Search results

Cameroon’s contemporary legislative and institutional frameworks for disaster risk management (DRM) encapsulate the concept of Civil Protection (CP). Diverse disaster risk profile and high incidence/frequency of co-occurring natural and human-induced hazards are intimately linked to increasing vulnerability and fragile economy, transforming hazards into emergencies, crises and disasters, with dire livelihood consequences. To curb growing disaster risks, the Cameroon government instituted basic legislative and institutional frameworks for DRM, through top-down hierarchical, and ex post decision-making processes. Existing frameworks combine multi-hazard, multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary/agency approaches. Inertia, limited foresight and proactiveness, innovation capacity and limited stakeholder involvement have rendered DRM ineffective. Existing DRM instruments are vague and not explicit. DRM lags behind a rapidly evolving disaster risk profile, and implementation is scattered across ministries/agencies, rendering cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination difficult. Although Cameroon is a signatory to many international disaster risk reduction (DRR)/DRM frameworks, and frequently participates in international DRR/DRM events, implementation of international agreements leaves much to be desired. The Directorate of Civil Protection – Cameroon’s sole legislative DRM institution is marred by bureaucracy, centralisation and insufficient power to perform. There is an urgent need to overhaul existing legislation and institutional frameworks for effective DRM in Cameroon.

This chapter reviews and compares Southeast Asia country practices on global, regional, and local practices for disaster risk assessment (DRA). DRA research and practices include and create a disaster risk management (DRM) solution. There are 11 countries in Southeast Asia, but only 10 countries are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), except Timor-Leste. The key objective of ASEAN’s formation is cooperation in economic growth, social, regional peace and cultural development, disaster management cooperation, and humanitarian assistance at the regional level. The DRM system practiced in ASEAN member countries is discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, the system and findings of DRAs are also addressed. Globally, two DRA structures are discussed and compared, namely Index of Risk Management (INFORM) and World Risk Index (WRI). In addition, regional vulnerability assessment guidelines for regional and national levels are discussed. However, several selected studies and practices such as the Indonesian Risk Index (InaRISK) are being discussed at the local level. Overall, there is space for improvement of coordination in terms of data and technology sharing for DRM, especially for assessment. The finding of this review highlighted the complexity of DRA at the global and regional levels and encouraging community DRA among the ASEAN members.

Although the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 explicitly recognizes the need for psychosocial support and mental health services, the focus of this and many disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) plans lies in the response, recovery, and rehabilitation phases. Less attention has been given to how mental health aspects affect the predisaster phase. This chapter explores the less understood concept of “resistance” in the perspectives model of disaster mental health, which is related to DRRM themes of “prevention and mitigation” and “preparedness” interventions. Four strategies are identified by which DRRM interventions can contribute to psychosocial support and mental health: increasing stress resistance, fostering cohesion and social support, fostering positive cognition, and building self-efficacy and hardiness. We review the cases of the Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand and report existing socio-political DRRM initiatives for prevention, mitigation, and preparedness that can potentially enhance resistance as a predisaster intervention. Beyond medical services or clinical mental health interventions for select populations, DRRM interventions can benefit the general public. Despite natural intersections, there remains a need for deliberate and targeted initiatives that explore how vertical pyschosocial care programs can be created to straddle both DRRM and health sectors in practice.

The Ba River catchment and delta on the island of Viti Levu, Fiji, supports a wealth of livelihoods and is populated by diverse communities who are living with an increased frequency and intensity of hydro-meteorological hazards (floods, cyclones and droughts). Participatory mapping as part of focus group discussions is a tool that can be used to elucidate communities’ understanding of the differing impacts of multiple hazards, as well as the strategies used to prepare and respond to different hazards. In this chapter, the authors present the results of qualitative research undertaken with members of three communities along the Ba River, from the Nausori highlands to the coastal mangroves, with a particular focus on recent floods (2009, 2012) and Tropical Cyclone Winston (2016). The communities draw on a wide range of livelihood strategies from fishing and agriculture to tourism and outside work. Natural hazard events vary in their impact on these livelihood strategies across the landscape and seascape, so that community members can adjust their activities accordingly. The temporal ‘signatures’ of ongoing impacts are also variable across communities and resources. The results suggest that taking a broad, landscape (and seascape) approach to understanding how communities draw livelihoods is valuable in informing effective and inclusive adaptation strategies for environmental change. Furthermore, documenting how the landscape is used in a mapped output may be a valuable tool for future social impact assessment for resource extraction activities.

This chapter discusses some issues of diversity in hazard mitigation when just recovery is considered or not. Justice in hazard mitigation becomes crucial considering unequal distribution of resources, systemic racism, and social vulnerability to hazards. While there has been research on just recovery, there is little or no evidence of research that examines the issue of equity and justice in hazard mitigation, This chapter discusses what hazard mitigation is, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 focusing on the planning process, public involvement in the planning process, some planning theories on vulnerability, and building the case for achieving and striving for justice and equity in promoting diversity in hazard mitigation. The chapter makes some recommendation on how to achieve diversity in hazard mitigation.

Surging global natural disasters provide incentive for risk-reducing policies and strategies. In this light, the African Union (AU) engaged a multi-stakeholder policy formulation process between 2002 and 2006, to develop a continent-wide disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy. Drawing from secondary data, this chapter assesses the process and applies qualitative analysis instruments to critically assess the AU’s disaster policy. Linkages to the 2005 international Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) are also highlighted. The analysis reveals that Africa’s policy formulation process was belated for over a decade, with respect to international expectations. The formulation process was however largely African owned and led, culminating in a strategy document that reflected African contextual reality at the time, and aligned well with HFA fundamental goals. The applied multi-stakeholder approach enhanced a spirit of participation across levels and was central to the largely successful policy formulation process. However, targeted policy outcomes were not explicit, and poorly formulated indicators marred short- and long-term policy evaluation. Based on these results, we conclude that the African-wide DRR policy formulation processes were belated but participatory, systematic and very successful. Belated policy formulation reflects an initial inertia on the African continent, justified by past negative policy experiences and the desire to succeed. A replication of this policy formulation approach in Africa is recommended, albeit exercising more caution on policy timing, the elaboration of better monitoring and evaluation instruments and criteria. Participation should further embrace modern, risk-free (anti-COVID-19-friendly) information and communication technologies.

Surging natural disasters globally has precipitated renewed interests in disaster risk management. Though several global and regional disaster risk management policy frameworks have been put in place, it is necessary to evaluate their successes and capacities to deliver. This chapter reviews key disaster management frameworks, particularly the Yokohama Strategy, the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. It examines the extent to which these policies shaped Africa’s regional disaster risk management processes, with an emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Through documentary analysis and scientific literature review, this chapter identifies key parameters that shaped SSA’s disaster risk reduction (DRR) processes and their implications for DRR policy instruments and impact studies. The analysis reveals a number of findings. First, the roll-out process of global disaster reduction and management policy processes and instruments is yet to optimally impact SSA, in terms of effective disaster management. Second, a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude and severity of natural disasters could contribute to stem the damages linked to their occurrence. This is yet to be achieved. Third, paradigm shifts towards fully appreciating underlying disaster risk factors and manifestations could potentially support the practical drift from disaster coping and management towards risk identification, reduction and resilience building in SSA. Finally, instruments that prioritise capacity building (such as extension services training, research and development, information and communication), organisational governance, sustainable financing and technology, still relatively weak in SSA, should be stepped up to promote DRR capacities and strategies.