Evaluating the use of the Ecosystem Health (ESH) and Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approaches

in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Strategies:

A background document

Prepared by: Erin M. Smith, MA

erinmichellesmith@gmail.com

For:
The University of Guelph School of Environmental Design and Rural Development
And
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

2005
 1

Introduction
This background paper on the incorporating of Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) and Ecosystem
Health (ESH) considerations into Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies was written for the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to contribute to the understanding of how
both the SL and ESH frameworks function, as well as determining if using this approach
strengthens existing DRR methods. It includes three case studies to provide further insight into
the use of these frameworks. This knowledge can provide guidance for actions and policy for
development and disaster risk reduction, both significant fields in the achieving of the Millennium
Development Goals. The SL and ESH frameworks are two approaches to dealing with complex
systems (defined by Rosen [1991] in the Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook [2005] as
“system[s] in which many distinct yet valid subsystem descriptions are possible”), and together as
SLESH offer an effective addition to DRR frameworks with little development content.

Integrating the SLESH approach into DRRs moves us away from the mindset that there is such a
thing as a ‘natural’ disaster by recognizing the role that communities play in their own
development and survival. It puts more power into the hands of local actors in the form of
consultation and capacity, allowing individuals, communities and governments to move away
from relying on assistance from external partners. This approach also promotes the sustainability
of livelihoods and healthy ecosystems by empowering regions and increasing levels of resiliency,
improving the use of survival mechanisms, rethinking how changes to the natural environment
affect the social system, and furthering the success of DRR mandates. The UNDP’s report,
‘Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development’ states that: “the erosion of livelihoods,
damage to the integrity of ecosystems and architectural heritage, injury, illness and death are
direct outcomes of disaster” (2004:9), but these factors, particularly those involving lost
livelihoods and decreasing levels of ecosystem health, are also direct feeds for disaster. By
factoring SLESH into DRR methods, a better understanding of methods for development in pre-
and post disasters can be established.

The Ecosystem Health (ESH) Approach

The concept of ESH results from an understanding that ‘health’ is a dynamic concept which can
apply to an individual, population, community or ecosystem. It illustrates the fact that each
system is complex and can be altered by other dynamics in the systems or within relative sub-
systems. The health of an ecosystem can be monitored, and is linked to the actions of humans
and therefore central to the concepts of sustainable development and livelihoods. Viewing
ecosystems and the natural environment as experiencing levels of health links us to them as
humans, and requires us to have an understanding of how “humans liv(e) in the biosphere as a
 2

home rather than the planet being the house of man” as noted by Allen et al (1993) in the
Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook (2005).

Using health as a measuring concept or component for an ecosystem’s wellbeing demonstrates

that the strength or security of an ecosystem is in a continuously changing state, influenced by
direct (flooding) factors and indirect (migration) factors. In this way, it is a component of a ‘socio-
ecological system’ which is unstable over time (Livelihoods and Ecosystem Handbook 2005).
Maintaining a strong level of ESH therefore requires adaptive management strategies which
incorporate relevant systems and understandings of larger-scale and smaller-scale events.
Coupling ESH with SL strategies is an effective way to further understand both natural and social
systems. This approach has led to the creation of the ‘Adaptive Methodology for Ecosystem
Sustainability and Health (AMESH), which is founded in the recognition of a complex situation,
analysis of ecological, social and health issues, and collaborative and participatory action (Rennie
and Singh 1996; Parkes and Panelli 2001; Livelihoods and Ecosystem Handbook 2005). The
Health, Environment and Development Triangle identifies how ESH draws together
interdisciplinary perspectives, creating an ‘integrated ecosystems-based approach’ (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Health, Environment and Development (HEAD) Triangle: Links between different
disciplinary territories

Source: Witten, Parkes and Ramasubramanian 2000 in Parkes and Panelli 2001

The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Framework

The Chambers & Conway definition of livelihoods is considered the staple understanding of the
livelihoods approach: “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (both natural and social)
and activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, both now and
 3

in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base” (1992:7). This approach infers
that disasters (shocks rather than stresses) continually threaten livelihoods, thus creating
sustainable livelihoods is a continuous process. The activity of securing assets, including social
cohesiveness, is thus an ongoing development project. People’s capacity to survive results from
being able to “cope with, recover from and adapt to stresses and shocks” (UNDP 1999) and
therefore need resilient livelihoods which can sustain these changes (Singh 1996; Helmore and
Singh 2001). These shocks and stresses can occur on the level of individuals and households
(idiosyncratic shocks) or on communities and nations (covariant shocks), thus SL mechanisms
must work within varied systems with local and international actors (FAO 2005). To be
sustainable, a livelihood also needs to be efficient in ecologically and economically sound
resource harvesting and usage, and grounded in social equity. There are some key differences
between sustainable development initiatives and the integrated rural development approaches of
the 1970’s, which should be considered in order to view how this framework has progressed (see
Figure 2).

Figure 2: Integrated Rural Development vs. Sustainable Development

Source: DFID 2001

The UK Department for International Development (DFID) created an SL framework which

incorporates key livelihoods elements, including a focus on people, a holistic approach, and
 4

micro-macro links (see Figures 3a and 3b). The UNDP definition (developed by Singh 1996,
1998) of the SL approach is that: “sustainable livelihoods is a systemic and adaptive approach
that links issues of poverty reduction, sustainability and empowerment processes (e.g.,
participation, gender empowerment, and good governance)” (1999). This description dictates
that livelihoods are more than jobs — they are comprised of a wide range of actions individuals
do to make a living and to sustain life. The SL approach moves development beyond focusing on
poverty and needs to see the actual livelihood systems, strategies and pressures of vulnerable
populations, as well as the ‘wealth of the poor’—the human and social capital and resilience
levels which can be utilized and built upon (UNDP 1999).

