Ricardo Zapata Marti
Focal Point on Disaster Evalution
ECLAC
May 11, 2004
What negative or positive intervention means and in case of methodological problems
what are the pros and cons in different approaches?
- Methodological problems: needs assessments vs. causal analysis
Methodologically one thing is to just ascertain the needs in the aftermath of an event,
which the valuation of damage per se does; and another to undertake a more systemic
analysis of the causes of a disaster and its subsequent damage. The latter implies two sets
of considerations: the scientific evidence and explanation of the phenomenon and its
occurrence (wind speed, rainfall, trajectory in the case of climatic events; vibration,
oscillation, trepidation, force, velocity, wavelength of seismic ones, ash fall, lava flows,
type of eruption in the case of volcanic ones, category according to international
classifications, recurrence in terms of historical statistical evidence, location, time of
occurrence and duration, etc. and how the event unfolded) and, on the other hand, its
impact on preexisting vulnerability (location of affected population, risk bearing
infrastructure, type of construction, problems caused by pre-existing human interventions
such as river basin or coastal alterations, watershed management, slopes defaced by
construction or deforestation, etc.) all of which lead to the identified and quantifiable
damage.
- Operational problems: setting priorities and differentiating emergency from urgency:
simultaneity vs. sequencing
It is evident that a needs assessment study, since it is undertaken in the aftermath of an
event, faces operational problems linked to activities occurring simultaneously or in
parallel: emergency assistance to affected population, restoring basic lifelines albeit
provisionally till the reconstruction process takes place, a number of agencies (both from
the local or national government or international ones) doing their own assessments, and
interventions from civil society organizations and NGOs. In order to avoid duplication
and competition as well as repetition of inquiries to the affected, coordination is a key
element to face the operational problems of this type of analysis. It also means involving
a multidisciplinary, interagency team in order to cover all angles and sectors of the event.
Two additional operational questions that are very relevant are the question of priority
setting: what is urgent at the time of the event’s occurrence and its immediate aftermath
in terms of assistance to the injured, rescuing survivors, sheltering the needy, restoring
basic lifelines; and how those urgencies change as the phases change from emergency to
reconstruction, restoration and mitigation. This entails considering that urgency is
eventually superseded by considering as prioritary what becomes important or relevant in
terms of mitigation, long time recovery and increased resilience. Since phases overlap
the final operational problem is one of undertaking simultaneously actions both urgent
(emergency related) and important (resiliency and decreased vulnerability related).
- Policy problems: positive vs. negative intervention; resource allocation vs. policy
change promotion
A positive intervention is the one that leads to not only reconstruction but policy changes
and the mobilization of appropriate resources. Also a positive intervention is the one that
includes the participation of the community and the stakeholders after a disaster in
defining their needs as well as in setting their priorities in terms of disaster reduction and
prevention and mitigation.
A negative intervention is the one that only focuses on reconstruction to previous
conditions, since it reinstates the previous vulnerability and does not take into account the
risks faced and the increased risk that the new disaster posed.
In terms of policy there are two avenues for action: one of seeing disaster (ex-post) as an
opportunity for policy changes that lead to more resilience and better risk management in
the future; and the other of resource allocation among competing needs: those previous to
the disaster in terms of development, social equity or goals, such as the Millenium
Development Goals (MDGs); and the ones that emerge as a consequence of the disaster,
in terms of restoration of welfare, physical reconstruction, tending to the new disasterrelated needs, and investment in disaster reduction, risk management and risk transfer.
This latter aspect brings fore the need for cost-benefit or cost-efficiency analysis and the
financial consideration of medium to long term benefit (namely in the sense of losses
avoided more than economic or financial positive gains) that have to be funded by
resources that either had other purposes in current budgets or have to be obtained by
contracting new debt that has to be paid in the short to medium term. This in fact is the
bottom line consideration: the financial cost of prevention and mitigation, where the
financial cost of the money is related to interest rates and terms of loans to be contracted
(maturity, grace periods, etc.) has to be contrasted to the more “fuzzy” figure or damage
or losses avoided.