to variability and changing patterns
in the meteorological conditions of rainfall, precipitation or extreme
weather. Drought has a slow onset and large lag time before its
consequences become fully apparent.
The GHA has been one of the most drought-stricken regions in thepast sixty years and a recent estimation indicates that it has affected
more than 22 million people (WHO, 2016). This has been witnessedin famine, malnutrition, conflicts and violence, migration and deaths.
The GHA in particular and Sub-Saharan Africa in general are predicted
to experience rainfall variability due to climate change in the next few
decades.
As a result, this will likely result in more severe weather events by
the end of the 21st century, notably in terms of frequent and intense
droughts attributed to the increase of global mean temperatures
estimated at between 1.4 and 5.8°C due to rises in greenhouse gas
emissions (IPCC, 2007). According to UNOCHA (2011), many parts of
the GHA continue to suffer a precarious situation with a harsh climatecharacterised by sporadic outbreaks of violence and prolonged
droughts. In the recent past, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia have borne
the greatest burden of drought compared to other EA countries aspresented in the two figures below.

Drought-induced conflicts and displacement inEast Africa
Over the past decades, drought has been an amplifying factor of crossborder violence, conflicts, cattle raids and tension in agro-pastoral
communities in the EA (Massoi, 2015). This has been emanating fromthe scarcity of essential resources for humans and animals dwindled
by drought. During the long spells of drought, some communities areforced to migrate from their territories to other places in search of vital
resources like water and land that supports agriculture and grazing.
However, this has led to human conflicts due to the competition andstruggle for the control of such scarce natural resources.
As a striking illustration of this phenomenon, Huho (2012) cited a
conflict that flared up between the Pokot and Karamajong communitiesof Kenya and Uganda respectively as each group scrambled forcontrol of the same pastures during the 2007 drought. Other similar
resource-ignited clashes caused by drought have been occurring
among the pastoral people of the Oromia, Afar, and the Somali regions

7

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

However, it should be noted that with the evolution of globalisationand technological advancements human-induced disasters such asplane crashes, fire-outbreaks and explosions, ferry-boat capsizing,road traffic accidents, building collapses, conflicts, violence andterrorism are also increasingly manifesting (CRED, 2017; IDMC, 2017).
The Eastern Africa (EA), which at times is referred to the Greater Hornof Africa (GHA), remains the African region most afflicted by disasters
and complex emergencies (CEs) (Spiegel et al, 2007).

address the impacts of drought that are inevitable as a consequence ofclimate change. In this regard, there is a need for promoting transboundary
cooperation that enhances integration and the implementation of different
ecosystem-based approaches to managing shared resources such as thegrazing land and water across communities as outlined in the Sendai
Framework. This similarly applies to the EA so as to amicably assist in
reducing conflicts and displacements, which are aggravated by drought.

Food insecurity, poverty and unemployment due todrought in East Africa
It is true that drought-affected areas severely suffer from food insecurity,
extreme poverty and socio-economic inequality (Barnett, 2003; WHO,2011). As noted earlier, drought is associated with the reduction in the
precipitation and late or below average rainfall. This reduces agriculture
and farming productivity through the degradation of soil fertility, crop
failure, decline in harvests or loss of pastures. The GHA where the majority(estimated at roughly 70%) of the population is dependent on rain fedagriculture has been particularly affected (Menghestab, 2005).

Figure 2: Percent of drought-induced internal and external displacements in seven East
African countries between 2011 and 2015 (Source: IDMC)

Thus, over time the affected people are forced to flee from the famineand hunger-hit areas, whilst others escape to search for better livelihood
opportunities than those offered by agriculture and farming. Similarly,
droughts have significant economic impacts on directly affected countries
and their neighbours within the EA. This is particularly apparent in termsof the decrease in food and livestock
food people
exports,
food price
Figure production,
1. Somali displaced
fleeingarriveat the Dadaab
campinincaring for
inflation, unemployment as welldroughtas theexpenses
incurred
Kenya (Source: VOA)
and hosting those displaced. Apartfrom the generalised violence, humanrights violations and armed conflicts, the drought of 2011, which induced
extreme poverty, hunger and lack of livelihood opportunities, was reported
to have forced hundreds of Somalis to flee to Kenya and Ethiopia; due tolack of access to basic needs such as food, medical services, health careand livelihoods (UNOCHA, 2011).
Additionally, poverty, inequality, conflict and disaster often co-exist(Tamara, 2013; Spiegel et.al, 2007). At times people who flee countries
characterised by violent conflicts, persecution, discrimination and humanrights abuses might also be escaping from the dire economic circumstances
associated with the aforementioned problems. The current high rate ofpoverty and unemployment in many parts of the EA can be attributed tothe ongoing drought, which has so far been identified to be the worst
in the 21st century (UNHCR, 2014). This argument is based on the factthat it has caused widespread migrations from the arid and semi-arid
areas of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. These displacements have not only
been leading to rural-urban migration in those countries, but also rapidly
contributing to mass cross-border movements as the victims search foralternative means of economic survival and sustainable livelihoods all overthe EA region.

Figure 3: Total population affected by drought in six East African countries between
1990 and 2016 (Source: CRED)

in Ethiopia; between the Toposa of South Sudan and Turkana of Kenya;and the Turkana against the Karamajongs of Uganda (UNOCHA, 2011;
Tamara, 2013). These confrontations are often characterised by deaths,
injuries, property losses, revenge and retaliatory attacks, and a vicious
circle of cattle raids all of which lead to longstanding hostilities among
the rival communities. As observed in Figure 2, this in turn contributes
to internal and external displacements since hundreds of thousands ofpeople have to flee the affected areas in order to escape from conflicts
and their associated violence. It was reported that of all the 36,400
displaced people from Somalia in 2011 who fled to Kenya, 9,500 weredisplaced by drought and the associated conflicts it created (UNOCHA,
2011; IDMC, 2017).
To respond to drought-induced conflicts, several conflict resolution andpeace building initiatives have been embarked on at the community,
national and regional levels across the EA. Some of the initiatives involved
community meetings, mediations, negotiations or treaties, which bringonboard the respective national governments, local governments, civilsocieties as well as community elders from communities in conflictwith one another (Huho, 2012). Nonetheless, these initiatives need to
be integrated with some climate mitigation measures in order to help

8

To tackle the drought-led challenges, the promotion of food security anddisaster-resilient agriculture needs to be strengthened and enhanced,
which the Sendai Framework calls for. This should be based on thesustainable use, rehabilitation, and management of vital resources suchas land, water and livestock. Moreover, it can enhance the improvement,
the productivity, and the preservation of natural resources and ecosystemservices, and make them better able to withstand the effects of climate
variability that is often experienced in some drought zones within the EA.
Likewise, sustainable development and poverty eradication programmesthat encourage the development, investments, and the provision of social
services both in the urban and rural settings as stipulated in the Sendai
Framework should be applied to address the challenges of poverty andunemployment often triggered by drought in the EA.

Health risks of drought in East Africa
Drought aggravates food and water scarcity, which in-turn impacts thehealth and well-being of people exposed to it. According to Aderita et.
al (2014), drought is largely a hidden risk with the potential to become asilent public health disaster. As noted above, the drought-affected areas
experience food insecurity and depletion of water resources.
Apart from being exposed to hunger and chronic malnutrition, which
result from inadequate quantities of food or poor quality diets, peopleDrought also places a certain degree of psychosocial stress on its victims
after they encounter hard economic and livelihood conditions such as
unemployment and the scarcity of viable land available for agriculture
and grazing. As a result, those affected can sometimes develop mental
health disorders, while others forced to overcome potentially lifethreatening situations may end-up resorting to engaging in violence,
conflicts and animal raids for survival as is commonly reported in the
drought-affected areas (Aderita et.al, 2014). Correspondingly, unusual
heavy rains sometimes exacerbate the devastating conditions ofdrought in the GHA. This can condition the land to become a breeding
ground for vector-borne diseases. For example, tick borne diseases are
known to infect the agro-pastoralist communities during long-spellsof drought. Similarly, the current drought plaguing the GHA has beenoccasionally characterised by heavy El Niño rains, which were linked toa resurgence of cross-border Rift Valley Fever that infected animals in
Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania (WHO, 2016).
More so, in 2016 an outbreak of tick borne disease was reported amongnomads in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan. Its cause was largely
attributed to massive movements of livestock across the borders of
three countries in search of pasture and water (UNOCHA, 2017). Again
the Sendai Framework provides some benchmarks of partnership, forexample, sharing of data, early warning systems, practices and knowledge,
and capacity development, which can be explored collectively to best
respond to the disease and health problems that commonly affect the
EA region.

References
1.

Aderita S, Barcellos C, Freitas C and Corvalan C. 2014. Managing the Health Impacts
of Drought in Brazil. International. Journal of Environment. Research. Public Health,11: 10737-10751.
2. Barnett J. 2003. Security and climate change. Global Environment Change 13 (1): 7–17.
3. Dersso, S. 2014. East Africa and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development.
Mapping Multilateralism in Transition, No. 4.
4. EM-DAT- A Database on the Human Impact of Complex Emergencies: CRED, 2017.
http://www.emdat.be/. [Accessed in April 2017]
5. East African Community: EAC, 2017. http://www.eac.int [Accessed in April 2017]
6. Huho, M J. 2012. Conflict Resolution among Pastoral Communities in West Pokot
County, Kenya: A Missing Link SAVAP International, 3 (3).
7. Intergovernmental Authority on Development: IGAD, 2017. http://www.igad.int[Accessed in April 2017]
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Internal Displacement Monitoring Center: (IDMC) http://www.internaldisplacement.org[Accessed in April 2017]
10. Massoi, L W. 2015. Land conflicts and the livelihood of Pastoral Maasai Women in
Kilosa district of Morogoro, Tanzania. Afrika Focus, 28 (2):107-120.
11. Menghestab, H. 2005. Weather patterns, food security and humanitarian response in
sub-Saharan Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360: 2169–2182
12. Obama B. 2009. Remarks at United Nations Climate Change Summit. United Nations,
New York - USA.
13. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: United Nations Office forDisaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), 2015.
14. Spiegel B.P, Phuoc L, Mija-Tesse V and Salama P. 2007. Occurrence and overlap ofnatural disasters, complex emergencies and epidemics during the past decade (1995–
2004). Conflict and Health, 1 (2)15. Tamara, W. 2013. Protection and Disasters in the Horn of Africa: Norms and Practicefor Addressing Cross-Border Displacement in Disaster Contexts. Technical Paper,
University of New South Wales.
16. Tord, K and McMichael A.J. 2015. Climate change threats to population health andwell-being: the imperative of protective solutions that will last. Global Health Action,
6: 20816.
17. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR): http://www.unisdr.org[Accessed April, 2017].
18. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Global Trends Forced Displacement in2014: World at War. UNHCR: Geneva.
19. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2011).East Africa
Displaced Population Report. OCHA, Nairobi Kenya.
20. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2017). Horn ofAfrica: Humanitarian Impacts of Drought – Issue 1.
21. Wilhite, D A and Glantz, M H. 1985. Understanding: the drought phenomenon: therole of definitions. Water Int. Taylor and Francis, 10 (3):111–20.
22. World Health Organization (2016). The Horn of Africa: Drought and famine crisis.WHO,
Geneva – Switzerland.

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

in drought struck areas are also often at risk of suffering from waterand food borne epidemics such as malaria, cholera, diarrhea, measles,
typhoid fever, shigellosis, and hepatitis A and E (WHO, 2011). Thesediseases can be easily transferred among the population throughcontact in the course of migration or within camps or crowded places.
In 2016, more than 200 cases of cholera in the Moyale - Oromia andSomali drought struck regions in Ethiopia were reported to have spread
up to the border of Kenya (WHO, 2016).

Conclusion
The prolonged drought, which is being experienced in the EA is an
example of how the Global South is disproportionately suffering from thedevastating effects of climate change. The regional initiatives prompted
through the EAC and IGAD to address the common challenges affecting
EA are particularly crucial, since the EA is still facing problems fromits limited financial, technical and institutional capacity to adequately
respond and cope with the transnational impacts of drought.
These initiatives can also help facilitate a collective response to thedevastating impacts of drought, which spread from one country toanother or even the entire EA region as a whole. However, to ensure
effective implementation of the initiatives, the Sendai Framework needs
to be incorporated – in particular the second priority of strengthening
disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk.
Finally, future regional evidence-based research is required tocomprehensively investigate, identify and advance the most costeffective mitigation measures, which could be used to respond to
drought and other transnational disasters most appropriately in the EA.

9

Photo: Aliyu Adekunle S/Vanguard
Flooding leaves many homeless

Cframework
an we ‘Build Back Better’? Lessons from floods recovery
development and implementation in Malawi
Stern Mwakalimi Kita

Stern Mwakalimi Kita joined Malawi’s
Department of Disaster Management
Affairs in 2009, where he currently
works as Chief Mitigation Officer.
During this time, he has been
directly involved in coordination,
implementation and research on
issues of disaster risk management,
climate change, social protection,
conflict and community development.
He has played a leading and central
role in the development of several
national frameworks for DRM in
Malawi, including the country’s
disaster recovery framework, which isthe focus of this paper.
He has presented several papers at
local and international conferences,facilitated various training sessions
and has published on disasterrisk governance, Climate Change
Adaptation (CCA), cash transfers,
resettlement, risk perception and on
the link between climate migrationand international security. Mr. Kita isin the final stages of his doctorate
studies with the University of Sussex,
UnitedKingdom.
His
doctoralresearch focuses on CCA, Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) and resettlement in
the context of Malawi. He holds an
MSc in Environment and Developmentfrom the University of Dublin, Trinity
College, in Ireland and a Bachelorof Arts Degree in Humanities fromthe University of Malawi, Chancellor
College.