Figure 3a: The DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: DFID 2001

Figure 3b: The Assets Pentagon

Source: DFID 2001

SL has the capacity to be used as a participatory process which can be applied to different
contexts and situations of uncertainty, and is flexible enough to take in the multiple tasks of those
 5

who survive outside the formal labour market. It can also deal with the adaptive job market the
more modern or urban sectors are experiencing, with an unprecedented level of job insecurity
being experienced even in traditional careers (UNDP 1999). Livelihood systems are comprised
not only of assets available, but also dynamic interactions with other systems, including
ecological, social, economic and political dynamics. The role of coping strategies and
interactions is evident in the analytical framework for SL which is used by UNDP (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Analytical Framework for SL used by UNDP

Source: UNDP 1999

Feinstein International Famine Centre 2002’s definition of SL is suited to disaster settings: “the
ways in which people access and mobilize resources that enable them to pursue goals necessary
for their immediate and longer-term survival” (Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2005). However, a
standard model for measuring livelihoods or integrating the SL framework into DRRs does not
exist. Still the assets and policy determinants within the framework provide opportunities for a
marriage of these concepts. Taking an assets approach in order to establish indicators for SL is
the most popular way to measure the effectiveness of SL for an individual household, or a
community. SL assets consist of five different types of capital: human (skills, knowledge,
creativity, adaptive strategies), financial, physical (buildings, roads, machinery, crops and
livestock), natural (land, water, air, forests and vegetation) and social (governance structures,
decision-making power, community and other institutions, culture, participatory processes), which
can then be divided into two categories: stores and resources, and claims and access (UNDP
1999; see Appendix 1).
Integrating the SL and ESH Approaches into the SLESH Method
 6

The SL approach is not meant to be used in isolation from other development tools. It is in
essence an integrating device, and can indicate where other methods and techniques could be
useful to decrease vulnerability (Farrington et al 1999). The ESH approach is also one which
needs to be connected to other tools, in a systems method, and therefore can effectively build
upon the SL framework. Becoming just as evident in conservation as in development literature is
the notion that each are most successful when the other is involved – conservation initiatives in
particular are more effective when there is a strong local interest base in environmental concerns
that are critical to local livelihoods, well-being and industrial and commercial enterprises.
Wyckoff-Baird et al (2000) describes this as a positive “integration of conservation with the
attainment of sustainable development” (68). This intersection of systems approaches works
directly to utilize and increase the resilience levels of communities.

A concept evident in SL is people’s interconnectedness to the natural world around them. A key
concept of SL is that assets such as healthy ecosystems can keep households resilient against
shocks and disasters. Natural resources are not limitless in nature, and as such, cannot be
consumed and/or produced in an unsustainable manner without leaving livelihoods vulnerable.
The clear links between levels of SL, ESH and vulnerability are shown in Blaikie et al’s (1994)
‘Pressure and Release’ model for vulnerability (see Figure 5). Livelihoods can only be
sustainable if they do not have negative impacts on the natural environment. The SLESH

Figure 5: The pressure and release model of vulnerability

Source: Blaikie et al. 1994 in Twigg 2001

approach requires a continuous monitoring of systems to ensure that social equity, ecological
security, and economic integrity is maintained (UNDP 1999).
 7

Communities without access to a healthy ecosystem can become marginalized, leading to

livelihood and environmental insecurity. Incorporating the SL approach with ESH spurs questions
such as: What natural resources are livelihoods dependant on? How are these resources
vulnerable? What policy or structures are working, or should be created, to protect ecosystem-
based livelihoods? These queries could also be used in DRRs: How do disasters affect natural
resources vital to livelihoods? How can these resources be made less vulnerable to disasters?
What DRR components could protect ecosystem-based livelihoods?

Poor people are generally more dependant on ecosystems for their livelihoods, often relying on
multiple natural resources for their livelihoods. When the ecosystem is affected, so are their
livelihoods (Reid and Alam 2005). The reliance of the poor on the environment determines that
ecosystem management should therefore be a core element of the SL strategy. For example,
regions of the coast of India which had dense mangrove plantations were less damaged by the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami than areas where the ecosystem had been cleared. Areas which
have protected ecosystems such as mangroves not only shelter coastal regions from hazards,
but also ensure the sustainability of livelihoods, including aquaculture production. This approach
is accepted by numerous organizations, including IISD, SEI, IUCN and Intercooperation: “This
combination of a secured natural resource base, reduced exposure to natural hazards and
diversified livelihood activities has increased resilience to future threats, including climate change”
(Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003:2).

Figure 6: Elemental Integration of Sustainable Development and Livelihoods

SCIENCE

ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT

LOCAL
POLICY
KNOWLEDGE

SOCIAL WELL BEING

Adapted from (Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003
 8

The IISD’s framework for the integration of sustainable development and livelihoods illustrates
how integral the natural environment is to livelihoods (see Figure 6). Soussan et al (2003) uses
the arguments of Rennie and Singh to enforce this integration: “…predominately the poor of the
world depend directly on natural resources, through cultivation, herding, collecting or hunting for
their livelihoods. Therefore, for the livelihoods to be sustainable, the natural resource must be
sustained” (1996:9; see Figure 7).

Figure 7: A Model of Livelihood Dynamics

Source: Soussan et al 2003

 9

The Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Approach

The WCDR Secretariat defines the DRR framework as “the conceptual framework of elements
considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a
society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of
hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development” (WCDR 2005). The framework
itself encompasses the active components of risk awareness and assessment, knowledge
development, public commitment and institutional frameworks comprised of organization, policy,
legislation and community actions. It also uses the elements of environmental management and
planning measures and early warning systems. While these components seem to necessitate a
level of community involvement and partnerships, DRR strategies are often undertaken in a
separate, sectoral way by specialist departments following specific policies (UNDP 2005).

The Recent History of DRRs

Disaster prevention has not traditionally been a part of development initiatives, and vice versa, as the history
of policy reactions to disasters demonstrates. The International Decade For Natural Disaster Reduction
(beginning in 1989) focused its efforts on disaster prevention. In 1994, the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of
Action for a Safer Word was launched, which stated that “prevention and preparedness should be
considered integral aspects of development policy” (1994: 1.3). Yokohama also stressed risk mitigation as a
way of dealing with disasters, and was similar to the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction which was
created in 1999.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 58/214, agreed upon in 2004, was a key step in integrating not only
development – but sustainable development – into disaster management strategies. The World Conference
on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) held in early 2005 was strongly influenced by the actions occurring due to
the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, and as such, had a distinct focus on the human element of disasters.
This motivation is evident in the conference discussions on the need to further integrate sustainable
development principles into DRRs and methods to use SLESH elements to reduce underlying risk factors
(including environmental management, community-based disaster management and sustainable
livelihoods). The WCDR produced the Hyogo Declaration and Hyogo Framework for Action for 2005-2015.
The Hyogo Framework’s targets (particularly #6 and #7) illustrate a commitment to furthering the
effectiveness of DRRs by integrating key SLESH considerations. The targets also offer a direct way to
correlate the outcomes of the WCDR with the MDGs:

• Target 1: By the end of 2005, a global fund must be established for vulnerable countries to set up
DRRs.
• Target 2: By the end of 2006, appropriate government and inter-governmental policy frameworks
are developed which ensure DRR approaches are incorporated into the design of emergency
response and recovery and rehabilitation processes to reduce vulnerability to future disasters.
• Target 3: By the end of 2006, every disaster-prone country and supporting institution has adopted
their policy and strategy plans for disaster risk management.
• Target 4: By 2010, easily understandable information on disaster risk and protection options is
incorporated into primary and secondary school educational curriculum in disaster-prone
developing countries.
• Target 5: By 2010, nation-wide public awareness and education campaigns on disaster risks and
protection options will be increased and available to all citizens in high-risk areas.
• Target 6: By 2010, people-centred Early Warning Systems targeting at-risk communities are
developed.
• Target 7: By the end of 2015, a 50% reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social,
economic and environmental assets of communities and countries, should be achieved.

