chapter 4 - DRK

Strictly under embargo until Wednesday 22 September at 00:01 GMT (02:01 Geneva time)144CHAPTER 7wherePhoto opposite page:On 27 May 2006,an earthquakecaused widespreaddestruction around thecity of Yogyakarta onJava, Indonesia, killingsome 6,000 people.The Indonesian RedCross Society, backedby the IFRC, launcheda massive reliefoperation to help theinjured and those whowere displacedby the quake.© Spanish Red Crossthe lack of attention to disaster risk reduction by local governments becomesevident – even as politicians and civil servants hide behind the term ‘natural disaster’ orfind fault with their predecessors. But it is also at the local level that risk managementbecomes possible. Vulnerability and hazards interact generating specific risk conditions,which are socially and geographically specific, dynamic and in constant flux. It isat the local level that civil society can interact with government and together plan fordisaster risk reduction within a local development framework.The 1990s – the International Decade for Disaster Risk Reduction – brought a shiftin the way disasters are understood with much more attention being paid to the linksbetween development, disasters and environmental degradation. From this came awidespread consensus that risks are a social construction and that risk reduction shouldbe implemented locally and with local actors. For Latin America, two key factors contributedto this: decentralization processes and state reforms in many countries; andthe occurrence of several major disasters in the region which affected large populationcentres. Several countries enacted new legislation or are in the process of makingamendments so as to meet the challenges of development and disaster risk reduction;in many cases this includes the transformation of emergency response agencies intonational risk reduction systems.Governments – many at the local level – have assumed new roles and responsibilities,including modifying their approach to risk management, integrating different actorsinto the process and implementing risk management within development planning.But these remain the exception and a wide gap exists between rhetoric and practice.Many governments at different levels continue to focus only on emergency and reconstructionefforts and the latter often fail to incorporate long-term actions that wouldreduce risk and vulnerability to disasters. Disaster risk reduction is not a one-off activitybut a continuous process.What makes cities and municipal governmentsaddress disaster risk reduction?Some city governments have shown how to incorporate disaster risk reduction intodevelopment, i.e., to go beyond provisions for disaster preparedness. They have implementedthe development initiatives and associated controls, regulatory frameworksand governance mechanisms that are essential to reducing risks. These have includedupgrading programmes for informal settlements, urban land-use management withassociated zoning and building codes, housing improvements and expanding coverageof city-wide infrastructure and services. Most examples of this come from nations orcities where popular pressure and political reforms have made local governments moreaccountable and responsive to their citizens. Obviously, this has to include local governmentswhich develop relations with those who live in informal settlements and developthe capacity to govern with, and for, them. One of the most important innovations in