10

Abstract
In January 2015, Malawi faced its worst flood disaster on record that affected 15 of its 28 districts. A post-disasterneeds assessment was conducted that culminated in the development of a national recovery framework. This paper
presents results of a study conducted to assess the process of developing and implementing the framework. Data
were collected through review of relevant documents, key informant interviews and participant observation. The paper
finds that the development of the framework has facilitated a mindset shift from the traditional focus on response
and risk reduction to factoring in recovery. However, the development process was largely government-driven vitiatedby inadequate consultations with non-state actors and communities. Its overall focus on ‘visible’ recovery was anotherdrawback. Implementation of the framework has also encountered several bottlenecks, to the extent that the majority ofplanned interventions have not been funded. In developing and implementing post-disaster recovery frameworks, thepaper recommends reflexivity and flexibility, focusing on addressing vulnerability, consideration of ‘invisible’ recovery
aspects, ensuring availability of adequate financial resources, and enhanced coordination and involvement of a wider
stakeholder group. When not done properly, the recovery framework may just be another mechanical tick-box exercisethat fails to speak to reality.
Key words: Floods; disaster recovery; Malawi
Introduction
The fourth priority for action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) emphasises
on preparing for post-disaster recovery in order to ‘Build Back Better’ (UN-ISDR, 2015). Recovery also provides anopportunity to integrate Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into development planning and practices. The notion of ‘Building
Back Better’ entails that the focus of recovery ought to be on avoiding creating further risks or exacerbating existing
ones. Several scholars have called for the need not just to focus on addressing livelihood needs and physical damage,but to consider the factors driving vulnerability as part of DRR and recovery (Turner et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004;
Clinton, 2006; Ingram et al., 2006; Khasalamwa, 2008; Chhotray and Few, 2012; Joakim and Wismer, 2015; Kita, 2017).
Lack of a comprehensive master plan to guide the recovery and reconstruction phase can greatly affect‘Building Back Better’ work (Guarnacci, 2012). While efforts have been made among African countries toshare practices in disaster preparedness and response as well as DRR, the same cannot be said of recovery.
A systematic review of publications on disaster recovery studies between 2002 and 2012 by Yi and Yang (2014) revealed
that research focusing on recovery on Africa has been ignored.
This study contributes to filling this gap on the continent by assessing the process of developing and implementing anational floods disaster recovery framework in Malawi.

stress disorder, major depressive disorder, functional impairment
and prolonged grief disorder that may affect how they function
and recover (Kristensen, 2012). The possibility of another disastercan have devastating effects on the mental health, physical andpsychological functioning of disaster affected community (Wind etal., 2013; Becker et al., 2015). Comprehensive ‘Building Back Better’,
therefore, requires integrating resilience, so that lives, livelihoods
and infrastructures are not just restored, yet they are safer fromfuture hazard impacts.

Methodology

The development of the framework was guided by the Sendai versionof the Guide to developing disaster recovery frameworks that wasdeveloped by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery(GFDRR). Applying the case study of Malawi, the objective of thisstudy was to assess practical experiences in the development andimplementation of the recovery framework. In doing so, the utility of
the GFDRR guidelines in developing a recovery framework was also
examined.

This study combined personal experiences in the development andimplementation of a flood recovery framework as well as semistructured interviews conducted with officers involved in the design,
implementation or financing of disaster recovery interventions in
Malawi. Interviews were conducted through an e-mailed semistructured questionnaire and through phone interviews in March2017. Participants included 25 practitioners: nine officers from district
councils, four NGOs, eight central government officials and four
from United Nations agencies and donors. Key official documents
and reports related to the recovery process were also reviewed.

The study aimed at answering the following questions: What shouldbe the key considerations in developing a recovery framework? How
useful are the GFDRR guidelines in the development of a recovery
framework? To what extent was implementation of recovery programmes
guided by the recovery framework? What were the key lessons learnt
in developing and implementing the recovery framework? This paper is
not an assessment of the impact or effectiveness of recovery projects,
but presents some of these interventions illustratively. While the DRF
discussed here focuses on floods, the issues being raised can also be
applied to other disasters.

Questions for the interviews focused on knowledge of andexperience with the development of the recovery framework;
the type of recovery projects being implemented or funded;
relevance of the recovery framework; and challenges experienced
in the implementation of the recovery framework and recovery
interventions. The author also participated in a number ofsupervisory and monitoring activities of NGO and government
projects between 2015 and 2016. In addition to observing practices,
these field visits provided room to discuss with implementersand communities different aspects of the recovery process.

However, lack of a comprehensive master plan to guide the recovery
and reconstruction phase can greatly affect ‘building back better’
efforts (Guarnacci, 2012).

A national platform conference was held in May 2016 and was attended
by more than 200 participants. Stakeholders shared what they were
implementing as well as key lessons learnt. Insights from the conference
presentations and discussions with key actors also complimented thedata. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, where themes weregenerated from pre-coded data. Constant comparison analysis was
also applied in generating themes as the study used more than one
data collection approach (Charmaz, 2003; Braun and Clarke, 2005).

What should be the focus of a recovery framework?
With limited resources, the most tempting trajectory in developinga recovery framework or implementing recovery interventions is torestore damaged assets based on existing standards. While this might
be desirable, it ignores the core principle of recovery, which is to ‘Build
Back Better’, and safer:“A key test of a successful recovery effort is whether it leaves
survivors less vulnerable to natural hazards…Recovery efforts should,
at a minimum, ensure that communities become safer than they were
before the disaster. We must bear in mind that each brick laid in therecovery process can either contribute to risk reduction or become an
enabler for the next big disaster” (Clinton, 2006, p. 22).
As Clinton (2006) and others (Morgan, 1986; Ingram et al., 2006; Kita,
2017) point out, recovery frameworks or programmes should notjust aim at addressing the impacts of a disaster, but should consider
tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability. These could include
lack of access to productive assets, location in high-risk areas, absenceof construction standards, power relationships and environmental
degradation. In the context of transitional shelter and settlements,
Kennedy et al. (2008) recommend three strategies to ensure ‘Building
Back Better’: i) involvement of the community; ii) consideration of actor
capacity and collaboration across actors from different sectors; and iii)
pre-disaster integration of DRR into relief and recovery efforts.
There are several dimensions of disaster recovery, including rehabilitation
or replacement of damaged infrastructure and housing, psychologicalrecovery, recovery of household livelihoods and assets and restorationof communities, culturally valuable sites and objects (Tierney, 2013).
Often, the focus of recovery tends to be on addressing the most visible
physical impacts of a disaster. While the socio-psychological effects
are less visible, they may greatly determine the success of recovery
interventions and the whole recovery process (Kristensen, 2012;
Becker et al., 2015; Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2015). People affectedby disasters, especially those bereaved, can manifest post-traumatic

Recovery framework development andimplementation ‘The DRF Guide’
The Sendai conference version of the Guide to developing disasterrecovery frameworks (GFDRR, 2015) is meant to facilitate the processof developing a post-disaster recovery framework. It encompasses all
emergencies and comprises six modules: conducting post-disasterdamage and needs assessment; policy and strategy setting forrecovery; institutional framework for recovery; financing for recovery;
implementation arrangements and recovery management andstrengthening recovery systems in national and local governments.
As a guide, it promotes flexibility in its usage and countries can adapt
it to their specific context. Importantly, it establishes a clear bridge
between a post-disaster needs assessment and a recovery framework.
What the guide mainly achieves is to provide general direction on
the recovery process as a whole. It does not prescribe a specificorganisation of a recovery framework, nor does it provide stepby-step guidance in the development of a recovery framework.
Practitioners who are used to guides that instruct them on what
to do and how to do it, may not find the guidelines useful in that
context. The onus remains on those facilitating the developmentof a DRF to strategise and agree on how best to present theirinformation and determining what aspects of the ‘guide’ areuseful. This was the approach that the Malawi team adopted.

11

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

In 2015, Malawi faced severe flooding that affected 15 districts, leading
to a declaration of a state of disaster. Government records show that thefloods affected 1.1 million people, displaced 230,000 and caused 106
deaths, with 176 people reported missing. It further destroyed 64,000
hectares of crop fields and damaged public infrastructure and private
property. A post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) was conductedwhich revealed that 12 sectors were affected. Total damage and losses
amounted to US$335 million, while recovery and reconstruction needs
were valued at US$494 million. The largest impact was on housing(41.5%), followed by agriculture (20%), transport (15%), water andsanitation (7.8%), education (3.6%) and health (3.6%). The PDNA set thescene for the development of a national disaster recovery framework(DRF).

Malawi floods 2015
http://keywordsuggest.org/gallery/810296.html

Logistical considerations
What is the best time to develop a DRF? Obviously, waiting too long may
be a challenge as the momentum from donors and other key players
would have waned, while doing it too early may end up leaving out
important issues. The DRF guide suggests it can also be carried out predisaster, though this would mostly be more suitable for a contingency
plan than a recovery plan. Since the DRF responds to a specific disastersituation, it should be developed as soon as possible, mostly in parallelwith the provision of short-term humanitarian support.
While it would be more strategic to develop the DRF with funding in
the offing as it may incentivise all those involved, the challenge is that it
may end up bringing confusion if not clearly specified. The Malawi DRF
was developed at a time when the World Bank had committed someresources to support the recovery process through a Malawi Floods
Emergency Recovery Project (MFERP). This led to confusing the DRF withthe project. The challenge of linking the recovery framework to the MFERP
was indicated by several district officials. Even during review meetings,
the project overshadowed the DRF and despite organising sensitisation
workshops to clarify, the confusion persisted.
Should an individual consultant be recruited? Perhaps a good approach,however, the consultant’s role should solely be to facilitate the process,rather than being tasked to develop the DRF itself. He/she may be involvedin the write-up process, but local actors should take a leading role in thewhole process so that outcomes is something they know, own and can
implement. A local core task-team should be set up to lead the entire
process and undertake the actual drafting. Where possible, having multiple
expertise is essential, with a mix of local and international stakeholders.

Consultations, multi-actor involvement
The development of the initial inputs into the DRF was undertaken by
officers from key sectors from the affected district councils who wereorganised in clusters. The assumption was that their contributions
were based on consultations with communities, which was mistaken, as
community-level consultations were mostly not carried out.
Since most of the interventions would be implemented at local level,
communities should not only be consulted but should feel to be partof the process. Social capital, in form of equity, participation, leadershipand governance is critical to successful recovery. Participation should
not be a top-down process where communities are just informed about

12interventions, instead it should aim at empowering them (Davidson, 2007;
Khasalamwa, 2009; Tierney, 2013; Lawther, 2016). This element was neglectedin the Malawi context, which had repercussions during the implementation
phase.
As one respondent highlighted: “The framework was not aligned to needsof the people as expressed by them.” Steinberg (2007) has argued that
prolonged consultations may cause delays, which can infuriate communities
who require urgent recovery assistance. However, in this case the major
challenge was the lack of community consultation, which meant that local
actors were not aware of the recovery framework’s purpose. The persistenceof local councillors and members of parliament who were demanding‘recovery’ projects in areas not affected by floods attested this.
The role of NGOs is critical, therefore they should be part of the core team
drafting the DRF. For most developing countries, NGOs deliver the majorityof DRR services at local level (Allen, 2006; Batley and Rose, 2011; vanNiekerk, 2015; Jones et al., 2016). For instance, in Phalombe District, five outof its six recovery projects were implemented by NGOs. While consultations
with NGOs were undertaken, most of it was top-down, focusing on soliciting
information from them. During consultations with district councils, no NGO
was represented, which could partly explain the discrepancies between what
the DRF stipulated and what NGOs were implementing on the ground. As
argued by an officer from the UN:“My feeling is that this document was developed and launched withlimited knowledge of stakeholders. Some of its contents were questioned
at the last DRM (disaster risk management) platform, which indicated that
it was not owned and, therefore, difficult for stakeholders to comply”.
However, practitioners are aware that consultations can be a nuisance.
Sometimes people who were consulted can, later on, state that they were
not consulted, or that they did not have adequate consultations, or simply
that their views were not taken on board. Staff turnover in government andNGOs further complicates the matter. Most NGOs employ staff on oneyear projects, which brings in continuity challenges. Just within the firsttwo years of the DRF implementation, most NGO projects wound up. On
government side, all district commissioners from the 15 affected districts
had been transferred at least once within the period. In the words of one
district officer:“Since some sector leads could be coming from a district, which was
not affected by the 2015 floods, they may not be conversant with some
implementation modalities unless they read the DRF manual through andthrough.”This requires continuous capacity building of actors, something thatcan be difficult where resources are constrained.