Adapted from: WCDR Framework for Action 2005 Source: Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2005
 10

Levels of loss experienced during a disaster can be reduced by using methods of mitigation and
preparedness, including DRR frameworks. These frameworks increase the resiliency levels of
individuals, communities and governments, allowing them to mitigate or respond to a disaster in a
more effective manner. DRR methods guide public and private sectors using established
frameworks and standards to suit different societies (Fernandez and Britton 2004). DRR plans
are changing from reactive policies to proactive mechanisms using stakeholder participation in a
systems approach, and are used not only at a local but broader level (Weichselgartner and
Obersteiner 2002). Risk is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as
a combination of an event’s consequences and their probabilities (ISO Undated). Disaster
management literature defines risk as consisting of hazards and vulnerability levels minus actions
taken to mitigate a hazard’s effects (Wisner 2003 in UNDP 2005; Fernandez and Britton 2004).
DRR methods are identified in literature on sustainable development which connects disaster
management with development processes (Jegillos 1999; Esqueira 2001 both in Fernandez and
Britton 2004). They have also been connected to literature on environmental degradation in
projects funded by the World Bank (Linnerooth-Bayer 2004 in Fernandez and Britton 2004).

Integrating ESH into DRR Strategies

The degradation of ecosystems leaves regions vulnerable to disasters, both in urban and rural
settings. The sprawling nature of urbanization in many developing countries leads to
unsustainable clearing of land combined with dangerous building patterns in vulnerable locations.
The pressures and demands of urban populations or international trading partners on rural
natural resources can also lead to a decrease in ESH. This is the case of the mass deforestation
taking place in the tropical forests of Columbia, driven by a demand for coca cultivation and
leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of land vulnerable to flooding, draught, and landslides
(UNDP 2004).

Disasters can conversely spark negative consequences for ESH, with hazards such as droughts
or floods claiming forests or vulnerable natural resources. Often these situations feed into a
cycle, with a loss of ESH and resilience driving increased risks levels, and disasters influencing
ESH over extended periods of time. In regions of Sri Lanka affected by the Indian Ocean
tsunami, areas with poor ESH (such as those with shrimp plantations) were at higher levels of risk
than those with strong ESH (particularly regions of waterfront with little or no human
development). Even areas with high levels of ESH however, felt the affects of the tsunami
through the physical destruction of natural resources (including forests, reefs, and mangroves) as
well as the salinization of soils and water tables, but still were not as negatively affected as areas
made more vulnerable through increased human activity. The destruction of natural shock
absorbers for storms and hazards (such as dunes coastal wetlands and mangroves) increases
 11

the risks of hazards, such as flooding or tsunamis (Abramovitz 2001). Research which is linking
levels of risk and ESH is demonstrating that environmental mismanagement such as the removal
of these buffers is often driven by social forces, highlighting the need for DRR and development
policies to incorporate ESH indicators and considerations.

Case Study – The Indian Ocean Tsunami and Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s livelihoods have been continuously under pressure from the vulnerable state they are in due to decades of
civil war and political instability. Communities have been forced to create their own SL systems to survive, relying on local
social and political assets and utilizing the strategy of managing personal risk to livelihoods. In the Indian Ocean Tsunami
of 2004, an estimated 400,000 Sri Lankans lost their livelihoods and the physical environment of the coastal regions of the
island also suffered devastating effects. SLESH assets including built infrastructure, livelihood-specific resources, and
shared commodities such as water and electricity were all effected by the tsunami. Tsunami survivors lost most, if not all,
of their physical assets and many of their social support systems.

The responses to the tsunami, by groups engaged in disaster responses and development initiatives, have generally been
more collaborative between disciplines than previous events, perhaps due to the scale of both the disaster and the
humanitarian response. Livelihood recovery strategies are focusing on employment-intensive initiatives which pay special
attention to vulnerable groups and the need for social protection mechanisms. These efforts are found in the actions of
large organizations (including ILO) to small grassroots movements on the island-level. For livelihood reconstruction, the
disaster-resistant SL framework illustrated by Bandu is already applicable and can be used not only in immediate recovery
efforts, but also longer term planning initiatives. Steps are being taken to increase the levels of resilience of communities
to subsequent events of this type.

Rapid EIAs were used in Sri Lanka by CARE and the IUCN amongst other organizations to determine the effects the
disaster had on ESH levels and natural-resource dependant livelihoods. EIAs were useful in determining not only the
damage the tsunami had caused to the physical environment, but also what social impacts the event had, through the
collecting of environment and livelihoods information, and what effects the actual relief efforts would have on the island.
SLESH elements are present in the DRR methods of UNDP, OCHA, UNEP and FAO for their tsunami reactions, although
there is still a strong need for increasing the flow of information between organizations, government agencies and
survivors, to avoid unnecessary exploitation of available resources and hastily planned social survival efforts.

CIDA has chosen to rely on its previously established strengths for tsunami relief efforts, including re-establishing
livelihoods, building local capacity, and taking part in environmental reconstruction initiatives. Opportunities are still
available for CIDA to capitalize on programs in Sri Lanka which were started before the tsunami, including those which
work to decrease the vulnerability levels of war affected communities, in order to ensure that tsunami relief efforts reach
already marginalized and underfunded regions of the country. CIDA should also play a key role in environmental
rehabilitation efforts, particularly building on lessons learned about the strength of natural coastal buffers such as
mangroves, and how ESH mandates could be used to further SL based projects including the rehabilitation of agricultural
lands.

