UNDP Urban Disaster Risk in Africa (UDRA)
CARE International Urban INSAKA
Research concept paper, Zambia
Liseli Bull Kamanga and David Sanderson
April 2004
CARE International Zambia
P.O. Box 36238
Plot 10799/10800 Dedan Kimathi Road, Kamwala
Lusaka, Zambia
Direct telephone/fax: + 260 1 222585
Email: bullkamanga@urbaninsaka.org
219472247
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
A second meeting for the research network has been arranged, “ Strategies for Disaster Avoidance in Urban
Areas of Africa” in Lusaka Zambia, 5 – 7 May 2004, hosted by CARE International Urban INSAKA in
conjunction with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) – sponsored by
UNDP. This intends to initiate a programme to encourage and support significantly increased action by
local governments, NGOs and community organisations in urban areas of Africa to identify and act to
reduce risks from disaster. This builds upon the first workshop held in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2003
which focussed on “Disasters, Urban Development and Risk Accumulation in Africa” that identified key
research issues to be addressed and concluded that an action research programme was required to
further investigate the disasters and the impact on urban centres in Africa.
At this meeting the detailed work plan1 produced for each of the member countries forms the basis for
developing longer term project documents to engage national and regional stakeholders, and the national
UNDP Country Office. This meeting will allow each representative to present their proposal to the network
and agree the way forward for a consolidated programme and the formulation of a project document.
This concept note outlines our livelihoods based approach to the project, focusing in particular on
governance and rights, and our understanding of the issues to be covered in the project. This sits within
the overall programme output for the development of the “Knowledge Network”, which intends to review
urban risk accumulation and increase capacity for risk reduction in the pilot cities.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1
CARE International Urban INSAKA
CARE has been active in urban livelihoods based programming in Zambia since 1992. Much of CARE’s
understanding of urban poverty approaches results from a succession of programmes based in Lusaka
and secondary cities of Ndola and Livingstone.
Urban INSAKA is a research, learning and training unit within CARE International Zambia that aims to
improve linkages and practices in urban development between civil society and government through
improved knowledge, learning and dissemination. Urban INSAKA works in particular at both city council
and neighbourhood levels, building links and fostering dialogue and exchange.
2.2
Issues to be considered further from the first meeting - ‘Disasters, Urban Development and
Risk Accumulation in Africa’, January 2003 2
“Many disasters take place in urban areas, affecting millions of people each year through losses
of life, serious injury and loss of assets and livelihoods. Poorer groups are generally most
affected and the scale of these disasters impacts and their contribution to poverty are under
estimated, as is the extent to which rapidly growing and poorly managed urban development can
greatly increase the number of people at risk from disasters.”
“It emphasises the need for an understanding of risk (and who is vulnerable to it) that
encompasses risks from both disasters and from everyday hazards and that understands their
linkages – and in particular, how identifying and acting on risks from ‘small’ disasters can reduce
risks from larger ones. Also, how doing this has to be integrated into poverty reduction strategies.”
A number of issues were raised at the first meeting that require further consideration, and these are:

The concern is that urban specialists and disaster specialists have developed their understandings of
risk and vulnerability separately, yet both recognise the need to work together and to draw on each
other’s insights and skills.
for conducting research and advising in action regarding the process of disaster risk accumulation and on the measures that might contribute to the reduction of
these risks and vulnerabilities, including who should be involved and how
2 This section is based on extracts from the workshop report summary on Disasters, Urban Development and Risk Accumulation in Africa. Funded by UNDP and
organised in collaboration with IIED, Nairobi January 2003
1
219472247
2

The consideration of ‘small’ disasters in measures to identify disaster risk reduction strategies. This is
not only because their total impact may be larger than events classified as ‘disasters’ but also
because:
o
o
o
their number, territorial spread and impact is increasing rapidly
small events may graduate in time to larger events as population and vulnerability increases in the
areas close to the hazards’ sources and as hazards grow in size and potential intensity
developing an ability to intervene to prevent ‘small’ disasters or limit their damaging impacts can
also serve to develop a capacity to do so for larger events.

Cities can be seen as crucibles of hazards that, without good management, generate extreme
situations of vulnerability and risk for very large populations. Urban centres need multi-hazard
analysis and multi-vulnerability analysis as they concentrate multiple risks, which often have complex
interconnections making it harder to identify the risks and act to reduce them.