Political support and pragmatism
Political support at all levels is a prerequisite for the success of therecovery process. Where political will is lacking, recovery efforts canbe hampered (Raju and van Niekerk, 2013). The head of a local NGO
summarised this requirement:

Jones and colleagues (2016) have highlighted the need for champions
to provide incentives for DRR. The political will should also be seenfrom key players that will be involved in the process, including donors
and NGOs. Recovery is multi-sectoral, which requires buying in fromthe highest echelons of government ministries and departments, NGOs
and donors. The recovery process in Malawi commenced with grandeur,with the head of state officially launching the PDNA report. When only
one donor showed interest to support government, the momentum
withered.

Recovery prioritisation
Oftentimes, resource constraints, time limitations and other factors
define what can be implemented. As such, although the DRF may cover
everything that was impacted by the disaster, it may not be feasible
to expect to implement all aspects. Where resources are inadequate,
prioritisation of interventions is paramount, so that only those deemed
critical are considered. The first step in doing this is to set-up aprioritisation task-force that has representation from all key sectors
and actors.
As many stakeholders as possible should be consulted before, during andafter the prioritisation process. The prioritisation process is conductedby a set of guiding principles identified by the ‘prioritisation task-force’and involves prioritising interventions, geographical areas, sectors andfinancial resources. The GFDRR guide proposes six principles, but inthe Malawi case, nine principles steered the prioritisation process. The
focus was on the following principles:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.

Potential for direct and wide humanitarian impact;
Supporting preparedness and response for the 2015-2016 rainyseason;“Quick wins” with tangible impacts;
Areas and sectors most hit by the disaster;Pro-poor, pro-vulnerable, and gender-sensitive agendas;
Potential to generate sustainable livelihoods;
Showing a balance between public and private sector recovery;
Showing a balance between physical infrastructure 			reconstruction and less visible recovery; andFocusing on restoring and rebuilding critical infrastructure andservices.

The prioritisation process itself requires pragmatism and flexibility, as
it can become very contentious and mechanical. Often, each sector
would expect its activities to be prioritised. Another common oversightduring prioritisation is to dwell on the most visible interventions (fig. 1)
and ignore recovery of persons and other intangible aspects. Wisner etal.’s (2004) pressure and release model emphasises the need to address
key drivers of vulnerability, which can be social, political, economic,
cultural or environmental. While this model has been widely usedby practitioners, it is often ignored in the recovery process. Often,‘Building Back Better’ is equated to reconstructing roads, houses,
schools, hospitals, markets and other physical assets.
Strategies that promote community cohesion, socio-psychological andcultural recovery, capacity building, strengthening local governancesystems and mapping of settlements are frequently ignored. For
instance, a concern that was mentioned by several people in the

Figure 1: The most visible aspects of recovery; reconstruction of awashed away bridge in Phalombe District
most affected districts was that the floods had destroyed theirgraveyards; nevertheless no efforts were made to support suchrecovery. Concerns were further raised about the lack of support
to those who had lost family members or close friends. Habitually,such affected people resort to avoidant coping through denial,
distraction or emotional dismissal as they attempt to reconstructtheir lives and livelihoods, which can have long-term effects andhamper recovery (Becker et al., 2015).
Where such issues are considered, they tend to be taken as crosscutting, hence receiving scant attention. In addition, integrationof resilience into national policies and plans, including in thebudgeting process was not prioritised within the window offeredby the disaster. An NGO officer stated the following:“Most government line ministries continue to do their ‘businessas usual’, and do not take the recovery framework as part oftheir normal programming. Thus, internalisation is not there.
Our national budget process does not reflect inclusion of theframework’s principles”.

Financial malady, implementation, monitoringand evaluation
Most affected people do not have the means and resources to build
better houses and reconstruct lives and livelihoods on their own
following a disaster, which calls for government support (Chhotrav
and Few, 2012; Joakim and Wismer, 2015; Kita, 2017).
For most developing countries, financial constraints force them to
be at the mercy of external support in form of loans or grants.
Commonly, NGOs end up taking the lead in community-levelrecovery work (Freeman, 2004; Freeman et al., 2003; Lyons, 2009).
Lack of autonomous government funding can make guiding NGOs
challenging, as an interview with a government officer revealed:“Without government funding, it is difficult to control stakeholders
to align to the recovery framework”.
Often, NGOs will have their own goals and, as argued by one
officer from the UN, “Some projects align to the needs and visionsof implementing organisations and their donors” rather than theframework. Most NGO recovery projects were already underway at
the time of developing the recovery framework.
District officials had not considered these when developing theirframeworks. Consequently, the financial prioritisation showed
several sectors with committed resources, when in actual sense
the recovery projects were different from those in the DRF. Lack ofgovernment funding also means that sectors at district level cannot
implement recovery interventions that they had planned.

13

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction“Poor policy alignment at the highest level, lack of strong political
will as well as poor governance, all contribute to retarded andprompt decision-making process. This, in turn, slows down theimplementation of recovery activities.”A district-level officer pointed out:
“Honestly, as a district, we have not been fully guided by the framework
because what we planned in the framework and their associated costs
for activities to be implemented do not match with the available funds.
The other reason is that the donors have their own guidelines that wefollow regardless of the availability of the framework. We are just told
sometimes that the project is going to do A, B, C and D and then wejust follow”.
Implementation of a recovery framework should be guided by resilience
standards in key sectors such as housing and transport. In post-Tsunami
reconstruction in Sri Lanka, for instance, government issued minimum
standards on housing and a construction manual, which had to be followedby all actors (Lyons, 2009). Scholars have also called for the need to map
areas to identify safer places for post-disaster reconstruction (Guarnacci,
2012; Kita, 2017).
However, in the Malawi case, while the Ministry of Lands, Housing and
Urban Development has developed safer housing construction guidelines,
each agency used its own standards, designs and materials in constructing
houses. In two sites in Nsanje and Chikwawa, reconstruction work wasunderway at places considered flood prone. At one resettlement site in
Chikwawa, an earth dyke was hastily put up by community members
to prevent floodwaters from reaching the site (Figure 2). Several NGO
recovery projects have not been completed; with several houses
constructed without doors, windows or concrete floors.

Several respondents highlighted the need for proper coordination during
recovery not just between government sectors, but also with NGOs,
donors and development partners.
“Sectors work in isolation without referring to the framework. They also
work without being guided by the responsible department in chargeof making sure that interventions are aligned to the framework i.e.
DoDMA and the Department of Economic Planning and Development,”argued a government officer. Adequate attention should be paid torecovery by DRM authorities. In times of protracted disasters, as was thecase between 2015 and 2017 where floods in 2015 were followed bydrought in 2016, focus usually shifts to disaster response than recovery. A
senior government officer declared: “Government does not seem to takerecovery efforts seriously.” Raju and van Niekerk (2013) also raised similar
concerns in the context of South Africa, where coordination effort wasplaced on disaster response rather than on recovery. A core foundationin developing a recovery framework is to regard it as a living document,
which can be revised as needs and circumstances change. It should
also be flexible enough to incorporate emerging disasters. For instance,
Malawi’s DRF was revised in 2017 to incorporate drought. Moreover,continuous sharing of experience during implementation is critical, which
provides room for re-strategising. A district officer reported:“Lack of a coordination forum at national level to guide and ensure
Malawi floods 2015
adherence to the recovery framework
remains a challenge. Since we
http://keywordsuggest.org/gallery/810296.html
developed the framework, we have never ever met to track progress atnational level.”

Key lessons and conclusion
This paper sought to share experiences in the development andimplementation of a floods recovery framework in Malawi. It presents
some of the key issues to consider when designing and implementing
recovery programmes. The study underlines the relevance of the recovery
framework guide and points out certain weaknesses. Several lessons canbe discerned from the process as presented by the paper. Primarily, theseinclude:Figure 2 An earth dyke constructed by communities at a newresettlement site in Chikwawa to prevent flooding
Considering that local authorities provide input and that interventions
are implemented at local level, central control of the recovery process
should be avoided. Most respondents considered this a major challenge.
A central government officer stated:“Some of the components are centrally implemented, which leaves out
local councils who are very critical to the implementation being thatthey are the ones who are closer to the people.”
Achieving better recovery also requires constant monitoring andsupervision, which demands allocation of adequate resources.

The importance of coordination
Multilevel institutional and actor arrangements can pose coordinationand information sharing challenges in a DRM context. This calls for a shift
from top-down arrangements to vertical and horizontal coordination
arrangements (Guarnacci, 2012). For instance, NGOs usually want tobe seen at the centre of the most impacted area (Chhotrav and Few,2012), which may leave other areas unattended. In the words of a central
government officer:“Geographical distribution of the interventions is not even. Most
interventions are concentrated in specific areas, for instance, Nsanje,
Chikwawa and Phalombe, leaving out other districts that were equallyaffected by floods”.

14

1. Despite its shortfalls, most respondents agreed that a recovery
framework inculcates a culture of post-disaster recovery amongactors. It brings more awareness on the need for recovery than theusual focus on disaster response;
2. While transitional recovery needs can be urgently met, long-term
recovery requires adequate planning, from a developmental perspective,
with continuous consultations with the affected community and otherkey actors;
3. A key aspect during this stage is to build on the momentum that comeswith disaster response and integrate disaster resilience in the national
development framework, while at the same time mainstreaming DRR
in key national policies and plans. This is key to the principle of‘Building Back Better’ in the long-term;
4. While quantitative results such as number of houses constructed,
number of schools rehabilitated, or number of households supportedwith farm inputs are important, they should not be emphasisedat the expense of the quality and long-term sustainability of theinterventions. This also requires frequent monitoring and supervisionof both private and public recovery processes to ensure they are‘Building Back Better’;
5. Recovery should stress on less visible aspects that are root causes ofvulnerability, such as leadership and governance systems, culture andeconomic systems;
6. Disaster recovery requires adequate funding. While for most lowincome countries some donor support may be available, governments
should be able to budget for recovery; and ultimately
7. Achieving all these requires political support and commitment at thehighest levels from government, donors, NGOs and the private sector.

Acknowledgement

References
1.

Allen, K. 2006. ‘Community-Based Disaster Preparedness and Climate Adaptation:
Local Capacity Building in the Philippines’, Disasters, 30(1): 81–101.
2. Batley, R., and Rose, P. 2011. ‘Analysing Collaboration between Non-Governmental
Service Providers and Governments’, Public Administration and Development, 31(4):230-239.
3. Becker, C., Roos, V., and Coetzee, H. 2015. ‘Disaster Recovery Experiences of a South
African Rural Farming Community’, Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(3): 182-190.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.
5. Charmaz, K. 2003.’ Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.’ In J. A.
Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns (pp.
311-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
6. Chhotray, V., and Few, R. 2012. ‘Post-Disaster Recovery and Ongoing Vulnerability: Ten
Years after the Super-Cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India’, Global Environmental Change,
22(3): 695-702.
7. Clinton, W. 2006. ‘Lessons Learned from Tsunami Recovery: Key Propositions for
Building Back Better’, A Report by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special
Envoy for Tsunami Recovery. New York: Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special
Envoy for Tsunami Recovery. Available at http://www.preventionweb.net/files/2054_
VL108301.pdf (Accessed 30 March 2017).
8. Davidson, C. H. 2007. ‘Truths and Myths about Community Participation in PostDisaster Housing Projects’, Habitat International, 31: 100–115.
9. Freeman, P. K. 2004. ‘Allocation of Post-Disaster Reconstruction Financing to Housing’,
Building Research and Information, 32(5): 427–437.
10. Freeman, P.K., Martin, L., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R., Pflug, G. and Warner, K. 2003.
‘National Systems for Comprehensive Disaster Management: Financial Strategies for
Natural Disaster Reconstruction. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Available at https://publications.iadb.org/facet-view?field=type_view (Accessed on 30
March 2017).
11. GFDRR, 2015. Guide to Developing Disaster Recovery Frameworks: Sendai Conference
Version. Available at https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/publication/DRF-Guide.pdf(Accessed on 1 August 2015).
12. Guarnacci, U. 2012. ‘Governance for Sustainable Reconstruction after Disasters: Lessons
From Nias, Indonesia’, Environmental Development, 2: 73-85.
13. Ingram, J. C., Franco, G., Rio, C. R., and Khazai, B. 2006. ‘Post-Disaster Recovery
Dilemmas: Challenges in Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term Needs for Vulnerability
Reduction’, Environmental Science and Policy, 9(7): 607-613.