Sources: Korf 2004; Bandu 2005; Benfield Hazard Research Centre 2005; CIDA 2005; ILO 2005; CARE 2005

Integrating SL into DRR Strategies

Livelihood strategies are not homogenous over individuals or households. They are influenced
by socially-constructed conditionalities including gender, age, class, religion and ethnicity (Lautze
et al 2003). They are also not homogenous over time – disasters can force changes in
strategies. For example, after the Indian Ocean tsunami, families in Sri Lanka took children out of
school to assist in households, and women were forced to enter labour positions originally filled
by men. Assets were also used in a different manner, with an increase in the harvesting of
natural resources such as wood for fuel. These changes within livelihoods often occur with
disturbances, and can result in increased tensions and conflict within households and among
communities (Pain and Lautze 2002). How development and DRR strategies are integrated
between, determines whether either process fails or succeeds, as illustrated by DFID (2004; see
Figure 8).
 12

For development agencies, NGOs and research institutes, integrating the SL framework into
DRRs offers the opportunity to enhance disaster reduction while increasing the effectiveness of
development programming. This approach is already being harnessed by UNDP, Oxfam, CARE,
DFID, IDS, ILO and IISD amongst others (Sanderson 2000; Farrington et al 1999; id21 2001; ILO
2005). The International Labour Organization (ILO) in particular is using an integrated response
strategy with employment intensive infrastructure reconstruction components as well as using
local economic development (LED) strategies to create social safety nets and start up livelihood
programs for vulnerable groups (ILO 2005). Media reports after disasters have highlighted the
need for risk reduction strategies in saving livelihoods, therefore there is already a public
awareness of the linkages between DRR strategies and SLs and a demand for this incorporation
to occur: “…nothing less than aggressive action will do as we face the beginning of a new era of
disasters” (AlertNews Reuters 2004:2).

Figure 8: The ‘virtuous spirals’ of risk reduction

Source: DFID 2004:32

Some of the key concepts of SL, including its ability to link micro to macro issues and highlighting
access to resources as a vital need, feed directly into DRR actions. Others, including the
demonstration of the complexity of livelihoods of the poor, should be considered as DRR
strategies are being developed. Still, federal-level policy and actions do not reflect this trend: “In
most countries it is extremely rare to find risk analysis to take account of the social, economic,
institutional and cultural aspects of vulnerability” (Maskey 1997: 47). Perhaps more concerning to
planners is the amount of planning policy which is ignored, particularly in the case of construction
of buildings, for reasons of corruption or weak enforcement – such situations demonstrate a need
 13

for social capacity to be increased, such as community-based and implemented risk reduction
measures (Blaikie et al 1994).

It is important for DRRs not to underestimate the importance of securing SL assets, particularly
including social resources and resilience levels. There are numerous examples identifying
community coordination as a vital resource to both SL and DRRs, one of which is clearly
demonstrated by Manuel Larreal of Ecumenical Action-ACT, regarding flooding in Catuche,
Venezuela: “…as the flooding progressed, community members mobilized to assist one another.
Neighbours who knew each other and had worked together for years communicated swiftly the
news of the rising water. Older residents were helped from their homes by younger neighbours.
When a few were reluctant to leave because they didn’t believe the threat or because they were
afraid their few possessions could be stolen, neighbours broke down doors and carried people
forcibly to safety…perhaps as few as 15 people died, a very small figure compared to other
similar neighbourhoods where hundreds lost their lives” (Jeffrey 2000). Catuche was a
community where SL activities such as implementing community sanitation systems had been
ongoing for over three years, therefore securing the social assets of coordination and
communication through the region (Sanderson 2001).

Ensuring the provision and support of SL strengthens DRRs by directly including local coping
strategies and systems (Lautze et al 2003). Enhancing livelihoods is a measure of increasing
resilience to disasters while increasing an individuals’ and communities’ wellbeing – a fact not lost
on those who are working to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). MDG attainment
is being hindered by the increasing impact and occurrence of disasters, leading development and
disaster management practitioners to search for ways to strengthen DRR strategies through

Figure 9: The disaster management cycle

Source: Wisner and Adams (Eds.) 2002 in DFID 2004: 17

sustainable development frameworks. Enhancing DRR methods by adding core SL concepts

 14

(including people-centered, holistic and dynamic approaches) compliments this effect, as a

decreased vulnerability to disasters increases the strength of SLs, particularly since being able to
recover from disasters has already become an essential livelihood strategy (DiMP 2003;
Holloway 2003; Pereira and Betts 2005; UNDP 2005). This process (of disasters impacts being
mitigated by development) is illustrated in Wisner and Adams’ (2002) Disaster Management
Cycle (See Figure 9).

Integrating the SLESH Approach into DRR Strategies

The integration of DRR methods into development discussions with SLESH components has
been called an important step in the evolution of the sustainable livelihoods and development
approaches (DFID 2001). Entire local organizations have been created to combine DRR and
SLESH approaches for development, including The Sustainable Environment and Ecological
Development Society (SEEDS) of India. The UNHCR and other large organizations have
attempted to integrate environmental and livelihoods strategies into emergency responses. This
action has been taken in part to further the general development mandate that assistance
measures should ‘do no harm’ to ecosystems as well as social systems and that environmental
assistance and international humanitarian assistance are closely intertwined (Brooke 2005). The
UN’s Office of the Coordination of Human Affairs (OCHA) reports that their current projects
involving the Indian Ocean tsunami are trying to “emphasize the need for sustainable
environment restoration efforts that support rapid livelihood recovery, longer-term poverty
alleviation and environmental protection goals” (2005:4).

In order to ensure that SLESH methods are effectively integrated into DRRs, rapid environmental
impact assessments (EIAs) can be used to identify environmental demands and concerns, and
local factors and risks that should be considered by both development and disaster management
initiatives (Kelly 2001). These collaborations are most effective when undertaken with community
organizations and networks, particularly in identifying ways to incorporate SLESH into locally-
based DRR strategies (see Appendix 2). Women in particular are a vulnerable group who
respond differently to disasters than men (for more information on this reaction, see Briceño
2002). This difference should be reflected in DRR methods, and could be included in the
vulnerable groups identified in the SL framework. Women can play key roles in community
involvement, as their capacity as a social force can be a strong asset in creating and sustaining
successful DRR plans with SLESH components. UNIFEM is already working to incorporate
women’s interests into livelihood and disaster dialogues resulting from the Indian Ocean tsunami
(OCHA 2005).
 15

Programs such as CARE International’s Household Livelihood Security (HLS) model work with
livelihoods approaches to decrease the level of risk from disasters in urban regions (Sanderson
2000). Of particular concern to HLS is the rapid urban growth cities are currently experiencing,
often being undertaken with little planning and having negative impacts on surrounding
ecosystems, therefore increasing risk of disasters such as flooding. Despite the fact that disasters
perpetuate poverty, destroy national and international infrastructure and built capital, risk
reduction strategies are rarely considered in regional development plans. Furthermore, DRRs
rarely consider urban settlement strategies, focusing instead on demands and needs in rural
regions (a key case here would be India’s National Centre for Disaster Management, which is
under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, as are all other national disaster response
measures in India). Integrating the SLESH frameworks into DRRs may work to alleviate this
issue. Indicators for this integration could be taken from the UNDP’s Disaster Risk Index (DRI),
which associates both urbanization and rural livelihoods as key variables to risk (UNDP 2004).

