CARGA SENSIBLE:

There is a notable absence of review of the hazard assessments implemented by NGOs. Here, the approach to community-based hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments is introduced to provide context to the research that follows.

Humanitarian and development NGOs work at grassroots levels with communities and local organisations as partners, and use participatory approaches to assist communities to identify the risks they face, their development priorities and foremost to build local capacity (Benson et al., 2001; UNISDR, 2006). In 2001, a study of 22 humanitarian and development NGOs indicated that a stumbling block to the incorporation of hazard risk in planning was a lack of practical guidance (Benson et al., 2001). As a consequence, NGOs gradually began to develop methods – known as ‘tools’ or ‘toolkits’ – for participatory hazard, vulnerability and risk

72 assessment. Toolkits consist of a set of instructions, checklists, guidelines and case studies outlining how to conduct what is usually a participatory analysis of hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment (PHVCA). Participatory methods rely on the assumption that, even in the absence of sophisticated assessments tools, local communities can collect and share information on hazards (UNISDR, 2004). The techniques employed draw from approaches used in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and rapid rural appraisal (RRA) that are discussed by Chambers (1997) and also incorporate the essence of the capabilities and vulnerability analysis (CVA) designed by Anderson and Woodrow (1998). CVA provides a method to assess the disaster situation and identify priorities for action (Heijmans and Victoria, 2001), as it questions any efforts to return to ‘normalcy’. Normalcy constitutes the contributing vulnerabilities to the present and possible future disasters (Anderson and Woodrow, 1998;

Bankoff and Hilhorst, 2009). CVA also highlights to relief workers how their interventions may unintentionally contribute to future vulnerabilities (Anderson and Woodrow, 1998).

During the 1990s, the pressure and release model (Wisner et al., 2004) and DFID’s sustainable livelihoods approach (Carney, 1998) also emerged from a growing awareness of the need to incorporate hazard risks within a broader analysis of the underlying causes of vulnerability. As such, CVA techniques have subsequently been adapted by NGOs to aid their analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities of local people. These have then been further adjusted in order to include climate change, with revised and new toolkits emerging, developed specifically for CCA at the community level. A number of organisations have developed tools for PHVCA with nuances in naming conventions – notably most omit ‘hazard’ from the title.

The processes adopted are highly qualitative and there appears to be a lack of probabilistic approaches to hazard and risk assessment. Some toolkits do determine risk through the combination of likelihood of impact and significance of impact, but these are still utilising qualitative approaches (e.g. Wiggens and Wiggens, 2009). Twigg (2004) notes that in practice, the difference between hazard, vulnerability and risk analysis is often blurred; hence there

73 tends to be a lot of overlap. Risk analysis is, however, arguably broader, pertaining more to the interpretation of hazard, vulnerability and capacity data in order to make decisions regarding suitable interventions (Twigg, 2004).

Vulnerability is generally perceived to be the more complex measure to assess (e.g. Benson and Twigg, 2004; Twigg, 2004; Chiwaka and Yates, 2005) and there is concern that interventions initiated through community participatory techniques have a tendency to focus on the hazard rather than address the underlying vulnerabilities (Mercer et al., 2009).

However, it is imperative to ensure that project planners and managers understand the characteristics of the hazard and its impact as part of a broader ecosystem and environmental context (Twigg, 2004) – not by over emphasising hazard risk but in highlighting its relative importance within the vulnerability context (Benson and Twigg, 2004). Physical characteristics of hazards affect coping strategies and therefore need to be identified, as evidenced in the Philippines where a group of urban poor conceptualised flood ‘manageability’ as a combination of household and community responses to the intensity (depth) and the duration of inundation (example in McCall and Peters-Guarin, 2012: 782).

Some tools make reference to multiple hazards or threats (e.g. De Dios, 2002); however since most toolkits have apparently been created for a specific purpose (for example, DRR or CCA) the implication is that they focus on the types of hazards as defined by these concepts (see Section 2.1.3). Notably, however, almost all toolkits draw on similar participatory methods for vulnerability analysis. These include transects walks; mapping (physical and socio-economic);

stories and oral histories; semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion; daily time charts and seasonal calendars; time lines illustrating trends and change; direct observations;

problem trees and flow charts and Venn diagrams of institutional linkages (see IFRC/RCS, 2007). The process requires facilitation by the NGO or local partner organisations and/or trained community members, which necessitates balancing the views of the facilitator with

74 those of community members. Anderson and Woodrow (1998) stress that the CVA method is not designed to be prescriptive, but instead to guide users through a process of diagnosis.