14. Joakim, E. P. and Wismer, S. K. 2015. ‘Livelihood Recovery after Disaster’,Development in Practice, 25(3): 401-418.
15. Jones, S., Oven, K. J., and Wisner, B. 2016. ‘A Comparison of the GovernanceLandscape of Earthquake Risk Reduction in Nepal and the Indian State of Bihar’,International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15: 29-42.
16. Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E., Kelman, I. 2008. ‘The Meaning of ‘Build
Back Better’: Evidence from Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka’, Journal ofContingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1): 24–36.
17. Khasalamwa, S. 2009. ‘Is ‘Build Back Better’ a Response to Vulnerability? Analysisof the Post-Tsunami Humanitarian Interventions in Sri Lanka’, Norwegian Journalof Geography, 63(1): 73-88.
18. Kita, S. M. 2017. ‘Urban Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Reduction and Resettlementin Mzuzu City, Malawi’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22:
158-166.
19. Kristensen, P. L. T. 2012. ‘Bereavement and Mental Health after Sudden andViolent Losses: A Review’, Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes,
75(1): 76-97.
20. Lawther, P. M. 2016. ‘Towards a Natural Disaster Intervention and Recovery
Framework’, Disasters, 40(3): 494-517.
21. Lyons, M. 2009. ‘Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale
Approaches to Reconstruction’, World Development, 37(2): 385–398.
22. Mannakkara, S., and Wilkinson, S. 2015. ‘Supporting Post-Disaster Social
Recovery to Build Back Better’, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the
Built Environment, 6(2): 126-139.
23. Morgan, R. 1986. ‘From Drought Relief to Postdisaster Recovery: The Case of
Botswana’, Disasters, 10(1): 30-34.
24. Raju, E., and van Niekerk, D. 2013. ‘Intra-Governmental Coordination for
Sustainable Disaster Recovery: A Case-Study of the Eden District Municipality,
South Africa’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 4(C): 92-99.
25. Steinberg, F. 2007. ‘Housing Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias,
Indonesia—Rebuilding Lives’, Habitat International, 31(1): 150-166.
26. Tierney, K. 2013. ‘Only Connect!” Social Capital, Resilience, and Recovery’, Risk,
Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4(1): 1-5.
27. Turner, B. L., et al. 2003. ‘A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability
Science’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14): 8074–8079.
28. UNISDR. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
Available at http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework (Accessedon 10 July 2016).
29. van Niekerk, D. 2015. ‘Disaster Risk Governance in Africa’, Disaster Prevention
and Management, 24(3): 397-416.
30. Wind, T. R., Joshi, P. C., Kleber, R. J., and Komproe, I. H. 2013. ‘The Impact ofRecurrent Disasters on Mental Health: A Study on Seasonal Floods in Northern
India’, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 28(3): 279–285.
31. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. 2004. At risk: Natural Hazards,
People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
32. Yi, H., and Yang, J. 2014. ‘Research Trends of Post Disaster Reconstruction: The
Past and the Future’, Habitat International, 42: 21-29.

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

The author would like to thank James Chiusiwa, Sam Gama and theGravitazz Editorial Committee for comments made on initial draftsof the manuscript. Furthermore, the author declares that he led thedevelopment of the recovery framework, which has been discussed
in the paper. As such, he takes responsibility for the majority ofomissions made in its development and presents such issues asa reflection on the process for the benefit of practitioners andacademia.

15

Photo credit: afhdr.org

Utilising TVET as a tool to achieve Disaster Resilience 		among disaster prone countries:

Cross countries analysis of experiences from Nigeria and Thailand
Shubham Pathak

Shubham Pathak is a PhD Candidate
in Disaster Management at theDisaster Preparedness, Mitigation andManagement (DPMM) at the Asian
Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand.
He holds dual Masters in Commerceand Disaster Management. Prior to his
doctoral studies, he has been working
with State Government in Uttarakhand
State of India as an I.T. and GIS
Specialist for the implementation of
the national Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR) Programme under UNDP.
His disaster management experienceon the ground includes disasters
such as earthquakes, landslides,
floods, flash floods, land subsidence
and mudslides. With numerous
publications in notable journals
such as the International Journal ofDisaster Risk Reduction, he has beenworking towards achieving disaster
resilience and faster disaster recovery.
His vision is to build a resilient, socialand economic structure among thevulnerable communities on the globe.

16

Abstract
This papers aims at underlining the importance of the role of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and
its impact on disaster resilience in the context of the experiences from the 2012 Nigerian floods and the 2011 Thailand
floods respectively from an Africa-Asia perspective. Rapid-onset disasters such as floods can be devastating for growing
economies. Disaster resilience provides a cushion for an economy in a flood disaster scenario. The methodology appliedin this study involves a qualitative method approach towards collecting data pertaining to experiences of vulnerable
employment sector during disaster events. The paper aims to analyse various aspects of TVET thereby assisting disastermanagement in both countries through Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. The findingspresented include significant monetary and social losses, barriers to employment during and post floods, elongatedrecovery from floods and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) initiatives to be adopted. Through a comparative countries’
analysis, recommendations have been put forward in order to contribute to strengthening the disaster management
systems and to reducing vulnerability in both flood prone countries.
Key Words: TVET, Disaster Resilience, Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Reduction.
Introduction
Disasters are disruptive events which adversely affect the employability, growth and development of an economy. TechnicalVocational Education and Training (TVET) plays a crucial role in employment particularly in lower and middle-income
countries. This study attempts to examine the relationship and impact of TVET in terms of employment generation during
disasters. In order to ascertain the comparative scenarios, the 2011 floods in Thailand and the 2012 floods in Nigeria havebeen chosen for this research.
Previous research illustrates the significance of TVET in order to achieve benefits for the economy and society (Bennell,
1996; UNESCO-UNEVOC, 2007). Employment generation is thus among one of the major contributions of TVET. Thisshould be utilised during disaster scenarios where most employment is either suspended or comes to a standstill. Natural
disasters such as floods cause higher labour force dropouts and an increase in the unemployment rate particularly incountries with a high level of vulnerability to disasters. TVET therefore constitutes a critical tool in order to enhance
employability and technological advancement and further assists in acceleration of the disaster recovery process. One
important finding of this research demonstrates that TVET notably contributes to the generation of employment of both
women and men alike (Ministry of Education, Thailand, 2006; Dangote, 2013).

The flood zonation map in Figure 1 depicts the flood intensity
throughout Nigeria. The extent of floods was severe and resulted ina large number of unemployment or suspension of the labour force
during the floods.
In juxtaposition, the 2011 Thailand floods were one of the largest floodsin Thailand and costliest among the Asian region (World Bank, 2012).
Almost entire central Thailand was severely affected by the floods(see Figure 2), which consequently led to several businesses having topermanently close down while several others had to be on a standstill
for more than two months from October 2011 until December 2011.
Employment was severely affected across the industrial sector as wellas other sectors of the economy (Pathak & Ahmad, 2016).

Figure 2:2011 Thailand flood map
Source: Thaiflood.
com

In such major disaster scenarios, TVET offers several opportunities
mainly for the labour section of employees. Even with offices relocatedto the flood safe Bangkok Metropolitan area, workers had to struggle tosecure any form of income and to merely survive throughout the 2011
floods. TVET could thus be applied as a crucial disaster management
tool with regards to employment during the disaster recovery phase.

Disaster Management Framework in Nigeria andThailandThe disaster management framework in Nigeria (see Figure 3) iswell defined, however, it lacks considerable implementation of plansand policies, which are needed to ensure efficiency. The Federal
Government through the National Emergency Management Agency(NEMA) heads the well-defined framework, which is responsible forfacilitating the establishment of enabling legislation and monitoring
the activities of the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA)
as well as the Local Emergency Management Authority (LEMA).
The aforementioned organisations are closely working with community
through Disaster Response Units (DRU). Yet, the policy implications
through these agencies on ground level were severely criticised
during the 2012 floods on the basis of lack of inter-departmental
coordination and lack of transparency during flood management.

Compared to this, Thailand’s disaster framework (see Figure 4) is moredefined and effective. The Prime Minister of Thailand and the cabinet
head the framework. All other ministries work closely under the cabinet
to ensure effective disaster management. The armed forces, provincial
and district levels are at the subsequent stage of managing disasters.
Finally, the local level government offices along with thecommunities strive hard to manage disasters. One of the
major reasons for the devastating impacts of the 2011 floods
was that the intensity and magnitude was recorded beyond
worst-case scenario of the government (Pathak & Ahmad,2016). Therefore, damages and losses escalated immensely.

17

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Figure 1: 2012 flood zone map of Nigeria
Source: Adapted from UNOCHAFigure 3: National Disaster management framework in Nigeria
Source: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/21708_nigherianationaldisastermanagementf.pdf

TVET and disaster resilience in Nigeria and Thailand
TVET is considered an essential tool for developing economies such as
Nigeria as well as for fast growing economies such as Thailand. Badawi(2013) defines the concept of TVET as:“A comprehensive term referring to those aspects of the educational
process involving, in addition to general education, the study oftechnologies and related sciences and the acquisition of practical skills,
attitudes, understanding and knowledge relating to occupations invarious sectors of economic and social life” (p. 284).
Disaster resilience has been gaining international attention with inclusion
in development policy levels in several countries and in the United
Nations. Various definitions exist to understand the concept of disaster
resilience. However, the author chose the following conception of theterminology “disaster resilience” for the purpose of this study (Keating,et al., 2017.
“The ability of a system, community or society to pursue its social,ecological and economic development objectives, while managing its
disaster risk over time in a mutually reinforcing way.”
TVET is regarded as a instrument that enhances national aspirations andachievements thus spurring economic development and growth. Both,the Nigerian as well as the Thai government, have been assisting andencouraging TVET programmes and policies to be adopted despite of it
being considered a lower class profession (Okolocha, 2012). Both countries
require skilled labour and abundant employment opportunities in orderto build resilience. A TVET qualification equips the less academic-oriented
and under-privileged students and improves livelihood opportunities
during and after disasters.
In Thailand, vocational courses offered include industry, commerce/business, fine arts, home economics, agriculture, fisheries, tourism
and hospitality, ship building, textile and information technology andcommunication in 404 TVET Colleges by the Office of the Vocational
Education Commission (OVEC) under the Ministry of Education (OVEC,

182017). Inclusion of TVET in the National Education Plan (2002-2016)
facilitates self-employment and benefits the local communities, whichis especially crucial during and after floods. In addition, several projects
are carried out in collaboration with the industrial sectors for enhancing,strengthening and popularising TVET skills.
In Nigeria on the other hand, the National Board for Technical Education(NBTE) under the Ministry of Education coordinates TVET. Courses offeredinclude agriculture, typing, bookkeeping, auto mechanics, commerce,teaching and woodwork. However, the total number of colleges is less than200, which therefore makes it difficult to cater for the entire population(UNESCO-IBE , 2011). These colleges produce less skilled TVET graduatesin view of the country’s large population and geographical extent of
Nigeria. As a consequence, government has been initiating several
TVET programmes; yet, the challenges prevail in terms of establishing acomprehensive and effective TVET system in Nigeria.

Research Methodology
The research methodology adopted for this study is a qualitative method
approach making use of qualitative tools including survey questionnaires
and key informant interviews. A detailed SWOT analysis was carried out
to ascertain various factors influencing disaster resilience in the context
of the two countries. Nigeria and Thailand were chosen to study the
impact of TVET on disaster resilience due to different approaches towards
disasters and varying economic and social setup.
The data collection included primary data collection among TVET employees(20 in both countries) who were effected during the devastating floods in
Nigeria in 2012 and in Thailand in 2011 respectively. The respondents wereselected with purposive random sampling from the list of TVET employees
during the 2012 floods in Nigeria (NEMA, 2017) and the 2011 floods inThailand (OVEC, 2017).
The questionnaire focused on attaining the experiences, hindrances andother issues faced by TVET employees during and after the floods inboth countries. 12 key informant interviews were conducted with local
and national level government officials as well as TVET teachers andemployees. The secondary data was collected through research
publications, reports, books and online resources of data related to
TVET and disaster management from both countries.

the 2012 floods, it was felt that government capacities werelimited and therefore require major revisions at the planning aswell as human resource level.”

Findings

Similarly, a quality assurance mechanism of TVET teachers andtrainers was found to be absent in the Nigerian context. However,Thailand defined and implemented licensing for TVET teachers andtrainers. These licenses are reviewed and renewed every five years
in order to maintain the quality of faculty at the TVET schools andcolleges. Nevertheless, the quality of rural faculties in Thailand has
been deteriorating due to absence of resources and fewer enrolled
students.

The TVET institutions in both countries should focus on skilled training
in various employment opportunities (Pimpa, 2007), on enhancing
employability and on faster disaster recovery during and after floods.
TVET enables graduates to find suitable positions faster (Raimi &Akhuemonkhan, 2014).
The employment generated during floods included temporary
aquaculture in the inundated premises, waste management, sale ofscrap material from inundated plant and machineries, construction ofboats and sand bag dykes, drinking water bottle supply, boots andplastic overcoats and transportation from flood inundated areas toflood safe zones.
Comparative analysis was carried out from the data collected throughprimary and secondary sources. It was found that the overall situationin Thailand was generally more enhanced than in Nigeria in terms of
TVET, disaster resilience as well as implementation and utilisation of
TVET as a disaster resilience mechanism and strategy. The following
table depicts the various factors related to TVET and disaster resilience
illustrating their impact on both countries during floods.
The study revealed that TVET graduates benefit from numerous
employment opportunities in both countries. However, Thailand wasfound to be more systematic and comprehensive in terms of TVET
and its disaster framework. Despite drafting of disaster management
and TVET planning at the national level, Nigeria still lacks adequate
implementation of plans and policies. This was found prominent at
the rural areas in particular. The following is a citation of an interview
excerpt carried out with a Senior Officer at NEMA in Abuja,

Disasters and TVET both have higher adverse effects on female
gender (Reyes & Lu, 2016; Raimi & Akhuemonkhan, 2014). During
the flood disasters in both Nigeria and Thailand, women sufferedfrom a larger impact in terms of opportunities, accessibility
and availability of time and resources to seek and undertake
employment. This is due to the socio-economic and cultural set
up in both the countries. However, Thailand experiences lower
participation of female TVET graduates and employees whereas thecountry maintains gender balance at the educational level between
male and female students. Nigeria, on the other hand, experiences
gender bias in every aspect of TVET and disaster scenarios.
Moreover, Nigeria faces gender imbalance between male and femaleat the education level and in societal setup (Eboiyehi, et al., 2016).
TVET is considered to be a low level and male dominated career in
Nigeria. Therefore, opportunities for female TVET skilled graduates
are limited. This poses a serious obstacle in disaster resilience, as
women are more vulnerable without optimal resources during andafter disasters.
Communities need to strengthen both male and female labour
skills in order to achieve sustainable development and resiliencefrom a disaster event.