Case Study – Ethiopia and the degradation of essential agricultural lands

In the case of Ethiopia, livelihoods are strongly based in gender, age, caste and even ethnicity lines. This can make
approaches to SL more difficult to implement and particularly sustain through disasters and risk mitigation efforts. ESH
levels have been difficult to establish and maintain due to recurrent droughts and a generally declining level of
environmental health. The impacts of low ESH levels are felt in the attempt to create SL systems – droughts are
particularly harsh to Ethiopian livelihoods due to their effects on vulnerable pastoral lands vital to the success of numerous
communities. In a country where 52 percent of the GDP is created in agriculture, and 83 percent of the population are
subsistence farmers, constant hazards keep the country in a consistent state of crises, where over 7 million people
experience chronic food insecurity. Recurring disasters have kept the resilience levels of communities extremely low.

Ethiopia is also experiencing social crises involving HIV/AIDS prevalence in adults and children, low levels of education,
and extremely poor levels of gender development. Efforts to improve the standards of life in Ethiopia, including elements
of the SLESH framework, must be closely incorporated with DRR strategies to mitigate the effects of the constant threat of
disasters. CIDA policy within this region could integrate environmental protection plans with SL initiatives to create more
responsible and effective ways of using livelihood assets. They could also focus on integrating plans for dealing with the
social hazards of HIV/AIDS, low levels of education, and gender-specific issues into DRR strategies.

Sources: Ahmed, Ahmed and Doeleman (1995); Sharp 1997; WFP 2002; Lautze et al 2003

Integrating SLESH into DRRs allow us to more effectively integrate disaster management into
development, stopping crises from occurring, and eliminating the resulting humanitarian aid
reaction. Ensuring that the SLESH approach is integrated is also the financially and socially
responsible action to take. The organization id21 states that “In the next 20 years, the global cost
of climate-related disasters could be 10 times the value of aid flows. Two-thirds of India is struck
regularly by disasters: each year, around 25 million Indians are killed, injured or have their lives
blighted by them” (id21 2004). One of the reasons disasters are taking such a toll on populations
is that DRRs without a SL consideration are ‘top-down’ and that they do not take a systems
approach (which includes the role of SLESH) to reducing risk.
 16

DRRs with a SLESH component automatically integrate communities into plans. This allows for a
learning process from previous disasters, which is vital to current and future disaster mitigation
initiatives. This process is reflected within international policy on disaster mitigation, including the
‘Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World’, which demonstrates that ESH is an imperative pairing to
SL: “Environmental protection as a component of sustainable development consistent with
poverty alleviation is imperative to the prevention and mitigation of disasters” (1994:1.9). Blakie
et al also dictates that “a ‘safe environment’ is the goal, […] but it is also the means. Reducing
vulnerability to disasters will be shown to be tied up with increased resource access and
empowerment of marginal groups” (1994:37).

This approach also demonstrates how utilizing local partners to implement SLESH frameworks
strengthens DRR methods by linking governments, international organizations, local actors, and
civil society. Once these partners are identified and integrated into DRRs, strategies can be
created to incorporate their perspectives into policies, DRR methods, and development practices.
This tactic can strengthen the reconstruction, prevention and preparedness phases of DRRs
(FAO 2005). Once DRRs contain SLESH components, “the role of practitioners and policy-
makers becomes one of fostering resilience and adaptive capacity so that ecosystems and
people are prepared for change” (Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook 2005:17).

SLESH frameworks can be integrated into both key types of DRR strategies. ‘Prospective
Disaster Risk Management’ plans can be included in sustainable development strategies.
‘Compensatory Disaster Risk Management’ frameworks also work within sustainable
development plans, and are strengthened by the inclusion of SLESH components in their disaster
preparedness and vulnerability assessments and actions (UNDP 2004). SLESH can also make
use of a primary DRR tool – the UNDP’s DRI, which highlights correlations between development
and disaster risk. The DRI can be used to identify vulnerable regions and populations who can
use the SLESH framework to identify and then combat the development factors and underlying
processes which keep them at risk. The resiliency of social and ecological systems must be
enhanced, therefore DRIs can be used to ensure that a systems approach is being taken to DRR
and development initiatives (Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook 2005).

A strong body of literature is available which details the roles of SL and ESH in vulnerability
assessments (VAs), particularly in the field of mitigating risks of disasters resulting from climate
change (UNDP 1999; Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation
2003). SLESH attempts to manage risks by enhancing coping mechanisms, therefore reducing
vulnerability. VAs take into consideration that different groups are at varied levels of risk from
disasters, and enhancing the SL assets for these groups is a systemic process – not a ‘one time’
 17

fix. DRRs can therefore use SLESH to decrease vulnerability by influencing adaptive strategies.
For example, the vulnerability of a subsistence farmer during drought could be reduced if they
had anticipated the drought and prepared for it accordingly, thus maintaining a SL approach and
adapting to the changing ESH.

A strong dependence by vulnerable populations (such as the poor) on ecosystems can also result
in a decreasing quality of natural resources. Not only does this affect livelihoods, but also
increases the level of the negative effects of climate change which are felt by the population.
Indicators for SLESH (assets in particular) could be used with VA assessments to determine the
level of vulnerability an individual or community faces over time, and then be employed to identify
communities which would be particularly vulnerable to climate change. The most vulnerable
populations should therefore incorporate capacity development, resiliency building, and DRR
strategies which embrace sustainable ecosystem management and livelihood practices (Task
Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003).

Bandu (2005) demonstrates this notion by presenting the concept of ‘Disaster Resistant
Sustainable Livelihoods’ (DRSL), which focuses on the relationship between livelihoods and
disasters. The two main linkages are found to be ESH based – those of natural resources (water,
biodiversity) which are both livelihoods assets and disaster security buffers, and that of natural
hazards (drought, flooding, tsunamis, landslides) which lead to increased levels of disasters and
decreased levels of livelihood security (see Figure 10). The DRSL model can be used in
vulnerable regions to strengthen community systems and protect from future hazards, as well as
being used in recovery methods of previous or current disasters. It could be particularly useful in
integrating the SLESH approach into climate-change based DRR strategies and furthering the
MDGs.