Integrate into urban management (and urban governance structures) the identification of disaster risks
and measures to reduce these risks and the vulnerability of urban populations to these risks. This
means a critical shift in who is seen as responsible for addressing disaster risk, integrate disaster risk
reduction into all the departments or agencies within urban governments (and where appropriate
national and provincial governments) and to move away from sectoral ‘disaster’ programmes

Move from a concentration on the disaster event to understanding the risk processes that can be
acted on

Understand how social, economic and political structures construct risk – and have the potential to
reduce it; no disaster should be considered ‘natural’ in that it is caused by the failure to anticipate the
‘disaster-event’ and act to reduce its impact.

Recognise that the impact of disasters in urban areas has been under estimated and that the impact is
in part related to inadequate urban management (especially its failure to identify and act on disaster
risk accumulation processes in and around cities)

Move from ‘disaster’ talk to ‘risk reduction’ talk. This means seeking to understand why risks are not
being reduced (or indeed how risk levels are accumulating within urban centres).

Root this understanding in local contexts. Risk is always best assessed at local level because it is the
relationship between particular groups of people and hazards in these people’s living and working
environment. There is need for good empirical data on the scale, nature and impacts of disasters
(including small disasters) in particular cities or smaller urban centres.

Create a locally owned process of risk identification and reduction. The most important aspect of risk
reduction among most of the vulnerable urban populations is to support community processes that
identify risks and set priorities

Carry out local studies to provide the basis for action on prevention and mitigation, to understand the
quantitative and qualitative risk accumulation processes, the key actors, and the causal processes
that are particular to each city and city-district. The risk profile and the scale and nature of vulnerable
populations is specific to each city (and settlement within it).
It was felt that these studies must address these questions:
i.
ii.
iii.
what are the links between ‘urbanization’ (the growing proportion of a nation’s population living
in urban areas) or the growth of each urban centre and risks (from disasters, ‘small-disasters’
and everyday hazards)
do urban centres have characteristics that present particular opportunities for risk reduction (for
disasters, small disasters and everyday hazards) or particular difficulties
are existing patterns of every-day hazards and ‘small’ disasters indicators of vulnerability to
large disasters?
219472247
3
3.
FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ANALYSIS
CARE will use its livelihoods based framework as a starting point for understanding disasters and risk and
for analysis with primarily community organisations and local informants to identify links between disasters
and hazards to support the development of risk reduction and management plans. This will be from the
perspective of the vulnerable household, coping with the threat of disaster is part of daily life. A common
understanding of livelihoods is given by Chambers and Conway3 provides the basis for the Household
Livelihood Security (HLS) Model:
‘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 in the future, while not
undermining the natural resource base’
HLS can be described as adequate and sustainable access to (sufficient) income and other
resources to enable households to meet basic needs, and to build up assets and capacities to
withstand and recover from shocks and stresses. The meeting of basic needs is the primary
vehicle to counter basic poverty, which exists ‘when individuals or groups are not able to satisfy
their basic needs adequately’.4
Disaster is initially defined as ‘ …… a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing
widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected
society to cope using its own resources.’5
Hazard is initially defined as ‘Phenomena that pose a threat to people, structures or economic
assets and which may cause a disaster. The could be either manmade or naturally occurring in
our environment.’6
Vulnerability is initially defined as ‘the extend to which a community, structure, service or
geographic are is likely to be damaged or disrupted by the impact of particular hazard, on
account of their nature, construction and proximity to hazardous terrain or a disaster prone area.’ 7
One of the most significant concepts in linking disaster with development is that of sustainable livelihoods,
livelihood based methodologies can be the basis for policy and practice formulation. In a livelihoods
understanding disasters become a development issue, with the reduction of poverty a key weapon in
reducing vulnerability.
Livelihood strategies focus on building assets over time to increase greater self reliance amongst
households and neighbourhoods. Focusing on the threat of disaster can be a key resource in developing
sustainable risk reduction measures. In CARE’s experience, programmes which focus on the building of
assets at household level leave families and neighbourhoods less vulnerable and better able to withstand
shocks and stresses.8
HLS therefore provides a ‘route map’ for developing interventions, recognising the factors that perpetuate
poverty in urban settlements from household level asset building to authority level urban management. 9
3
Chambers R and Conway G (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton, page 7
Gross et al, 1995
5 Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies, Note on Disasters, Hazards and Vulnerability
6 Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies, Note on Disasters, Hazards and Vulnerability
7 Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies, Note on Disasters, Hazards and Vulnerability
8 Sanderson, D., Risky Living – A livelihoods perspective of disaster threats in poor urban settlements, 2000
9 CARE International UK Urban Briefing Notes, December 1999 (1)
4
219472247
4
The Elements of Household Livelihood Security
Household
Builds
assets
Household
Resources/
services
Meets
basic
needs
E.g. water,
healthcare,
land
Water, Food,
health etc
to reduce
risk
Household
Resources controlled
by government, private sector,
etc through policies, practices,
laws
Discrimination!
!
Restricted access to resources
because of status: gender, religion, age, etc
Access
Social,
Physical
Human
Financial
Political
Natural
to resources through
productive/exchange activities
External
shocks and
stresses
That threaten the
households, e.g.
HIV/AIDS,
drought
At the heart of the HLS model are the different types of assets (social, human, natural, physical and
financial), which as a whole can serve to satisfy the basic needs of beneficiaries, improve and strengthen
the sustainability of their livelihoods, and reduce their vulnerability.
This is characterised by the following elements:10
1.
Households have basic needs: food, water, shelter, education, etc.
2.
To meet these needs, household members access resources or services by undertaking
productive activities, such as selling labour, that allow them to pay for these resources.
3.
There are, however, barriers to accessing resources/services, which act to prevent or reduce the
quality and quantity of resources accessible. Two key barriers are:


4.
Resources/services secured by household members are used for two purposes:


5.
Position in society (culture, gender, status)
Control of resources by structures (e.g. government, private sector) and processes (e.g. laws,
regulations)
To meet immediate basic needs to contribute to household security
To build up assets (social, physical, financial, and human) to contribute towards household
sustainability
Assets are used for two purposes:


To mitigate household level stresses and shocks, such as sickness or unemployment that
threaten lives and livelihoods. The greater and more appropriate the asset base of the
household the better the ability to withstand the shock.
Building up assets to increase the ability to access resources, e.g. improved education that
allows access to better paying jobs.
The aim is to seek to remove barriers to access by changing social relations and transforming structures
and processes in order to facilitate increased access to resources.
Livelihoods describes how people access resources, how they overcome obstacles (often discrimination
and unfavourable controls), how they meet basic needs, and crucially, how they build up tangible and non
tangible assets. It is this building up of assets that, according to livelihoods based approaches,
reduces vulnerability to shocks and stresses. Assets are not only physical, e.g. land; they are also
social, e.g. good relations with neighbours; human, e.g. good entrepreneurial skills; financial, e.g. savings;
and importantly, political, e.g. having a say in democratic processes.
While livelihoods thinking emerges mostly from a rural perspective, it also offers an approach for
interpreting the complexities of urban living, in particular:



Linking micro to macro issues. Livelihoods does not advocate community level or municipal
interventions; rather it describes the links between all levels that affect poor urban dwellers, from how
households secure a means of living to the policies that control them
Highlighting the layering and complexity of controls by institutions and their regulations that affect the
poor’s access to resources. Whilst controls on the poor may be legal, e.g. by municipalities, they may
also be as a result of illegal activity, e.g. gangs that control neighbourhoods
Indicating access to resources as a key concept, including the ability of poor urban dwellers to access
health care, food, employment, shelter or political power
Within the livelihoods approach, disaster is implicitly in every day life. According to Chambers and
Conway, a livelihood is only sustainable if it is able to ‘cope with and recover from shocks and stresses’.
Witing CARE’s HLS methodology household level assets buffer households against shocks and
stresses.11
10
11
CARE International UK Urban Briefing Notes, December 1999 (1)
Sanderson, D., Risky Living – A livelihoods perspective of disaster threats in poor urban settlements, 2000
219472247
6
Two important aspects of livelihoods based perspective are governance and rights.
For CARE, governance concerns the effective management of public resources. Good governance
concerns transparent processes in the interactions between the public sector, private sector and civil
society. In urban areas activities therefore include:


Strengthening representative structures within neighbourhoods
Building municipal capacities
“The processes by which cities develop can exacerbate risk from disasters – or lesson them. In
well governed cities, there are many economies of scale and proximity for the kinds of
infrastructure and planning measures that limits risk and the kinds of services that ensure
disaster preparedness. …………. However, in poorly governed cities, the concentration of
people and production … in the absence of appropriate investments increases all forms of
environmental risk, including risk of disaster.”12
“There are two particular problems that are evident in most African cities. The first is the
development of settlements on land in or close to cities that are on hazardous sites ……. The
second problem is an urban expansion without any effective governance system to ensure that
environmental risks (of all kinds) are kept down. …” 13
“Poverty, governance and lack of public investment thus come together to interact with physical
hazardousness, creating a high level of risk and vulnerability in African cities. Any effort to
address disaster risks in African cities will necessarily have to deal with policies related to poverty
reduction, development and decentralisation. It will also have to ask for including disaster risk
management as an important consideration in development planning and poverty reduction
programmes.”14
As the process of urbanisation grows in Africa, the issue of urban governance becomes
increasingly important. Risk and vulnerability reduction in cities will therefore be critically related
to the quality of governance. Decentralisation and participatory decision making, concomitants of
good governance, will therefore be critical factors in implementing policies for disaster risk
reduction.”15
Rights based approach ultimately concerns removing discrimination (which usually means poorer,
vulnerable people), achieved through a variety of activities, including:


Upholding the rights of rights holders
Ensuring the good actions of duty bearers/service providers, e.g. through enacting policies that benefit
poorer, vulnerable people
“ …the issue of disaster risk associated with urban development and its management has not become a
central issue in urban regional development in Africa.” 16 Pursuing the rights based approach will help to
address this.
Our approach therefore, in summary, will be to adopt a livelihood based perspective of urban risk:




Risk is the threat of a future disaster, and risk accumulation 17 occurs when development is
characterised by processes that lead to increased hazard and vulnerability levels
The most vulnerable are almost always poorer urban dwellers
The threat of disaster is a part of everyday life, to be negotiated through trade offs, with both wins and
losses
Building assets is the fundamental concern for reducing individual, household and neighbourhood
vulnerability
Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p3
Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p3
14 Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p4
15 Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p5
16 Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p5
17 Preparatory Assistance Project “Urban Disaster Risk in Africa” Project Documents p4
12
13
219472247
7

Governance concerns the control of resources and determines to what extent poorer, vulnerable
people are able to access resources, e.g. land, shelter, water, services
Rights is a tool for removing discrimination, e.g. through enacting laws to benefit al people equally,
regardless of status, etc.