“TVET and disaster management framework are already existing andbeing implemented. However, the capacities at the local level andrural areas lack in successful implementation of these plans. During

19

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Figure 4: Disaster management framework in Thailand
Source: (Pimpa, 2007; Trumikaborworn, 2017)Table 1: Comparative analysis of TVET factors affecting disaster resilience in Nigeria and Thailand

Comparative Factors
Disaster Framework at alllevels of governanceNigeria
Absent at Rural and local level

TVET institutional framework

Unequal distribution of TVET
institutions

TVET Teachers and Trainers

Lack of skilled teachers

Gender of TVET students

Higher number of male thanfemale students
Considered low level jobs

Social attitude towards TVET
Employment generated by
TVET during disasters

TVET provides employment forlimited employees including
wood workers and fisheries

Policy level adoption forenhancing TVET
Resilience through TVET

Not included in National Level
planning process
Enhancing TVET institutional
capacities is required toachieve resilience

On the other hand, with more opportunities and an increase inremuneration, TVET employment in Thailand is gaining recognition andpopularity among young students and workers. The fact that the TVET
workforce was able to earn more and consistently during the 2011 floodsin Thailand, contributed to the enriching of TVET to achieve disaster
resilience.
Employment generation is crucial during and after disasters to achieve
resilience in societies and communities and TVET constitutes a possible
solution for increased employability. The 2011 floods in Thailand
provided many occupational opportunities in the area of TVET. However,In Nigeria due to its economic structure and income levels in society, theemployment opportunities were limited during the 2012 floods. Two of
the most popular and successful TVET skills were found to be woodworkand fishery during the Nigerian floods as means of livelihood.
The government in both countries acknowledges the fact that TVET
generates more employment and therefore needs to be inculcated at theeducational level. However, relevant policies and planning were found tobe vague and implementation was lacking at the rural and local levels
in both countries. In Thailand, the holistic national plan does provide for
TVET and disaster resilience, yet it was unsuccessful during the 2011 floods
as the inundation time line exceeded two months in several provinces
reducing the transportation facilities and in turn diminishing accessibility
to employment. Strengthening of TVET and disaster resilience amongcommunities would significantly enrich and augment employment
opportunities for both countries.

SWOT analysis
The following SWOT is aimed at better understanding and providing
possible solutions to tap the available opportunities in both nations
having analysed the implications of TVET during the floods in both
Nigeria and Thailand.
Strengths: The main strength identified in both countries among the
TVET workforce is the commitment and motivation to work hard and toearn a living. Several lorry drivers went on for more than twelve hours
straight to transport flood affected people to safe zones. Apart fromgeneration of employment for TVET workers, research indicated that the20

ThailandComprehensive framework
existing throughout thecountry
Rural TVET institutions lackparticipation and quality
training
TVET teachers require license
which is to be renewed every 5
years
Balance among male andfemale students
Popularising with higher
remunerations involved
TVET provides ample
employment opportunity butlack of transportation facilities
diminish its scope in rural
areas
TVET included in National
Plans since 2002- till dateWith strengthening of rural
TVET institutional framework,
TVET would provide forsustainability and resilience tothe vulnerable Thai
communities.

remuneration received by TVET workers during and after the floods wasdecent in terms of monetary values in both countries. However, due
to better transportation systems in Thailand, Nigeria lagged behind inproviding prompt and quick transportation of raw materials and inputs
for TVET workers.
Weaknesses: Negative social implications related with TVET in bothcountries added to lower self-esteem among TVET graduates andemployees. In addition, society perceives TVET employment as a lower
class profession and leads to gender imbalance in TVET (Akhuemonkhan& Raimi, 2013). The TVET curriculum in Nigeria is found to be lessadvanced in terms of technology in comparison with that of Thailand.
Thailand utilises its TVET curriculum as a means to adequately inculcate
TVET skills at the institutional level. TVET workers in Thailand were more
motivated and more self-confident than their counterparts in Nigeria.
However, in rural Thailand, the TVET situation in colleges needs to be
improved to generate overall growth and highly skilled TVET graduates(Choomnoon, 2011).
Opportunities: Governments could enhance capacities of TVET institutions
and monitor employment opportunities during a disaster scenario. A
comprehensive and up-to-date database of the countries’ TVET skilledworkforce would enhance and channel their adequate deployment during
floods. Institutionalisation of TVET prevails in both countries; however,effective implementation is found to be lacking at the ground level.
Governments should consider providing financial assistance to TVET
graduates and enhancing attractiveness of the TVET institutes in orderto reduce the social stigma in the society. Thailand has been successfully
advertising and boosting TVET skills among their population and has
thus generated more respect towards TVET employees than Nigeria.
Threats: Recurring floods disaster is one of the major threats to bothcountries. In terms of TVET employment, social stigma is found to be amajor threat in curtailing the full exploitation of TVET skilled labour. The
growing population and gender imbalance in Nigeria was observed as
an additional threat towards successful TVET employment and a lack ofexpertise of TVET workers. Thailand, on the other hand, has more work
opportunities than actual candidates for TVET-related vacancies.

Moreover, different employment opportunities need to be
identified such as arising from flood waste management,
aquaculture during inundation of premises, construction of sandbag dykes, boats and other preparedness equipment from floods.
These require TVET skills and give work possibilities during
and after major disasters thereby enhancing sustainability andresilience among communities affected by floods.

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Finally, Nigerian and Thai government authorities in close
partnership with the private sector should design and undertake
awareness campaigns, training and workshops hence attracting
more students into technical and vocational education.
Furthermore, gender balance needs to be reinforced to ensure
equal chances and a higher number of female participants in
TVET. Communities would significantly benefit from active
participation of both male and female TVET workers. Further
reform and expansion of the TVET system in both countries isessential in order to provide enhanced access to such training
and to achieve sustainable development and disaster-resilient
communities particularly in rural areas.

References
1.

TVET offers employment opportunities in times of flood disaster.
The various levels of government should utilise existing employment
opportunities such as building and maintenance of sand bag dykes inThailand and wooden boats in Nigeria. Self-employment during flood
disaster builds resilience among every section of the community. Aninterview with a flood victim who is engaged in manufacturing ofsand bags in Thailand revealed the following.
“I had lots of opportunities during the 2011 floods. Sales wereenormous and I had to increase the production even during thefloods. I would have been miserable without my skills as there were
no employment opportunities.”
Nigeria is more vulnerable and less prepared in terms of floods
disaster as compared to Thailand. However, more opportunities exist
for TVET-related work in Nigeria. With woodwork and fisheries being
very popular in Nigeria, skilled TVET graduates in the respective fields
find it easier to cope during and after floods. A local level government
officer in Abuja shared his view on the role of youth equipped with
TVET skills in the midst of floods explaining that,“Youth can indulge in woodwork as many people require woodworkers
after the flood; similarly, fish being staple meat provides ample job
opportunities for fish farmers. TVET skills in these fields help in jobs
and survival of people during floods.”
Disaster resilience is essential for faster recovery from disasters. The
smooth transitioning of the disaster affected economy to normalcy
or further growth requires TVET skills at small and medium enterpriselevel or self-employed businesses.

Conclusion
This paper reiterates the importance of TVET curricula upgradationand implementation of relevant policies in order to make it more
responsive to market needs in both countries, Nigeria and Thailand.
Governments should consider increasing participation of students in
TVET programmes while raising the attractiveness of technical andvocational education offering more bursaries and rebates in tuition
fees. The misconception of TVET seen as low-level work among
societies needs to be addressed adequately to increase participationin such programmes and to provide more work opportunities inthe event of a disaster. Awareness generation among communities
is fundamental to build disaster resilience through the concept andimplementation of TVET policies.

Akhuemonkhan, I. A. & Raimi, L., 2013. Impact of Quality Assurance on TechnicalVocational Education and Training (TVET) In Nigeria. Presentation at the 2013
IVETA Annual Conference on Quality Assurance in Technical-Vocational Education
and Training (TV. Las Vegas, Nevada, United State, s.n.
2. Badawi, A. A., 2013. TVET and entrepreneurship skills (Chapter 8) . In: Revisiting
global trends in TVET: Reflections on theory and practice. s.l.:UNESCO-UNEVOC
International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training.
3. Bennell, P., 1996. General versus Vocational Secondary Education in Developing
Countries: a review of the rates of return evidence,. Journal of Development
Studies, Volume 33, pp. 230-247.
4. Choomnoon, S., 2011. Thailand.. In: S. Majumdar, ed. Emerging Challenges andTrends in TVET in the Asia-Pacific Region. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 219235.
5. Dangote, A., 2013. Dangote advocates technical education for industrial growth.,
Punch.: UNESCO.
6. Eboiyehi, C. O., Fayomi, I. & Eboiyehi, F. A., 2016. From exclusion to discrimination:
Gender inequality in the senior management of Nigerian universities. Issues in
Educational Research, 26(2), pp. 182-205.
7. Keating, A. et al., 2017. Disaster resilience: what it is and how it can engender ameaningful change in development policy. Development Policy Review, Volume
35, pp. 65-91.
8. Ministry of Education, Thailand, 2006. The Annual Policy for Ministry of Education,
Bangkok: Kurusapha..
9. NEMA, 2017. National Emergency Management Agency. [Online]
10. Available at: http://nema.gov.ng/
11. [Accessed 15 12 2016].
12. Okolocha, C. C., 2012. Vocational Technical Education in Nigeria: Challenges andthe Way Forward. Business Management Dynamics, 2(6), pp. 1-8.
13. OVEC, 2017. Office of the Vocational Education Comission. [Online]
14. Available at: http://www.vec.go.th/Engishpage/NewsEngish.aspx
15. PATHAK, S. & AHMAD, M., 2016. Coping Mechanisms Of Sme In Response To
2011 Floods In Pathumthani, Thailand. International Journal of Safety and Security
Engineering, 6(3), pp. 597-606.
16. Pathak, S. & Ahmad, M. M., 2016. Flood recovery capacities of the manufacturing
SMEs from floods: A case study in Pathumthani province, Thailand. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 18, pp. 197-205.
17. Pimpa, N., 2007. Reference groups and choices of vocational education: Case ofThailand. Fremantle, University of Notre Dame Australia.
18. Pimpa, N., 2007. Reference groups and choices of vocational education: Case ofThailand. Fremantle, Western Australia, University of Notre Dame Australia.
19. Raimi, L. & Akhuemonkhan, I. A., 2014. Has Technical Vocational Education andTraining (TVET) impacted on Employability and National Development?. The
Macrotheme Review, 3(2), pp. 129-146.
20. Reyes, D. D. & Lu, J. L., 2016. Gender dimension in disaster situations: A case studyof flood prone women in Malabon City, Metro Manila. International Journal ofDisaster Risk Reduction, Volume 15, pp. 162-168.
21. Tawari-Fufeyin , P., Paul, M. & Godleads, A. O., 2015. Some Aspects of a Historic
Flooding in Nigeria and Its Effects on some Niger-Delta Communities. American
Journal of Water Resources, 3(1), pp. 7-16.
22. Trumikaborworn, N., 2017. Master Student [Interview] (22 02 2017).
23. UNESCO-IBE , 2011. World Data on Education VII Ed. 2010/11. Nigeria., Geneva:
UNESCO-IBE..
24. UNESCO-UNEVOC, 2007. Participation in Formal Technical and Vocational
Education and Training Programmes Worldwide - An Initial Statistical Study., Paris:
UNESCO.
25. World Bank, 2012. Thailand Flooding 2554 Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery
and Reconstruction Planning, s.l.: Ministry of Finance, Royal Thai Government and
The World Bank..

21

Photo: Aliyu Adekunle S/Vanguard
Flooding leaves many homelessBuilding Resilience and Increased Preparedness in the
midst of devastating floods in Africa

Jessica Johmann

Jessica is a proven institutional/
business development professionalandanInternational
Relationsexpert with 15 years of international
experience in the field of DRR,
climate change and UN-mandated
institutional development projects,
with a strong emphasis on developing
countries and the African continent.

Abstract
Managing climate or weather-related disasters such as floods is a major challenge to Africa’s development, as thenumber and scale of disasters triggered by natural hazards is on the rise globally (UNISDR, 2016). The degree of an
adverse effect depends on the vulnerability of a country and of its population as well as on the frequency, intensity
and magnitude of flooding. In the different regions of Africa, the synergy of natural disasters such as flooding, rapid
urbanisation linked with informal settlements, water scarcity, and climate change has emerged as a serious challenge forpolicy and planning. This paper therefore focuses on the importance of building resilience and increased preparedness
in the midst of devastating floods in Africa. It highlights three areas of best practice in the Horn of Africa, West Africa
and Southern Africa. The paper essentially argues for African governments to prioritise pre-emptive investments inflood management in order to mitigate and address the increase in the number of high-impact disasters and crises.
Keywords: Floods, Resilience, West Africa, Horn of Africa, Southern Africa.