Figure 10: Disaster Resistant Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Poverty

Vulnerability

Governance-
International Natural
Livelihood Resources
National Systems
Local Management

Hazards
Source: Adapted from Bandu 2005
 18

SLESH and DRR Integration: Moving the Concept Forward

As an outcome of the Kobe WCDR, a conceptual framework for risk reduction is being refined
and developed (WCDR 2005). This strategy includes components of a hazard assessment,
vulnerability assessment, elements of risk understanding, and a capacity assessment. It contains
five categories of analyses to also include livelihood capital assessment (see figure 11), thus
making it (once it is operational) a direct example of a DRR with SLESH input.

Figure 11: Five Categories of Livelihood Analysis

Source: WCDR 2005

During the WCDR, the organization Tearfund demonstrated some of the key difficulties with
integrating SLESH into DRR methods (La Trobe and Davis 2005; WCDR 2005). Among them
were three particular reasons that this incorporation had not occurred:
1. There is a lack of knowledge in the field of development on risk management, and vice
versa. This resulted in a lack of understanding of key issues in concept and practice, and
a realization of why these frameworks were relevant to each other.
2. There was a lack of ownership of the risk management concept amongst development
agencies, resulting in the reaction that DRRs should be done by outside agencies. This
notion that someone else will be watching out for these strategies, and conducting them
effectively, is particularly dangerous to development.
3. There is a feeling that rather being integrated into current measures and initiatives,
disaster management must instead compete with other issues for the attention of the field
of development, such as those of AIDS and conflict. There is also the feeling that
disasters compete with each other for funding and attention, leading to a lack of
involvement or responses to development personnel.
These situations have led to recommendations being put forward for ways to avoid such
problems, and are discussed quite well in Tearfund’s ‘Mainstreaming DRR: A tool for
development organizations’ publications (La Trobe and Davis 2005). There is a need for a sister
publication to come out of disaster management organizations, illustrating how their activities can
further integrate SLESH approaches. Key recommendations such as the incorporation of
developmental language into DRR strategies could be reversed and made applicable to
 19

development publications calling upon popular DRR discussions. This approach would allow for
the highlighting of the synergies between disasters and development, and result in the creation of
effective assessment tools and opportunities for collaborative publications which would be key in
convincing donor organizations of the need for such linkages to occur.

DFID is one organization working to overcome these barriers by assessing the significance of
DRR methods to their development work (2004). They note that it is clear that disasters hold
back development and the MDGs, and that increased levels of risk can be indicators of a failure
of development initiatives (see Figure 12). The reasons cited for development not taking into
consideration DRR strategies are similar to those put forward by Tearfund, and include a lack of
incentives for the incorporation, including a feeling within institutional and funding structures that
disaster relief is a separate responsibility than development initiatives.

DFID also notes that there is an assumption amongst both disaster and development projects
that each know what the other is doing, and assume that there is ‘someone else’ taking care of
issues outside of their own traditional interests and actions. Most importantly, there appears to
be a lack of exposure to information on relevant issues involving SLESH and development
initiatives or DRR methods between organizations. This problem could be solved by more closely
coordinating relief initiatives and a sharing of information of the type suggested by Tearfund –
with accessible language and an illustration of where linkages amongst agencies could occur.

Case Study – Ghana and the reality of climate change

The productivity of the resources of Ghana have been in decline since 1990 – a trend that is sure to worsen as the effects
of climate change are more evidently felt across the country. Increasing temperatures are driving a loss of precipitation
levels which in turn is depleting the supply of water resources. From any angle, the state of Ghana’s ESH is poor, and as
a result, their SL levels are also plummeting. The actual climatic regions of the nation are shifting, resulting in changes in
crop yields and stresses on agricultural-based livelihoods and food security levels. If these conditions are not dealt with
through DRR strategies, further socio-ecological devastation will occur.

In Africa, the relationship between SL and ESH is already stressed due to an almost consistent level of hazard which,
exacerbated by the effects of climate change, is to the breaking point, resulting in the presence of unsustainable
harvesting and livelihoods practices being conducted for the sake of survival. If SL and sociological changes are not
brought about which betters the way humans are able to treat the natural landscape, ecosystem degradation will continue
to occur, bringing with it increasingly vulnerable communities, more tenuous ties between SL and ESH, and a decreased
level of human security.

CIDA must ensure that development and DRR policies concerning Ghana consider the unique adaptation methods
Ghanian communities have adopted to survive in highly vulnerable conditions. Of particular importance is the need for a
sustainable method of using natural resources in communities made more weak by the effects of climate change, and
ensuring that if ecosystems are moving within national boundaries, social systems are also able to adapt to the changing
geographies of the landscape.

Sources: Vordzorgbe 2002; Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation 2003; UNDP 2004
 20

A solution such as this would eliminate the key error of compartmentalizing policy and actions as
human or environmental, a practice which limits both capacity and mandates and results in a
demand for cooperative initiatives (Brooke 2005). An example of such a project which has
succeeded would be the joint UNEP/OCHA environmental unit formed in 1994, resulting in
‘Unified Humanitarian-Environmental International Assistance’ initiatives responding to primarily
industrial hazards (such as chemical disasters or oil spills), but which has the capacity to be used
for other DRR strategies.

Figure 12: Examples of Disaster Impacts on Efforts to Meet the MDGs

Source: WCDR 2005

 21

Conclusions
This document reflects the wide range of discussion on DRRs and the SLESH approach. While
some DRRs are implementing different parts of the SL and/or ESH approaches (although the
terms ‘sustainable livelihood’ and ‘ecosystem health’ may not be used), the strategies focus on
different geographic and political landscapes and vary in scale and scope. As a result, identifying
how SL and ESH are used within the strategies, if these approaches effectively contribute to the
DRRs, and whether they were deliberately included or occurred in a more happenstance manner,
is a difficult task. It is also difficult to demonstrate how the SLESH approach has been used,
since the combining of these two frameworks is a very new development. Still, this report has
been able to offer a new and useful perspective into the current use of SLESH frameworks in
DRRs, SLESH offers a big-picture view of how the two systems are interacting as well as the
niches where this approach could be particularly practical.

Over 85 percent of the world’s population that is continuously exposed to disasters live in
countries with low and medium levels of human development (UNDP 2004). More than ever,
policy needs to integrate sustainable development initiatives into DRR strategies, and vice versa.
If an organization is able to grasp an understanding of the concepts and importance of SLESH
and utilize it in their development initiatives they will strengthen existing mandates, increase the
resiliency levels of communities, and more effectively work towards meeting the MDGs. The
identified constraints of a lack of information on these frameworks as well as misinformation on
whose responsibility it is to create and implement DRR strategies can both be ameliorated
through continuing to invite diverse groups and organizations from various disciplines to attend
workshops and conferences on disaster management and SLESH thinking.