A livelihood is sustainable when it ‘can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain its
capacility and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation.’ 18
4.
Our Approach
The aim is to build a better understanding of the relationship between urban governance and disaster risk
in Lusaka, Zambia. The purpose is to make the association of disaster risk with urban development and
its management. It will also seek to build consensus on the need to develop mechanisms, systems and
structures to identify and act on disaster risk within local and national development processes and
integrate these into existing governance structures, especially local structures.
Our understanding of the project and what this means to us is summarised as follows:
4.1
Outputs Sought
These outputs relate to the overall programme and the specific aspects sought within the pilot of Lusaka,
Zambia. Some are to be achieved with the project timeframe, suggested as phase3, however the full
consideration of vi, vii and viii will need to be an ongoing exercise that should be incorporated in longer
term initiatives, to try to ensure integration and continuity of these aspects.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
18
African network foundations established
Improved gathering, analysis and sharing of information
Scale and nature of risk from disasters understood
Vulnerability identified, who this affects and reasons for it understood
The effects of urban processes on risk and vulnerability identified, including the identification of
trends in the disaster risk accumulation processes associated with urban development
Measures to reduce risk identified and analysed to build consensus on the need to develop
mechanisms, systems and structures to act on disaster risk locally and nationally
Multi stakeholder opportunities for interventions identified to encourage and support increased
action, including awareness raising of practical steps towards urban risk management
Ultimately policy dialogue informed
CARE International UK Urban Briefing Notes, December 1999 (1) - Chambers R and Conway G (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for
the 21st Century
219472247
8
4.2
Work Plans
A planned action research approach is proposed to ensure appropriate community level participation and that the perception of those exposed to urban risks is
well considered.
Table 1 Work Plan for the Development of the Consolidated Programme
Activities
Sign agreement between CARE and IIED
Development of draft country proposal
Prepare for second Africa Network meeting
Hold second Africa Network meeting
Finalise country proposal and submit to IIED
Submit financial report for second Africa Network Meeting
Initiate Planned Action Research
March 2004
X
X
Phase 2 (proposed as January – June 2004)
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
Phase 3
August 2004- June 2005
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2 Proposed Work Plan for the Planned Action Research in Lusaka, Zambia
Phase 3
Activities
Sign agreement between IIED and CARE Zambia
Refine research analysis framework and tools
Recruit and train researchers
Carry out participatory data collection
Analyse data
Check data
Draft report and share preliminary findings
Local meetings to further explore measures to reduce risk
and opportunities for interventions
Exploratory meetings with stakeholders to further consider
suggestions from local meetings
National mixed stakeholder workshop to share findings
and recommendations, and explore way forward
Finalise report and submit to IIED
Submit final financial report to IIED
August
Sept
X
X
X
2004
October
X
X
Nov
Dec
X
X
Jan
Feb
X
X
X
March
2005
April
X
X
X
X
X
May
June
X
X
The second table assumes the start date in August 2004 and the proposed steps as agreed, however should the project start later and other steps be agreed,
the scheduling should change accordingly.
219472247
9
Proposed Tools19
4.3
The left hand column shows the various components of HLS: assets, access, vulnerability, etc. The
second column comprises the specific questions that will be analysed. The third and fourth columns
comprise the PRA tools to gather information relating to the HLS components. For good triangulation,
principle and secondary tools were used. The final column lists the stakeholder themes identified and
their relationship to the framework and the tools.
The third table will help us understand the scale and nature of risk:
Table 3
Livelihood Component
Institutions
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
Natural resources
Infrastructure
Cultural
environment
Political
environment
Settlement patterns
Processes (rules,
regulations, policies etc.)
Understanding the
scale and nature of risk
What we need to know

Presence and importance of community/neighbourhood level institutions

Interaction of population with external institutions

Level of control of resources by institutions

Attitude towards new institutions

Level of participation

Food economy zone

Presence of common property resources

Availability and access to natural resources

Access to land

Availability of education, health, social services; water and sanitation
infrastructure, roads and transport infrastructure
Principle tools
Venn diagram
Secondary tools
Household
interviews; focus
group
discussions; key
informants
Area mapping
Secondary data;
key informants
Area mapping

Ethnicity; religion and gender
Secondary data;










Broader political context
Nature of governance at community level
Feelings of insecurity/uncertainty at household and community level
Perceptions of security and risk
Land tenure
Physical isolation
Impact of rules, regulations and policies on households and communities;
Impact of judicial processes
Perception of new institutions; institutions at community level;
Level of participation
Secondary data
Venn diagram;
interviews;
secondary data
Livelihood profile;
interviews; FGD
Venn diagram;
interviews; key
informants
Mapping;
interviews




Nature, size and frequency of disasters
Patterns of everyday hazards and small – large disasters
Importance of other shocks and stresses, in particular HIV/AIDS
Availability of formal resources/assistance to poorer people
Interviews/FGDs
Hazard mapping
Resource
assessment
Key informant
interview
Venn diagram
Secondary data;
interviews; key
informants
The fourth table will help us understand who is vulnerable and why; the urban processes that contribute
to increased and/or decreased risk and vulnerability; the measures to reduce risk and the opportunities for
interventions:
Table 4
Livelihood Component
Social
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
19
Physical
What we need to know
 Exchanges of goods and services
 Assistance to or from extended family networks
 Membership in community groups
 Nature of interactions with other households
 Social capital
 Physical isolation
 Gender
 Distribution of poverty within communities
 Level and nature of participation
 Housing
 Food security and agriculture
 Vehicles
 Machinery
 Shops
 Household and neighbourhood level water and sanitation facilities
 Household economy; shelter
 Distribution of poverty within communities; water and sanitation
Principle tool
Household
interview
Social mapping
Secondary tools
Livelihood profile
Household
interview
Physical mapping
Livelihood profile
This is taken from the livelihoods assessment undertaken by CARE in Kosovo, 2000
219472247
10
A
S
S
E
T
S
Human
Financial
Natural
Livelihood strategies
(production, processing,
exchange and income
generating activities)
Vulnerability to shocks
and stresses




