Prior to joining Gravitazz andproviding research and institutional
development support to the team,Jessica worked for the United
Nations University in Bonn, Germany,
where she spearheaded a numberof capacity-building initiatives andgovernment collaborations in SubSaharan Africa.

Introduction
Managing climate or weather-related disasters such as floods is a major challenge to Africa’s development, as thenumber and scale of disasters triggered by natural hazards is on the rise globally (UNISDR, 2016). The degree of an
adverse effect depends on the vulnerability of a country and of its population as well as on the frequency, intensity andmagnitude of flooding. The WorldRiskIndex clearly illustrates this causal relation and shows that out of the 15 countries
with the highest vulnerability to disasters, 13 are situated on the African continent, with the Central African Republic,
Eritrea and Chad ranking as the Top 3 (see Figure 1 below). Countries like Liberia (ranked 56th), Zambia (ranked 66th)
and the Central African Republic (ranked 71st) have a very high level of vulnerability despite a low exposure to natural
hazards (WorldRiskReport, 2016).

She holds a Master’s degreeinInternational
RelationsandDevelopment Studies from theBarcelona Centre for International
Affairs and UAB and completed
her BA Honor’s programme inInternational Business Administration
at Bournemouth University in the UK.
As a passionate linguist, she fluently
converses in her mother tongue
German as well as English, French,
Spanish, and Portuguese and has
knowledge of Arabic, Korean, Italianand most recently Zulu.

Floods can produce critical challenges – including loss of lives and livelihoods, destruction of vital infrastructure –, thus
hindering economic growth and stability across the continent. Consequently, both developing and emerging countries
would significantly benefit from investing in prevention and adaptation measures to mitigate risk by integrating
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into their national development policies instead of predominantly concentrating on
emergency response and recovery. The following article will focus on the importance of building resilience andincreased preparedness in the midst of devastating floods in Africa. It highlights three areas of best practice in theHorn of Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa. The article essentially argues for African governments to prioritise preemptive investments in flood management.
During the second half of 2016 and in early 2017 flood risk increased in Southern Africa, as La Niña set in, while the2015/2016 agricultural season was the driest in 35 years as a result of the El Niño phenomenon (see graphic 2 below).

22

Uganda is one of the African countries most prone to disasters.
West Africa has equally been struck by heavy rainfalls; causing
the Gorouol River at Alcongui in Niger to reach its highest levelin over fifty years, as reported by the Niger Basin Authority. In
the first half of 2016, flooding along the Shabelle River in the
Hiraan region temporarily displaced some 70,000 Somalians
and destroyed more than 80% of crops.
In Ghana, deadly downpours caused massive flooding in thecapital city and along the Cape Coast during the 2016 wet
season in West Africa (Aljazeera, 2016). The increased flood risk
as La Niña emerges can only intensify the challenges facing
developing and emerging countries attempting to implement
the seven targets and four priorities of action of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, which was
adopted by all UN Member States in March 2015, in Sendai,
Japan.

Impacts of flooding on African countries
In the different regions of Africa, the synergy of natural
disasters such as flooding, rapid urbanisation linked withinformal settlements, water scarcity, and climate change has
emerged as a serious challenge for policy and planning. There
are limited sources of water available to provide clean drinking
water to the entire population of Africa. Surface water sources
are often highly polluted, and infrastructure to pipe water from
fresh, clean sources to arid areas is associated with high costs.
The United Nations estimates that Sub-Saharan Africa alone
loses
40
billion
hours
per
year
collecting
water.
Urban areas, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, have experienced an influx
in water, which has outpaced the development of effective wastewater
management systems and thus led to pollution of natural water

bodies, unintentional use of wastewater in irrigated agriculture,irregular water supply and environmental concerns for aquatic life
(TheWaterProject, 2016; Van Rooijen, Biggs, Smout & Drechsel,
2009). The recent devastating floods that have hit Africa hard
affecting millions have caused death, destruction of livelihoods,
infrastructure, property and businesses and left thousands of people
displaced across the Northern, Western and Eastern regions of thecontinent.
The rise in water/vector borne diseases such as cholera andAcute Watery Diarrhoea outbreaks have enormous Public
Health implications and require massive alterations in the livesof those affected (WHO, 2016); an average of 100 Public Health
Emergencies (PHEs) are reported every year in the continent:
78% are related to infectious diseases (amongst which 23% arerelated to cholera alone), 17% are climate-related and 5% arelinkedtoothercauses.
Thiswastragicallywitnessedin
Tanzania’s
struggle
tocontainthis year’s deadly cholera outbreak – the largest since 19971998 – that has claimed hundreds of lives and left thousands
infected due to poor access to safe water and sanitation.
The aforementioned factors have long-term implications ascommunities with inoperative sanitation facilities, disrupted
education systems, malnutrition and poverty are susceptible
to secondary effects such as famine and disease outbreak.

Best practices of building resilience to floodingin Africa
Horn of Africa: Use of drones in flood mapping and flood
DRR in Tanzania. The Dar Ramani Huria Project, which is Swahili for“Dar Open Map”, was initiated in 2015 by a coalition comprisingof the City Council of Dar es Salaam, the Tanzania Commission
for Science and Technology (COSTECH), the University of Dar es
Salaam, Ardhi University, and the Buni Innovation Hub in support of
the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
and the International Red Cross and involvement of a Swiss nonprofit organisation, Drone Adventures.

23

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

The SADC Climate Services Centre predicted that by the end of 2016 themost affected countries as a result of above average rainfall and over
70% of the population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.
Moreover, in the Horn of Africa region, flooding and the occurrence oflandslides in parts of Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Somalia have been
impacting millions and displacing thousands, resulting in hundreds ofdeaths in 2016.

The initiative looks at how drones can be used in community-based
flood mapping and flood DRR and disaster recovery in the most floodprone areas of the country’s capital, Dar es Salaam. Drones provide highresolution and up-to-date imagery that is essential for the developmentof exposure maps of affected communities and for modelling and better
managing flood risks in an African megacity such as Dar es Salaam;
one of the world’s fastest growing cities. Over 70% of Dares Salaam 5
million residents live in informal, unplanned settlements with inadequate
infrastructure (World Bank, 2002).
In addition, heavy rainfalls twice a year result in significant flood risks.
The success of this particular flood management and DRR project has
led to further applications and to government funding for infrastructure
improvements in vulnerable areas identified by the project. The developed
maps further serve as foundational tools for improvement within allsocioeconomic spheres beyond flood resilience. The use of drones could
thus play a critical role in decision-making and in flood risk mitigationin the future; this is particularly important for fast-growing cities where
satellite imagery often becomes out-dated within a year.
West Africa: “Live with Water” – Urban flood management project inSenegal. Involving the community is fundamental to an urban flood
management project called “Vivre avec l’Eau” – “Live with Water” –funded by UKaid’s BRACED programme in support of its consortium
partners. It aims at building resilience to flooding for some 920,000
vulnerable Senegalese, mainly in the Eastern suburbs of Dakar, through aninnovative, integrated and community-based approach combining threeinterlinked axes of intervention including (1) infrastructure; (2) policy;and (3) capacity building. When properly managed, annual rainy season
downpours should no longer damage people’s assets and livelihoods
or force them to flee their homes thus turning floodwaters from foe tofriend. Similar flood resilience projects need to consider various critical
success factors for their implementation:••

24

Adopting infrastructure solutions that are economically feasible andprofitable, particularly in communities;
Strengthen links between national and community level through

•
•
•
•
•

participatory community processes, knowledge sharing and exchange
in form of e.g.collaborative expert meetings;
Women’s empowerment to guarantee equity and sustainability by
involving the most vulnerable groups to hazards caused by flooding;Strong partnership building through vital collaboration amongst
different partners and stakeholders thereby achieving synergies;
Strategies and technologies need to be tailor-made to the respective
communities’ conditions;
Effective Monitoring & Evaluation processes;
Constant inclusive communication through e.g. community advisoryboards, exchange with policymakers, and business-model approaches.

Managing flood risk in the Incomati River Basin
Southern Africa: Since 2013, the Climate Resilient Infrastructure
Development Facility (CRIDF), funded by the Department for International
Development (DFID) is working with both the public and private sector
in the Incomati River basin in Mozambique to mobilise funds to more
equitably share and manage flood risk. The initiative is responsible forsuccessfully changing the approach of flood risk management and propoor climate resilience along the Incomati River. It advocates for a moreequalised distribution of responsibilities among the different stakeholders
when it comes to managing and reducing current and future hazards suchas floods. Applying a multi-dimensionaland 2015
integrated approach, CRIDF
Malawi floods
uses infrastructure to significantly
improve and build climate resilience
http://keywordsuggest.org/gallery/810296.html
of poor small-scale farmers living in the exposed basin. This resulted in:
•
•
•
•

•

Creation of a de facto basin flood management committee;
Facilitation of enhanced cooperation between public and private
actors;Mobilisation of significant funds;
Roll-out of a series of strategic interventions more widely in theSouthern African region including flood forecasting, modelling, dam
operation framework, risk sharing strategies and economic analysis ofinfrastructure options;
Ultimately, such measures strengthen the ability of communities, policy
makers and planners to adapt to and cope with climate extremes.

African governments need to prioritise preventive investments in orderto mitigate and address the increase in the number of high-impact
disasters and crises such as flooding that define the continent’s narrative.
Moreover, governments should focus on building flood resilience as a
strategic tool in linking emergency management and development.
At the global policy level, resilience is now institutionally recognised
through its inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), theSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) as
well as the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Agendaof the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit.
Despite this emphasis in international policy, African countries are still
lagging behind in terms of investment in paving the way towards flood
resilience and in mainstreaming DRR into their national development
policies. Robert Glasser emphasised the need for increased coherence
among the post-2015 frameworks during the recently held Africa
Regional Platform on DRR, stating that:“climate change, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development
all require integration and should not be addressed in silos.”The One Billion Coalition for Resilience (1BC), a global “Coalition of
Coalitions” aims to improve the resilience of one billion people by 2025
(IFRC, 2015). Their mission is to build resilience by mobilising effective
partnership of actors from local to global embedded in common
understanding, trust, transparency, incentives, impact measurement andinstitutional capability. Another initiative, the Global Resilience
Partnership in Africa and Asia, places a strong emphasis on connecting
civil society with government and the private sector. The latter isemerging as a key player in building resilience as companies seek toreduce business risk and take advantage of wider resilience benefits.

References
1.

Garschagen, M., Hagenlocher, M., Comes, M., Dubbert, M., Sabelfeld, R., Lee, Y.,
Grunewald, L., Lanzendörfer, M., Mucke, P., Neuschäfer, O., Pott, S., Post, J., Schramm,S., Schumann-Bölsche, D., Vandemeulebroecke, B., Welle, T., and Birkmann, J. (2016).
World Risk Report 2016. World Risk Report. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and UNUEHS.
2. WHO (2016) Cholera – United Republic of Tanzania. Available at: http://www.who.
int/csr/don/22-april-2016-choleratanzania/en/ [Accessed 22 November 2016].
3. UNISDR and CRED (2016). Poverty & Death: Disaster Mortality 1996 – 2015. Geneva:
Author.
4. UNISDR (2015). The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters. 1995-2015. Geneva:
Author.
5. UNISDR (2016). Annual Report 2015. 2014-15 Biennium Work Programme Final
Report. Geneva: Author. pp. 44-49.
6. UNISDR (2015). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR). Making
Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management.
7. World Bank (2009). Africa - Making Development Climate Resilient : A World Bank
Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank. Available at:https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/3211 [Accessed 2 4 N o v emb e r 2016].
8. Dar Ramani Huria Project (2016). Available at: http://ramanihuria. org/ [Accessed 20
November 2016].
9. Live with Water Project (2016). Available at: https://livewith-water.org/project[Accessed 20 November 2016].
10. CRIDF (2016). Managing Flood Risk in the Incomati River Basin: Lessons fromenhanced public private cooperation for the region. Available at: http://www.cridf.
com/singlepost/2016/06/03/Managing-Flood-Risk-in-the-Incomati-Basin-lessonsfrom-enhanced-public-private-cooperation- for-the-region [Accessed 20 November2016].
11. IFRC (2016). One Billion Coalition for Resilience. Available at: http://ifrc-media.org/
interactive/one-billion-coalition/ [Accessed 20 November 2016].
12. Lynch, P. (2016). Climate Trends Continue to Break Records. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records[Accessed 20 November 2016].
13. World Bank (2002). Dar es Salaam Case Study Overview. http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/ Resources/336387-1306291319853/CS_
Dar_Es_Salaam. pdf
14. Aljazeera (2016). Floods leave many dead in southern Ghana. Available
at:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/floods-leave-dead-southernghana-160616104330811. html [Accessed 28 November 2016].
15. TheWaterProject (2016). Available at:https://thewaterproject.org/why-water/poverty[Accessed 28 November 2016].