Sources of information and knowledge

Owing to the difficulty of accessing quantitative technical reports and data within developing countries, Twigg (2004) suggests that it is not always necessary to rely upon technology and outside expertise and suggests that visual surveys and local people’s knowledge of hazards are often more accurate and extensive than outsiders appreciate. Nevertheless, Anderson and Woodrow (1998) and Chambers (1997) state that secondary sources of information should be utilised in conjunction with participatory techniques of assessment and analysis. However of the few reviews of PHVCA (e.g. ActionAid, 1999-2003; Betts-Symonds, 2003; van Aalst et al., 2008; British Red Cross, 2009; Ruiz, 2010) most make little or no reference to secondary data for assessment and where it is discussed it is purely in the context of climate science.

Understanding of climate change effects is driven by advances in science; consequently, these often encompass the starting point for practical measures (Sperling and Szekely, 2005). Van Aalst et al. (2008) suggest that facilitators should be able to triangulate the information provided by communities with the observed or projected climate change for the region.

However, owing to the different spatial and temporal scales of community based assessments and global/regional climate change projections, it is unclear how the two would be readily triangulated (Prabhakar et al., 2009; Christian Aid and Ewbank, 2010; Romieu et al., 2010). A failure to effectively communicate climate change uncertainty in a practical manner has created substantial challenges for practitioners (Birkmann and von Teichman, 2010).

Twigg (2004) suggests that in addition to secondary sources that contain contextual situation reports and information on hazards, interviews with key informants, who may even include hazard experts, should be conducted. Fundamental to the PHVCA process itself, but a point

75 often overlooked (Twigg, 2004), is enabling action via community empowerment in order to increase their capacity to improve their own situation (van Aalst et al., 2008).

In terms of DRR, local level analysis is the standard approach; however national-level analyses are at times conducted, particularly by larger organisations (Twigg, 2004). Ruiz (2010) argues that applying hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis at the national level focuses too heavily on organisational capacity rather than the process of community vulnerability analysis and is time and resource intensive. In developing countries, local communities frequently form the first line of defence in reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience; there is a broad acknowledgement of the capacities of local communities in dealing with a variety of threats on their own (Gaillard, 2010). Natural systems and hazards, however, manifest at scales often well beyond that of the community level (Lee and Jones, 2004; Greiving et al., 2006; Schmidt-Thome, 2006; see Woo, 1999). This may well lead to the scale of the hazard or risk not being sufficiently understood.

In order to understand the historical context of risk, NGOs undertake participatory assessments using a variety of techniques, which include the creation of seasonal calendars and timelines in order to map the change in hazards over time. Whilst these methods are useful, they may miss the low frequency high impact events owing to the fact that they may not have occurred within the memory of community residents (van Aalst, et al., 2008). Missing such events could be an issue as NGOs and their partners try to be anticipatory.

Critique of toolkits

There are very few systematic reviews of the tools developed by NGOs for participatory community-based hazard (and risk) assessments, although participatory processes have received scrutiny more generally (e.g. Cooke and Kothari, 2001). In the context of hazard assessment, some general pitfalls of the methods adopted include:

76

 that ‘findings’ are often more descriptive than analytical (Heijmans and Victoria, 2001; De Dios, 2002), and this of course makes it difficult to set priorities for intervention (Twigg, 2004);

 that projects tend to be designed towards specific hazards, running the risk of overlooking other significant hazards (Twigg, 2004);

 by emphasising the socio-economic vulnerability, there is a prospect that risk more directly related to hazards may be overlooked (Benson and Twigg, 2004);

 the results are not standardised since the methods used and data collected vary according to time and place, thus it can be difficult to compare findings (Twigg, 2004; e.g. van Aalst et al., 2008).

However, the advantages of participatory community assessments are deemed to outweigh the limitations, as they provide a more detailed analysis and understanding of the communities’ situation whilst also identifying their capacity to deal with the circumstances (Twigg, 2004). Furthermore, the PHVCA process encompasses more than just a method for assessing hazard, vulnerability and capacity; it also emphasises community solidarity and empowerment, gender issues, power dynamics and project ownership by the community (see Twigg and Bottomley, 2011). The emphasis on taking action is, however, potentially outweighing the importance of underpinning decisions with rigorous analysis of the risk itself.

In their inter-agency review of DRR, Twigg and Bottomley (2011) describe how agencies struggle to address all threats since the adoption of a holistic perspective to the disaster/vulnerability problem gives rise to the implication that NGOs are in the ‘impossible’

position of being able to deal with the array of problems that emerge. A key consideration in the assessment of hazards is, thus, prioritisation, which requires an initial assessment of the full range of risks (Twigg, 2004), however, van Aalst et al.’s (2008) review of climate change community risk assessments highlights a tendency to focus on recent, large disasters rather than the entire spectrum of hazard possibilities prioritised by likelihood and possible impacts.

77 Moreover, it is unclear whether the toolkits allow for the identification of hazard interrelations.