Challenging disparities in capacity development for disaster risk reduction

Although capacity development has been identified as the means to substantially reduce global disaster losses, it is a challenge for external partners to facilitate the development of sustainable capacities for disaster risk reduction in disaster-prone countries. The purpose of this study is to investigate potential gaps between how leading professionals approach such capacity development and guidelines found in available theory. The analysis of data from thirty-five qualitative semi-structured interviews reveals that there are gaps between theory and practise, as well as between the practitioners, in all seven elements identified in available theory. There is ambiguity regarding terminology, different views about the meaning of local context, ownership and capacity assessment, as well as contradicting opinions of the role and responsibilities of external partners. Focus is on training individuals, while other requisites are often ignored, and there is a general lack of understanding of what results to assess and how to monitor and evaluate projects

Forwarding a challenging task: Seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction

Capacity development for disaster risk reduction is an important process to substantially reduce disaster losses, which threaten sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. This paper presents seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction that has been applied in practise with noteworthy results. The seven elements are: (1) Terminology, (2) Local context, (3) Ownership, (4) Capacity assessment, (5) Roles and responsibilities, (6) Mix of activities, and (7) Monitoring, evaluation and learning. Although this set of elements should not be seen as a comprehensive methodology in itself, the seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction still highlight vital aspects and seem to be a both conceptually and pragmatically interesting path to follow for increasing the impact and sustainability of projects

Parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Southern Africa

During the last decade, the interest of the international community in the concepts of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation has been growing immensely. Even though an increasing number of scholars seem to view these concepts as two sides of the same coin (at least when not considering the potentially positive effects of climate change), in practice the two concepts have developed in parallel rather than in an integrated manner when it comes to policy, rhetoric and funding opportunities amongst international organisations and donors. This study investigates the extent of the creation of parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. The chosen methodology for the study is a comparative case study and the data are collected through focus groups and content analysis of documentary sources, as well as interviews with key informants. The results indicate that parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have been established in all but one of the studied countries. The qualitative interviews performed in some of the countries indicate that stakeholders in disaster risk reduction view this duplication of structures as unfortunate, inefficient and a fertile setup for conflict over resources for the implementation of similar activities. Additional research is called for in order to study the concrete effects of having these parallel structures as a foundation for advocacy for more efficient future disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

A Great Babylonian Confusion: Terminological Ambiguity in Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction in the International Community

Society is becoming increasingly dynamic and complex, and therefore more vulnerable. It is thus important that society is resilient in order to be able to protect citizens and critical functions in the wake of disasters. It has been suggested that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is key in establishing resilience, and that adequate capacity in DRR is vital to reduce the effects of disasters. DRR and capacity development involve many individuals and organisations, and previous studies have indicated discrepancies in how individuals and organisations perceive key aspects of DRR and capacity development. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential for misunderstanding of the key concepts of DRR and capacity development, focusing on a homogeneous group of international experts and on documents from nine capacity development projects for DRR. Thirty-five qualitative interviews and content analysis of the project documentation revealed substantial conceptual ambiguity, indicating significant differences in the way in which the respondents perceive and define key concepts. The findings also showed that there is still a gap with respect to how these concepts are understood and communicated in the project documentation. This high degree of terminological ambiguity is likely to cause misunderstanding and have a negative impact on the effectiveness of capacity development projects for DRR

Systemic problems of capacity development for disaster risk reduction in a complex, uncertain, dynamic, and ambiguous world

The international community has been engaged in capacity development for decades, sometimes under different names or with a slightly different focus. So far, these efforts have failed to bring significant and sustainable change. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 specifies capacity development as the means to reduce disaster losses substantially. The purpose of this paper is to offer a better understanding of the reasons behind the poor results with capacity development for disaster risk reduction (DRR). Twenty qualitative semi-structured interviews with high-level decision makers in the international community indicate systemic failure that requires a complete overhaul of the aid system. When analysing the discrepancies between principles for capacity development (ownership, partnership, contextualization, flexibility, learning, accountability, long-term, and sustainability) and the actual performance of actors operating in a complex, dynamic, uncertain, and ambiguous world, five interrelated problems emerge: (1) Clashing principles; (2) Quixotic control; (3) Mindset lag; (4) Lack of motivation for change; and (5) Power imbalances. Understanding and addressing these systemic problems is fundamental to the success of capacity development. It is not enough to blame the actors who implement capacity development activities for DRR, nor to merely rename it, yet again, after another few years of continuous frustration

Seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction

Capacity development for disaster risk reduction is an important process to substantially reduce disaster losses, which threaten sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. This paper presents a theoretical framework with seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction that has been tested in practise with noteworthy results. The seven elements are: (1) Terminology, (2) Local context, (3) Ownership, (4) Capacity assessment, (5) Roles and responsibilities, (6) Mix of activities, and (7) Monitoring, evaluation and learning. Although the framework should not be seen as a comprehensive methodology in itself, the seven elements for capacity development for disaster risk reduction still highlight vital aspects and seem to be a both conceptually and pragmatically effective path to follow for increasing the impact and sustainability of projects

Practical aspects of capacity development in the context of disaster risk reduction

Capacity development for disaster risk reduction (DRR) has been identified as one of the main ways of substantially reducing disaster losses. In previous research, several elements have been identified that are important in capacity development for DRR. For this study, documentation from nine international capacity development projects for DRR has been analysed. The projects were undertaken by a Swedish civil governmental agency, during the period 2007-2013. The documentation analysis was complemented with seven interviews with the organisation's project managers. The purpose was to understand to what extent the previously identified elements are reflected and dealt with in DRR projects conducted by the organisation. The analysis further sought to understand whether any developments can be observed during the period studied, and if additional challenges or opportunities were identified by the professionals running these projects.The findings show a complex and progressive picture regarding the organisation's familiarity with and use of the elements from 2010 and onwards. The elements are noted to be useful in guiding the design and implementation of capacity development projects for DRR. Positive developments can also be noted on the part of the organisation e.g. a more structured way of working with capacity development and conducting capacity assessments. The organisation, however, faced challenges translating its capacity development guidance into a practical tool. Other noted challenges included staff turnover, project management limitations and funding restrictions

A collateral damage of international top-down approaches: parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the SADC region

During the last decade, the interest of the international community in the concepts of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation has been growing immensely. Even though an increasing number of scholars seem to view these concepts as two sides of the same coin (at least when not considering potentially positive effects of climate change), in practice the two concepts have developed in parallel rather than in an integrated manner when it comes to policy, rhetoric and funding opportunities among international organisations and donors. This study investigates the extent of the creation of parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the SADC region. The chosen methodology for the study is a comparative case study and the data are collected through focus groups and content analysis of documentary sources, as well as interviews with key informants. The results indicate that parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have been established in all but one of the studied countries. The qualitative interviews performed in some of the countries indicate that stakeholders in disaster risk reduction view this duplication of structures as unfortunate, inefficient and a fertile setup for conflict over resources to implement similar activities. Additional research is called for to study the concrete effects of having these parallel structures, as a foundation for advocacy for more efficient future disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Troubling partnerships: Perspectives from the receiving end of capacity development

The purpose of this paper is to complement the overwhelming focus on external partners in existing studies of capacity development for disaster risk reduction (DRR) or climate change adaptation (CCA), by exploring the perspectives of internal partners on challenges and possible solutions. 27 qualitative semi-structured interviews with experts, program officers and managers in five countries in the Southern African Development Community region were conducted. Three requisite and interdependent types of capacities—technical, processual, and contextual—in order to develop sustainability are suggested from the result. A typology of seven failures for partners to avoid when designing and implementing capacity development projects for DRR or CCA in the future are presented. The more of these failures occur, the less effective and sustainable capacity development becomes. For capacity development to be sustainable, more credit to internal partners, explicit opportunities for mutual learning and adaptive roles of external partners spanning from expert to coach need to be considered