Although different actors in the field of DRR agree that risk assessmentand measuring resilience is a pre-requisite for the prioritisation ofactions and investments, it needs a balanced mix of various approacheswith a focus placed on people and the most vulnerable guiding themin crafting their own resilient destinies.

25

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Conclusion - African governments need to prioritise
preemptive investments in flood management

A Somalian woman hoes the arid soil as her daughters follow behind throwing seeds into the ground.
Photo credit: Reuters

E

xpert Interview on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030

Dr. Bapon Fakhruddin
is an International DRR andhazard modeling expert,
regular Adviser to theUN, and Editorial Board
member for the Gravitazzquarterly publication.

Dr. Audrey Cashholds a Phd in International
Development. She is a
Lecturerat
Christopher
Newport
University,US,and a Steering Committee
member of ACECD, Gravitazz.

Bapon Fakhruddin: The recent synchronous adoption oflandmark UN agreements, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015 – 2030 (SFDRR), Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), and COP21’s Paris Climate Conference have created arare yet significant opportunity to build more complete resilienceagendas since building resilience requires action spanning fromdevelopment, humanitarian, climate and disaster risk reduction
areas.

1. Gravitazz: Among the 187 countries that adopted the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
at the March 2015 UN World Conference on Disaster
Risk Reduction were most of the African countries as
signatories. While different regions of the world, inparticular Asia and Latin America, achieved substantial
progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005-2015, Africa made only slow progressdespite it being the continent most vulnerable and least
resilient to rapid and slow-onset disasters. What are
the major challenges the continent faces in effectively
implementing the SFDRR and how can they be overcomein the long-term in order to strengthen the region’s
political commitment to DRR?
Audrey Cash: In my opinion, there is one over-archingstumbling block to the full implementation of SFDRR that ofstate accountability and responsibility. As a political scientist,
I regard issues surrounding disaster risk management andDRR policies in terms of the level of (good) governance within
any given state. Does the state “practice” good governance,
generally, on a regular basis? If this is not the case, then
one should not be surprised if/when international protocols
such as the SFDRR are not adequately integrated at thenational level. Another challenge to consider is that the actof signing on to international protocols, as in the case of the
Sendai Framework, does not guarantee implementation of
the guidelines through the respective government; signing
does not carry any legal obligation to implement.
This is only done through the ratification process by
parliament or congress. Only after a treaty or protocolhas been ratified – incorporated into national law – is astate obligated to implement. This aspect often baffles
members of the general public and additional confusion istriggered when the terms “ratify” and “signatory” are usedinterchangeably by media, without further explanation. In
order to address the question of why most of the Africancountries have not implemented the SFDRR, one must firstexamine if the process of ratification has begun. Regionally,
Sendai will only gain strength once every African country
takes the necessary steps to incorporate its guidelines aspart of the legal framework.

This coherence will serve to strengthen existing risk fragility
and resilience frameworks for multi hazard assessments, andaim to develop a dynamic, local, preventive, and adaptive urban
governance system at the global, national, and local levelsin Africa. The major challenges would be integration and acoordinated approach for the regional, national and local level.
Key recommendations in building coherence between these
agreements and agendas include:
•

•

•
•

•

Raising awareness with national and sub-national governments
on how the different frameworks align is critical; the relative
political weight of frameworks may affect collaboration andcoherence;
Facilitating key partnerships, which help avoid duplication andmaximise gains. Institutional incentives to work together may
also be required to reinforce joint working across agreements;
Instituting clear governance arrangements to ensure successful
collective action and accountability;
Developing consistent definitions, particularly on resilienceand risk, which feature as common themes across all of theagreements; and ultimately
Promoting science and technology involvement by funding
national/regional research projects. The Sendai Frameworkspecifically calls for enhanced scientific work in disaster risk andbetter coordination of existing networks and scientific research
institutions.

27

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Statements by: Dr. Audrey Cash and Dr. Bapon Fakhruddin

2. Gravitazz: Priority action 2 of the Sendai Framework seeks to"strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk".
Effective disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and local
level in Africa is a pre-requisite for successful prevention, mitigation,
preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation strategies. Poor
governance and the substantial growth of population coupled with
rapid urbanisation in Africa are major causes of an increased level ofdisaster risk. What principles of "good governance" are needed toachieve inclusive and sustainable DRR outcomes in Africa and to put
DRR high on the political agenda as a cross-cutting development
priority?
Audrey Cash: I believe that African states must embrace the principles
of accountability and responsiveness, as a matter of priority. Without
these two, the prevention and mitigation of disaster risks are almost
impossible. Historically, African leaders have not had a strong connection
to the population that elected them. If government leaders do not feelaccountable to the constituency then they will not feel compelled to
produce the types of comprehensive and effective policies required forDisaster Risk Reduction and management.
Bapon Fakhruddin: Using national frameworks to empower local
governments to engage in DRM, promoting an ‘all-of-society’ approachand establishing methods for evaluating progress are all crucial
aspects in achieving inclusive and sustainable DRR outcomes in Africa.
Moreover, joined up monitoring processes are needed to track progresson implementation of the different frameworks. This would also help
minimise the reporting burden on countries, making data collection
achievable.
3. Gravitazz: In the past mega disasters across the world such as the 2004
Tsunami have played an instrumental role in initiating a paradigm
shift from merely managing disasters i.e. emergency response to
managing disaster risks. Could the El Niño-induced disaster besuch a critical juncture that might initiate a paradigm shift in DRR
approaches for the various regions of Africa?
Audrey Cash: In my view, mega disasters primarily serve as a wake-up
call to the general population as well as bringing to light the lack ofdisaster preparedness and effective response that characterises many
developing countries in Africa. However, one must not limit this tothe poor, developing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. The devastation
brought on by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana (US), clearly
demonstrates that even in the most developed countries, “pockets” ofdisaster unresponsiveness and under-preparedness occur.
I believe that a paradigm shift has occurred at certain levels of society,yet only on a superficial level. This is evident when one examines therate at which Priority #4 “Build Back Better” takes place, post-disaster.
In countries or regions that are regularly at risk to weather-related
disasters, it has been noted that the rebuilding phase is rarely done toprevent future negative impacts – when the state bothers to design arebuild policy. This, again, reiterates my main concern that governments
must prioritise accountability and responsiveness in order to effectively
manage disasters.

28

Bapon Fakhruddin: Slow onset disasters have always been neglected
and not been paid serious attention. The phenomenon of El Niño isoften regarded as sporadic and short lived as opposed to its long-time
impacts. It requires a careful case to be made and in some countries achampion with influence to give it more consideration.
4. Gravitazz: As one of the key priority challenges in implementing
Disaster Risk Reduction strategies and policies, inadequate financing
mechanisms have been frequently listed in this context particularly
at the local and community level in Africa. In your opinion, what
solution pathways can be pursued to overcome this impediment andhow can African countries better leverage on the Sendai Framework?
Audrey Cash: Financing needs to originate from within. As long as
African countries continue to heavily rely on outside funding for national
policies, inadequate financing mechanisms will remain constant. This
speaks to one of the key aspects of good governance: accountability.
African governments must be willing to cultivate a tangible relationshipwith their constituents, based on accountability. One of the moststraightforward ways to achieve this is through taxation.
Governments should begin to finance state programmes through fairand equitable taxation, which directly benefits the population, such as bystrengthening roads and other infrastructure, and by funding rebuilding
programmes post-disaster, implementing anti-climate change policies,
etc. On the other hand this does not imply that African governments
should not accept emergency assistance from international donors
or technical assistance, however, these should be used to strengthen
domestic emergency preparedness and response policies, in order tomitigate unequal financing mechanisms. Through that approach Africancountries would be able to effectively implement the Sendai Frameworkand over the long-term.
Bapon Fakhruddin: As a continent Africa is very strong. Africa therefore
needs to encourage every country to adopt risk financing. It cancomplement and stimulate risk reduction.

List of Acronyms

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

AIT			
Asian Institute of Technology
BA			Bachelor
BRACED		
Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters
CCA			
Climate Change Adaptation
Ces			Complex Emergencies
COSTECH		
Commission for Science and Technology
CRED 		Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
CRIDF			Climate Resilient Infrastructure Development Facility
DFID 		Department for International Development
DIMA 		Disaster Management Network
DoDMA		Department of Disaster Management Affairs
DPMM		
Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management
DRF			
Disaster Recovery Framework
DRM			
Disaster Risk Management
DRR 		
Disaster Risk Reduction
DRU			
Disaster Response Units
EA
		Eastern Africa
EAC			
East African Community
GFDRR		Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
GHA			
Greater Horn of Africa
GIS			
Geographic Information System
IDMC 		Internal Displacement Monitoring Center
IDPs 		Internally Displaced Persons
IFRC			International Federation of Red Cross
IGAD			Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IPCC 		Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IVETA 		International Vocational Education and Training Association
LEMA			Local Emergency Management Authority
MFERP		Malawi Floods Emergency Recovery Project
NBTE			National Board for Technical Education
NDRF			National Disaster Recovery Framework
NEMA		
National Emergency Management Agency
NGO			Non-Governmental Organisation
NPOs 		Non-profit Organisations
OCHA 		Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OVEC			Office of the Vocational Education Commission
PDNA			Post Disaster Needs Assessment
PHEs			Public Health Emergencies
SADC			Southern African Development Community
SD			Sustainable Development
SDGs 		Sustainable Development Goals
SEMA 		State Emergency Management Agency
SFDRR		Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
SWOT			Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
TVET			Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UAB 		
Autonomous University of Barcelona
UK			United Kingdom
UN			United Nations
UNDP			United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO-		
IBE United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation International Bureau of Education
UNESCO-UNEVOC United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation International Centre for Technical and Vocational
			Education and Training
UNHCR		United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNISDR		
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
UNOCHA		
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
VOA			
Voice Of America
WHO 		
World Health Organisation

29

Editorial Board Members of the Gravitazzquarterly publication

Prof. Dr. Ali Ardalan

Prof. Dr. Ali Ardalan is a Senior Fellow
and Visiting Scientist at Harvard
Humanitarian
Initiative,
HarvardSchool of Public Health U.S.A. He
is dedicated to improving the DRR
science-policy dialogue at global
levels and has thus extensively
contributed to highlighting “health”
during the development of the Sendai
Framework. He further provided
expert knowledge in finalising the
SFDRR’s targets and terminology.
He serves as a member of the Asia Science, Technology and Academia
Advisory Group (ASTAAG) of UNISDR, chairs the Department of Health inEmergencies and Disasters at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, andhas been working as an Adviser to WHO and UNFPA on health emergency
planning and risk assessment. As a member of the Global Board of the
Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction(GNDR) he represents Central Asia. Prof. Ali served as an Adviser to the
Deputy Minister of Iran’s health system where he founded the Disaster Risk
Management Office and institutionalised DRM into the national primary
health care system. He established the first health disaster PhD programme
and related academic centres in Iran and MENA region. His interest lies inbridging the experiences of DRR science and technology between the twocontinents of Africa and Asia; for the past four years Prof. Ardalan has beensupervising PhD candidates from Africa and published various scholarly
articles on DRR in an African context.

Thandeka DlaminiSimelane

is a PhD candidate in Medical
Anthropology
atUniversityofAmsterdam and holds a Master’s in
Development Studies from Nelson
MandelaMetropolitan
University
in South Africa. As the World Bank
Project Lead she is responsible forthe project management of an impact
evaluation study that aims at assessing
the effectiveness of cash transfers onadolescent girls and young women(AGYW) to reduce their risk for HIV
infection in Swaziland.
Prior to that she worked as a social science researcher in a consortium of
six international partners where she carried out extensive field researchon national HIV response programmes in Southern Africa. Past working
stations in the region included her employment as Access-to-Medicines
Analyst with Clinton Health Access Initiative, as an Emergency Officer – Child
Protection and DRR Coordination with the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) and as Monitoring and Evaluation Officer with United Nations
World Food Programme (UNWFP). Thandeka has published extensively inpeer-reviewed journals and presented research findings in international
conferences and symposia.
				

30

				

				

Dr. Bapon Shm
Fakhruddin

			

is an international Disaster Risk
Reduction and hazard modelingexpert who is a regular Adviser
to the United Nations on Natural
Hazards and Climate Change.
Bapon joined Tonkin + Taylor, New
Zealand’s leading environmental andengineering consultancy, in 2015 andcontinues to work with the UNDP in
Samoa as Chief Technical Adviser.
During his career, Bapon has helped to design major international natural
hazard early warning systems for floods, cyclone and tsunami to save lifeand property damage. His most high profile work has been developing
multi-hazard warning systems including a Tsunami Warning System for Indian
Ocean countries following the deadliest one in history - the 2004 Boxing Day
Tsunami that took more than 230,000 lives in 14 countries. To date, Bapon has
developed multi hazard warning systems for 25 countries including: Thailand,
Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Samoa. Bapon iscurrently overseeing the implementation of a major DRR series of systems for
Samoa and New Zealand.