Opportunities to further this work include a CIDA policy dialogue where the SLESH concepts can
be discussed, and current mandates reviewed to see if they accurately reflect an understanding
and implementation of SLESH in DRR strategies. Most importantly, case studies from within
CIDA can be discussed which might highlight issues where SL or ESH components have been
used but not identified as such. CIDA can use this information to further harness opportunities
not only in the fields of disaster management and sustainable development, but also in the
emerging field of SLESH-based DRR methods for MDG fulfillment.
 22

References
Abramovitz, J. (2001) Unnatural Disasters. Worldwatch Paper 158.

Ahmed, I., Ahmed, J. and Doeleman, A. (Eds) (1995) Beyond Rio: the environmental crisis and
sustainable livelihoods in the Third World. St. Martin’s. New York.
th
Alertnews Reuters (2004) Asia floods a wake up call. Reuters. July 29 , 2004.

Ambrose-Oji, B. (2004) Key determinants of poor people’s livelihood strategies and natural
resources-related management opportunities. Livelihoods Synthesis Study. DFID Natural
Resources Systems Programme.

Bandu (2005) Disaster Resistant Sustainable Livelihoods. WCDR: Framework Presentation.

World Conference on Disaster Reduction.

Benfield Hazard Research Centre (2005) Disaster Studies: Rapid Environmental lmpact
Assessments. Available at:
www.benfieldhrc.org/siteroot/disaster_studies/rea/rea_index.htm.

Blaikie et al (1994) At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York, NY.
Routledge.

Briceno, S. (2002) Gender mainstreaming in disaster reduction. Panel Presentation: Commission

on the Status of Women. UN/ISDR. March 2002.

Brooke, R. (2005) Bridging the gap between human and environmental disasters. Environment &
Poverty Times. March 2003, Page 17.

CARE, OCHA and Benfield Hazard Research Centre (2005) Draft Field Report: Rapid
Environmental Impact Assessment – Sri Lanka Tsunami. Sri Lanka REA Organizational
st
Level Assessment. February 1 , 2005.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the
st
21 century. IDS Discussion Paper 26. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

CIDA (2005) Sri Lanka tsunami reconstruction strategy. Tsunami Disaster Response. Canadian
th
International Development Agency. March 17 , 2005.

DFID (2001) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. UK Department for International

Development. October 2001.

DFID (2005) Disaster Risk Reduction: a Development Concern. A scoping study on links between
disaster risk reduction, poverty and development. DFID and Overseas Development
Group.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2005) Summary of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction: 18-
th
22 January 2005. ENB 26:9. January 24 , 2005.

FAO (2005) The role of local level institutions in reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and in
sustainable livelihood development. SD Dimensions. FAO Sustainable Development
Department. February 2005.

FAO and ADPC (2003) The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent natural
disasters and in sustainable livelihoods development in high risk areas. Case Study.
Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre.
 23

Farrington et al (1999) Sustainable livelihoods in practice: Early applications of concepts in rural

areas. Natural Resources Perspective. ODI. 42: June 1999.

Fernandez, A. and Britton, N. (2004) Dealing with disasters from the risk perspective: Practices
from India, Japan and New Zealand. Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre.
National Institute of Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Kobe, Japan.

Galster, S. and Bowman, M. (2005) Tsunami Relief and Reconstruction Operations in Aceh and
their Implications for Leuser Ecosystem and Local Communities. WildAid Memo on Aceh
th
Reconstruction and Environmental Impacts. January 20 2005.

Helmore, K. and Singh, N. (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods: Building on the wealth of the Poor.
Kumarian Press Books. Bloomfield.

Holloway, A. (2003) Disaster risk reduction in Southern Africa: hot rhetoric, cold reality. African
Security Review. Institute for Security Studies. 12:1.

id21 (2001) Fighting disaster: Reducing risk in cities. id21 Society & Economy: Communicating
th
Development Research, Research Highlight. May 11 , 2001.

id21 (2003) Stopping crises from becoming catastrophes. id21 Society & Economy:
th
Communicating Development Research. October 10 , 2003.

ILO (2005) ILO calls for integrated employment strategy for Tsunami recovery. ILO Media
th
Release. January 19 , 2005.

ISO (Undated) International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Available at

http:www.iso.org/iso/en/.

Jeffrey, P. (2000) Lives saved in Caracas slums. ReliefWeb.

Kelly, C. (2001) Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment: A Framework for Best Practice in
Emergency Response. Disaster Management Working Paper 3. Benfield Greig Hazard
Research Centre, University College London.

Kelly, C. (2003) Quick Guide: Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. Version 0.
Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London and CARE International.

Korf, B. (2004) War, Livelihood and Vulnerability in Sri Lanka. Development and Change. 35(2):
275-295.

La Trobe, S. and Davis, I. (2005) Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: A tool for development
organizations. Tearfund. January 2005.

La Trobe, S. and Venton, P. (2003) Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice of
selected institutional donors. A Tearfund Research Project. Tearfund. July 2003.

Lautze, S. et al (2003) Risk and Vulnerability in Ethiopia: Learning from the past, responding to
the present, preparing for the future. A report for the U.S. Agency for International
Development. June 2003.

Liew, J. (2002) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction. Poverty Eradication
through Sustainable Livelihoods Creation. UNDP/UNOPS Pacific Sustainable Livelihoods
Programme.
 24

Maskey, R. (1997) Sustainable agricultural development in less developed countries. Outlook on

Agriculture. 26: 39-45.

Pain, A. and Lautze, S. (2002) Addressing Livelihoods in Afghanistan. Issues paper series.
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit. September 2002.

Palakudiyil, T. and Todd, M. (2003) Facing up to the storm: How local communities can cope with
disaster: lessons from Orissa and Gujarat. Christian Aid.

Parkes, M. and Panelli, R. (2001) Integrating catchment ecosystems and community health: The
value of participatory action research. Ecosystem Health. 7:2, 85-106.

Pereira, M. and Betts, J. (2005) The development of environmentally and socially sustainable
livelihoods for independent smallholder cotton farmers in Gujarat, rural India. Trade
Study. Traidcraft Exchange. May 2005.

Reid, H. and Alam,M. (2005) Millennium Development Goals. Tiempo. 54: January 2005.

Rennie, J. and Singh, N. (1996) Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods: A guidebook
for field projects. IISD.

Roy, M. and Turner, J. (1996) Sustainable Livelihoods. Selected sources. International Institute
for Sustainable Development Information Centre.

Sanderson, D. (2000) Cities, disasters and livelihoods. Environment & Urbanization. 12:2, 93-
102.