Who is vulnerable and
why?
Urban processes that
contribute to increased
and/or decreased risk
and vulnerability
















Measures to reduce
risk











219472247
Education level
Ability to work
Dependency ratio
Education; health; gender
Household economy
Time allocation; Level and ability to participate
Food security and agriculture
Access to finance/credit; levels of savings; remittances; pension
Household economy; remittances
Distribution of poverty within communities
Livestock; food security and agriculture
Land; type of tenure
Access to common property resources
Distribution of poverty within communities
Household economy; food security and agriculture
Household livelihood strategies: production, consumption and
processing/exchange
Type of activities undertaken by each household member
Level of contribution to household economy
Coping mechanism/strategies and related actors
Access to employment; income generating activities; access to finance/credit;
contribution of remittances to household livelihood; pension
Distribution of poverty within households
Condition of household; current status of household; household economy;
pension
Coping strategy of household; ability to recover; time of return; barriers to
recovery; other stresses (e.g. illness)
Settlement development processes
Shelter/housing; distribution of poverty within communities
Institutions at the community level; social capital
Remittances; economic activities; access to finances
Gender
Intra and inter household
Neighbourhood/zone and compound level differences
Levels/amounts and types of assets held
Factors affecting vulnerability, e.g. existing legislation and practices, urban
planning policies, land use, acts, settlement improvements
Indicators of vulnerability
Positive and negative municipal activities that affect vulnerability, e.g. forced
evictions, discrimination, location and use of poor quality land
‘Local champions’
Quality of governance, representation of civil society to city councils
Organisational structures and mandates
Community based management and policy support
Availability of resources to poorer/vulnerable people
Recognition/non recognition of rights
Disaster cycle – the event, recovery and risk reduction
Formal and informal measures to reduce risk at city, compound and
household level
Explore the relationship between disasters and development – links between
urbanisation and risks
Trends in disaster risk accumulation processes associated with urban
development
Explore opportunities for risk reduction
Explore opportunities to inform policy dialogue
Adopting livelihoods based strategies, i.e. building assets, increasing access,
tackling discrimination,
Improving governance
Asserting rights based approaches, i.e. responsibilities of duty bearers and
knowledge/ awareness raising of rights holders
Risk assessment and evaluation; monitoring and evaluation; warning
systems; communication and information systems; public/community
awareness and preparedness
Sequence and scope of systematic risk management planning
Consideration of sustainability of processes/measures
Building capacities of representational structures both in civil society and
within government/councils
Explore opportunities for risk reduction
Explore opportunities to inform policy dialogue, and the role within broader
poverty reduction strategies
Household
interview
Livelihood profile
Household
interview
Livelihood profile
Household
interview
Livelihood profile
Household
interviews
Economy activity
analysis;
livelihood profile;
key informant
interviews
Household
interviews
Vulnerability
assessment
Economic activity
analysis;
livelihood profile;
key informant
interviews
Literature reviews
Interviews
Development
activity analysis
HLS process
analysis
Hazard and
vulnerability
analysis
Risk evaluation
Action planning
Facilitated
discussion
11
Opportunities for
interventions








5.
Finding/making the space
Build awareness
Tap into self interest
Build capacities and reduce vulnerabilities
Identifying willing stakeholders/’champions’, particularly g those that are
community based
Identify roles and responsibilities of institutions, opportunities for collaboration
and integrating awareness of disasters and urban development
Explore mechanisms, systems and structures to identify and act on disaster
risk within local and national development process, integrating these into
existing governance structures
Encourage multi stakeholder support
Situation analysis
Interviews
FGDs
NEXT STEPS
This concept note is to be shared initially with IIED, this will form the basis for:



further consideration of the elements and approaches proposed
the presentation on the proposed case study in Zambia at the second meeting
consideration of the inputs required to conduct this
219472247
12