Consolate Nakyagaba

is currently pursuing her Masters ofBusiness Administration at Heriot Watt
University in the UK and is a Certified
Risk Manager as well as a Chartered
Certified Accountant (ACCA) who
holds a BA in Social Administration andEconomics from Makerere University
in Uganda. Consolate possesses over
12 years of experience in enterpriseriskmanagement,
disasterriskmanagement, risk and vulnerability
assessments, emergency planning andresponse as well as Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and mitigation
attained from working with both the private and the public sector.s She
also championed climate adaptation and risk assessment as part of the
project team that coordinated the development of the ‘Kampala Climate
Change Action Strategy’. Currently, she is the component head for theEuropean Union project ‘Implementing the Sustainable Energy and Climate
Action Plan for Kampala City’ and Project Lead for the initiative ‘Making
cities resilient and sustainable’ as part of the implementation of the SFDRR
2015 – 2030, a joint project by Kampala Capital City Authority and UNISDR.

holds a Bachelor degree in
Architecture in Peru, and his
Master and Doctoral degrees
in Mexico. He has lived andworked in five countries and iscurrently an International Senior
Consultant worldwide. Since1986 he has led consultancy,
research and training activities
in more than ten countries,bothin developing and developed
countries including Peru, Mexico,
Chile,
Ecuador,Argentina,
Canada, Switzerland, South
Africa, UK, and Poland. The scope of projects include climate change,
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and resilience, involuntary re-settlement,sustainable transport planning, and urban planning within various
sectors such as NGO, CSO, International Charity Organisations andLocal Government Institutions.

Dr. Mary Antonette
Beroya-Eitneris the founding president andlead scientist of EarthThink
Inc. She is a research fellow
at the University of thePhilippines Center for Integrative
Development Studies (UP CIDS)
and the Centre Internationalde Formation des Autorités etLeaders (CIFAL Philippines) under
the United Nations Institute forTraining and Research (UNITAR),
and a subject matter expert of
the Earthquake and Megacities
Initiative (EMI).
Dr. Beroya-Eitner holds a Bachelor and Master degree in Geology
from the University of the Philippines and a PhD in Engineering
Geology from the University of Hong Kong. She also joined theElite International Masters Study Programme in Global Change
Ecology at the University of Bayreuth where she obtained her second
Master degree. More recently, she was a JSPS (Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science) Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the United
Nations University - Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability(UNU-IAS) and Tokyo University. Dr. Beroya-Eitner has worked indifferent countries including the Philippines, Hong Kong, Germany,
Japan, and USA, with different sectors such as government, NGOs,international organisations, academia, and private consultancies.
Her specialisation includes hazard and vulnerability assessment(earthquake, landslide and flooding), Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR),
Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), urban resilience, socio-ecologicalsystem, ecosystem services and green infrastructure.

Oyundi Nehondo Thomas

is a disaster risk management expert and has extensively contributed
to scaling-up and deepening strategic and operational mainstreamingof DRR/DRM and resilience building along the humanitariandevelopment continuum at all levels in developing countries. He holds
an MSc in Disaster Risk Management and Sustainable Developmentfrom Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology Kenya,a Post-Graduate Diploma in Education, and a BSc in Environmental
Physics and Mathematics.Oyundi gained extensive international
work experience while working as Regional Project Coordinator andResilience/DRR Adviser for UNISDR’s Regional Office for Africa; asTechnical Adviser of the STREAM Consortium on DRR, early warning,

Francis Nkoka

is an irrigation, water
resources
managementanddisasterriskmanagement
expertwith over 11 years work
experience in Southern
Africa and vast knowledge
in socio-technical andpolitical
aspectsofirrigation and infrastructuredevelopment
projects.
He holds an MSc in
Agricultural Developmentfrom the University of
Copenhagen and an MSc in International Land and Water
Management, Irrigation and Water Engineering from Wageningen
University. Francis undertook additional training in the field of
disaster risk and environmental assessment, mitigation, DRM/
DRR, emergency management and preparedness, proposal
development, statistics for climate, community scorecard, and
PRA. In 2011 he joined the World Bank in Malawi as their
Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist. Prior to that heworked as Agriculture Manager for Save the Children and asTechnical Coordinator for Care International.

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk Reduction

Dr. Jorge Diaz

Kehinde Balogun

Kehinde’s overarching professional
goal is to promote humanity
and solidarity through the use of
insurance to manage disaster risks inthe face of climate change impacts.
She holds a Bachelor’s Degree inBusiness Management from the
National University of Lesotho(NUL) and a Master’s Degree inDisaster Risk Management fromthe Disaster Risk Management
Training and Education Centre at
the University of the Free State(UFS-DiMTEC).
Kehinde’s zeal to help vulnerable people and communities led her
to work as a researcher and volunteer for causes such as HIV/AIDS,
youth capacity development and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). At
the Institute for Environment and Human Security of the United
Nations University (UNU-EHS), Kehinde works on topics such as DRR
and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), and is an expert on slow-onset
losses and damages and their impacts on vulnerable populations.
In this capacity she provides inputs and submissions to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) policy
discussions. Through her engagement at the Munich Climate Insurance
Initiative she presents and contributes to various international events
that focus on the nexus between disaster risk management and CCA
through the value of insurance.

emergencies and livelihoods for ACTED’s Kenya and Somalia
programmes; as Emergency Specialist at UNICEF; Head of
Department – Emergencies, Food Security, Livelihoods and
DRR at ACF-USA Kenya; as Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy
Officer at Oxfam; and as DRR specialist for the International
Rescue Committee and the International Federation of the
Red Cross. Since 2008 he has been engaged in international
consultancies for different organisations including World Relief,
UNDP, UNWOMEN, Oxfam, Helpage International, the Red
Cross, and Solidarités International.

31

H

ighlights of the Gravitazz Institute 2017

The Gravitazz Institute for Disaster Reduction and Emergency
Management embarked upon the organisation’s fifth year of existencewith a new mood of invigoration to strengthen its management planningand strong commitment to place Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) high on
the development agenda and government policies in Africa. Gravitazz’
five-year Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022 was finally adopted in early January
2017 and provides a solid foundation for its institutional objectives andmajor activities to be achieved in 2017 bearing in mind the broader goals
contained in this strategic document.
During the first quarter of 2017, Gravitazz successfully launched its Training
Institute, offering both short training courses and national certificatesand diplomas in the broader field of DRR. In April 2017 the Gravitazz
Institute hosted a short training course on Disaster Risk Management
in Johannesburg, South Africa, which was attended by senior UN andgovernment officials from Malawi and Eritrea.

Moreover, one of the key activities of the Gravitazz Foundation (GCI) in 2017
evolves around the organisation and planning of the First Africa Conference
on Economic Costs of Disasters: the Role of the Private Sector (ACECD
2017) to be held on 23-25 October 2017 in Johannesburg, South Africa.
In view of making it a successful event, Gravitazz has thoroughly selected
and appointed distinguished professionals for the Conference Steering
Committee and has brought to the table important strategic local partners
such as the Gauteng Province Department of Cooperative Governanceand Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and the Gauteng Provincial Disaster
Management Centre (PDMC). The Conference was endorsed by Malawi,
Nigeria, Swaziland and Tanzania.

GAUTENG PROVINCE
CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRSREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The institute is in the process of implementing similar courses forFrancophone Africa. Moreover, the idea of partnerships with private
colleges in South Africa has finally become a reality and the Gravitazz
Institute is proud to announce that starting from June 2017 it will beoffering national certificates and diplomas in partnership with the Gauteng
City College. Gravitazz is also currently exploring similar opportunities
with other colleges and higher education institutions in the area of DRR.
In addition, Gravitazz was actively involved in DRR stakeholder engagement
and knowledge sharing activities. In this context and in line with theGravitazz’ vision of achieving “A Disaster-Prepared African Continent”,
the Executive Director attended the African Risk Capacity (ARC) TechnicalCommittee Meeting held in Ivory Coast as well as the Berlin high-level
event on Climate Risk Insurance in March representing the African
Perspective on the effectiveness of risk transfer instruments to increase
countries’ resilience. These events constituted an excellent opportunity tofurther share and grow technical expertise in the domain of DRR and toengage in fruitful dialogue with practitioners and government officials in
Africa and beyond its continental borders.

322017 ACECD

Africa Conference on Economic
Costs of Disasters
23-25 October 2017
Johannesburg, South Africa

info@gravitazzci.org

It is also remarkable that in April 2017 “DIMA Connect” – Gravitazz‘ core
initiative and DRR networking platform - reached 250 members andcontinues to grow further while serving its special purpose of bringing
together experts from all over Africa who are passionate about disastermanagement.
Lastly, as part of Gravitazz’ continuous efforts to accomplish its strategic
objectives and to successfully manage its organisational demands, theinstitute significantly increased its diverse and multi-cultural workforce
welcoming on board Mr. Maurice Kande, Academic Coordinatorresponsible for the Gravitazz Training Institute, Ms. Irene Sikhakhane,
Administration Officer as well as Ms. Chloé Girard and Ms. Katarzyna
Zdunczyk joining as Research and Programme Development Assistants.

urther Reading on Disaster Risk Reduction

1. The 24th Ordinary Assembly of the African Union, (2015).
Agenda 2063: Africa We Want. Addis Ababa: African Union
Commission. Available at http://www.un.org/en/africa/osaa/pdf/
au/agenda2063.pdf
2. The 2015 Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction,(2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 20152030. Geneva: UNISDR. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/
files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
3. The Fourth High Level Meeting on Disaster Risk Reduction,(2015). Yaoundé Declaration on the Implementation of the
Sendai Framework in Africa. UNISDR. Available at: http://www.
unisdr.org/files/43907_43907yaoundedeclarationen.pdf
4. UN-GA (United Nations General Assembly), 2015. Transforming
our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
UN Doc. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. Available at: http://www.
un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
5. COP21 (Paris Climate Change Conference), (2015). Paris
Agreement as an Annex in: Report of the Conference of theParties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November
to 13 December 2015. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the
Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session. UN Doc.
FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1. Geneva: United Nations. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf
6. UNISDR, (2015). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015, Making development sustainable: The future ofdisaster risk management. Geneva: UNISDR. Available at: http://
www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/
GAR2015_EN.pdf
7. UNU-EHS (United Nations University, Institute for Environmentand Human Security), (2016). World Risk Report 2016. Berlin:
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Bonn: UNU-EHS. Available at: http://
collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5763/WorldRiskReport2016_
small.pdf
8. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, (2016). The
El Niño phenomenon and related impacts. Climate Change &Environment, [online] Nexus Brief, Nr. 2. Available at: http://www.
zoinet.org/web/sites/default/files/publications/Nexus.brief222dec2016.pdf
9. Selim J. and others, (2016). Human Development Report
2016: Human Development for Everyone. New York: UNDP.
Available at:http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf

10. FSIN (Food Security Information Network), (2017). Global Reporton Food Crises 2017. Rome: FSIN. Available at: http://www.fao.
org/3/a-br323e.pdf
11. FM Global, (2017). 2017 Resilience Index Annual Report.
Pentland Analytics. Available at: http://www.fmglobal.com/
research-and-resources/tools-and-resources/resilienceindex
12. Kelman I., Mercer J., Gaillard JC., ed., (2017). The Routledge
Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction Including Climate
Change Adaptation. Routledge.
13. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme),(2017). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017.
Wastewater: The Untapped Resource, Paris: UNESCO. Available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002471/247153e.pdf

African Perspectives on Disaster Risk ReductionF

33

Publication information
Publisher 			Publication 			
Editor-in-Chief		Cover Image 		Layout/Typesetting 		Gravitazz Institute for Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management
June 2017
Jessica Johmann© Zanele M’Cwabeni
Gravitazz InstituteGet in touch
Address: Section 35, Constantia Square Office Park, 526, 16th Road, Midrand, South Africa
Phone number: +27 011-067-0321
E-mail: info@gravitazzcontinental.com
Website: www.gravitazzcontinental.com

Opinions expressed in the articles are those of their authors and not Gravitazz InstituteAll articles in this publication are subject to Creative Commons License

4				About the Artist: Zanele M’Cwabeni

Zanele was born and raised in Canada, yet she holds strong roots in Africa as her 		mother hails from Zimbabwe while her father is from South Africa. As an artist she started
experimenting with different mediums during 2010-2013 while she was pursuing her
Master’s degree in Disaster and Emergency Management. Beyond question, creating thisart piece exhibits the artist’s interest in the subject of natural disasters, and specificallythe impacts it has on women and children.

Zanele’s Masters thesis aimed to stress the importance of actively involving women in the different stages ofdisaster management, as they constitute one of the most vulnerable groups among the communities. It would
provide women with the education and know-how to protect themselves and their community in the event of
a disaster, thereby evading the possibility of having properties and livelihood completely destroyed or severely
damaged in the future. Decision-makers must address women’s vulnerability and strive to eradicate it. This would
ensure sustainable development for women now and in the future.
The art therefore seeks to conclude that it would be in decision-makers best interest to closely work with women,
consider their capabilities and aid them in achieving mitigation measures that can better prepare them for disasters.

Explanation of Artwork

Title: ‘Displacement’
Material: Created using pastel, to depict sand and dust. A portrayal of cave painting, which illustrates a motherand her young son traversing the lands, and crossing borders, to escape the threats caused by natural disasters.
Studies have shown that gender dimensions are often ignored during natural disasters. As a result women bear
the brunt especially in developing countries, since their needs and capacities are often overlooked during thedifferent stages of disasters.
For more information visit Zanele’s instagram @Zanelemcwabeni.