Sanderson, D. (2001) Livelihoods, disaster risk reduction, urban poverty. Secondary information
resource document: selected web based information. CARE International UK. September
2001.

Sharp, K. (1997) Targeting Food Aid in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Save the Children UK.

Singh, N. (1996) Community adaptation and sustainable livelihoods: Basic issues and principles.
Working Paper. IISD.

Singh, N. and Lawrence, J. (1997) Promoting sustainable livelihoods. A note submitted to the
executive committee. UNDP.

Singh, N. and Wanmali, S. (1998) Sustainable Livelihoods Concept Paper. Sustainable

Livelihoods Strategy Paper. UNDP.

SOPAC (2005) An Investment for Sustainable Development in Pacific Island Countries. Disaster
Risk Reduction and Disaster Management: Building the resilience of nations and
communities to disasters – A framework for action 2005 – 2015. Draft for Consideration
th th th
at 12 Regional Disaster Management Meeting. June 6 – 8 2005.

Soussan et al (2003) A model of sustainable livelihoods. Improving Policy-Livelihood

Relationships in South Asia, Briefing Note 3. Stockholm Environment Institute. January
2003.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) Increasing
Community Resilience to Climate-Related Disasters through Sustainable Livelihoods: A
Conceptual Framework for Climate Change. Livelihoods and Climate Change: Combining
Disaster Risk Reduction, Natural Resources Management and Climate Change
 25

Adaptation to Reduce Vulnerability and Poverty. International Institute for Sustainable

Development Information Paper 1: December 2003.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) Livelihoods and
Climate Change. Conceptual Framework Paper. International Institute for Sustainable
Development.

Task Force on Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation (2003) Adapting to
Climate Change: Natural resource management and vulnerability reducion. Background
Paper. IUCN, Worldwatch Institute, IISD, SEI-B.

Twigg, J. (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. Disaster Management

Working Paper 2. Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre, University College London.

UN OCHA (2005) Indian Ocean Earthquake-Tsunami. Mid-Term Review. Consolidation Appeals

th
Process. June 7 , 2005.

UNDP (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: concepts, principles and approaches to indicator

rd
development. UNDP Sustainable Livelihoods Unit. November 3 , 1999.

UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development. A Global Report. United
Nations Development Programme.
th
UNDP (2005) Statement by Mr. Subinay Nandy, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative at the 5
Meeting of the ADPC Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management
(RCC5). United Nations Development Program. Ha Noi May 18th – 20th 2005.

UNDP (2005) UNDP and the Indian Ocean Tsunami Recovery. Post Disaster Recovery: Main
Characteristics. UNDP Disaster Reduction Unit. Available at: www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/

University of Guelph (2005) Livelihoods and Ecosystems Handbook. University of Guelph and
CIDA.

Vordzorgbe, S. (2002) Risk Management and Adaptation: Reflections with implications for Africa.
Presented at the UNDP Expert Group Meeting “Integrating Disaster Reduction and
Adaptation to Climate Change”. June 2002.

WCDR (2005) Kobe Report Draft: Turning practice into policy: Supporting community risk
reduction through government and institutional policy. Report of Session 1.4, Thematic
Cluster 1. World Conference on Disaster Reduction.

WCDR (2005) WCDR Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations
and communities to disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction. International
th nd
Strategy for Disaster Reduction. January 18 – 22 2005.

Weichselgartner, J. and Obersteiner, M. (2002) Knowing sufficient and applying more challenges
in hazards management. Environmental Hazards. 4: 73-77.

WFP (2002) Country Strategy Outline – Ethopia. Agenda Item 4. World Food Programme
Executive Board. May 2002.

Wyckoff-Baird et al (2000) Shifting the power: decentralization and biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity Support Program. WWF.
 26

Appendix 1: SL Assets and Tentative Indicators

Stores and Resources Assets:

Claims and Access Assets:
Asset Indicators
Asset Indicators
Land -Tenure
Health -Overall health
-Fertility
-Life expectancy
-Quality
Intra-Household Relations -Household size
Savings & Investment -Jewelry
-Division of labour
-Access to credit
-Educational status of
-Cash savings
Women
Dwelling / Shelter -Ownership
Time -Daily tasks
-Quality
-Learning
-Time spent with other
Traditional Knowledge -Institutions
age groups
-Traditional education
-Leisure time as a
fraction of free time
Infrastructure -Wells
-Community time
-Roads
-Health clinics / primary
Belief Systems / Attitudes/ -Happiness
health care
Lifestyle -Awareness
-Electricity
-Experimental innovation
-Flexibility in using
-Aspirations
transport mode / housing
(short/medium/long term)
Food Security / Insecurity -Fluctuation of food
Social Capital -Robberies
prices
-Civil/social violence
-Number of food
-Physical mobility,
distribution centres
especially for women
-Patronage/corruption
Livestock -Type/mix
-Networks of reciprocity:
activities done
Natural Resource Base -Common property
collectively
resources
-Number of CBOs
-Length of school days
-How many neighbours
do you know?
-Percent of elections
involved with, and vote
for politicians liked

Source: Adapted from UNDP 1999

 27

Appendix 2: The role of regional organizations and networks in strengthening capacities for
disaster reduction

Regional organizations and networks are playing an increasingly important role in strengthening
capacities for disaster reduction in different regions around the world. There are a number of
different types of regional organizations:

• Regional intergovernmental organizations with a specific disaster reduction mandate, such as

the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA) and the Coordination Centre
for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America (CEPREDENAC)
• Regional intergovernmental organizations that have included aspects of disaster reduction
within a broad mandate, for example, the Organization of American States (OAS), Southern
Africa Development Community (SADC), the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
(SOPAC) and the Stability Pact for Southern Europe
• Academic or governmental organizations with a regional focus on disaster reduction, for
example, the Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) and the Asia Disaster Reduction
Centre (ADRC)
• Regional disaster reduction networks of academics and NGOs, such as the Network for
Social Studies on Disaster Prevention in Latin America (LA RED), PeriPeri in southern Africa
and Dduryog Nivaran in South Asia

Such regional organizations and networks are currently involved in a number of tasks and
functions, which vary widely from one case to another. These include:

• Strengthening national capacities through training, programme support, technical assistance

and resource mobilization
• Information sharing, documentation and comparative analysis of issues on a regional and
sub-regional basis
• Coordination of regional or sub-regional disaster reduction projects
• Development of common regional or sub-regional policy platforms and the advocacy of
regional policy initiatives in global forum.

Source: UNDP Expert Group Meeting on the Roles of Regional Organizations and Networks in
Strengthening Capacities for Disaster Reduction 2002, in UNDP 2004:80).