ASSESSING DAMAGES AND NEEDS AFTER DISASTERS AND IN POST-CONFLICT
SITUATIONS
In the assessment and management of post-conflict situations (in which the international
organizations and financial institutions are increasingly involved) there is no known, generally
agreed methodology. Assessments tend to be supply instead of demand driven (on the basis of
technical availability of sectoral analysts in the assessing institution). ECLAC’s methodology,
as contained in the new Handbook / Manual.1 A general framework for post-conflict and postdisaster seems to be both their linkage to the development process and policy, resource and
institutional considerations. It is possible to assimilate their analysis to that of the impact of
exogenous shocks (variables) in a development model and this is a path that requires conceptual
discussion, formal (mathematical / econometric) formulation and field oriented research. The
use of this notion and the use of a homogenous methodology –such as the one provided by
ECLAC for disasters requires discussion and development. It must be set from the outset that
any methodology of damages and needs assessment must be relevant to the purpose for which
such evaluations are made. The table intends to capture some of the concerns that are expressed
in this issue. In the area of disasters the distinction is clearly made of the emergency relief
needs assessments which occurs immediately by the rescue/assistance-relevant institutions and
where the disaster analysis in terms of needs assessments for the reconstruction-mitigation
process is seen as a separate ensuing exercise. In the area of post-conflict the distinction
between short-term (immediate, mostly institutional and organizational) needs and more
medium to long term issues of development is seen as very hard to be made and the fragility of
a post-conflict situation where parties to the process may –even at the end of the conflict’s
violent phase—have conflicting or non-shared views of the development process and where lack
of trust and limited credibility among the parties is a major constraint where external
intervention is seen as having a positive role.
POST DISASTERS
POST CONFLICT
(CRISIS)
Diagnoses
Typology (an artificial distinction):
Typology (an arbitrary
- origins /causes
- “natural”
distinction):
- extent
o hydrometeoroligical (climatic
- economic
- duration
variability: cyclical, recurrent
- social
- relative
o climatic (change: global change,
- political
importance (to
greenhouse, etc.)
(normally associated
size, level, cycle
o geological-seismic, volcanic),
with wars, social /
(seasonal,
geodynamics
political upheaval)
economic, other)
- “anthropic” (chemical, industrial, etc.)
of the
- sudden (one-time event occurrence for a May ensue or be
community /
limited time-period)
aggravated by natural
region / country
- slow (creeping, “building” such as
events
affected
drought and other slow-evolving climate
variability), both limited or cyclical
There is an interaction
(ENSO) OR open-ended persistence
of disasters and conflict
(deforestation-drought, flooding and
and lead to dynamic
water level changes (as in the oceans)
evolution which is
neither predictable nor
linear (the phenomenon
of hysteresis):
- a disaster may
lead to crisis
1
Handbook for estimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters, LC/MEX/L.519
2 May 2002
2
POST DISASTERS
POST CONFLICT
(CRISIS)
and conflict (of
governability)
and
vulnerability
(exposure to
disasters) is a
development
issue
- Conflict may
lead to a
disaster (by
disabling
response
mechanisms,
increasing
vulnerability
and exposure)
Type of effects and
Valuation : by sector, in terms of direct
Not much different or
valuation
(assets/capital losses) and indirect (flows
unlike disaster
- economic
affected) and overall impact (on economicsituation.
- social
social-dynamics)
Difference will be in
- infrastructure
Requirements:
the conflict or crisis
- institutional
- comparability (accepted recognized
events in the lack of
Account for cross-cutting
standards, homogeneity)
preexisting institutional
issues such as
- reliability / credibility
framework and
differentiated gender
- distinction between “book value”,
governance conditions,
impact, environmental
replacement and reconstruction costs
although disasters may
impact and overall
In disaster institutional and governance
lead to loss or
effects
conditions are (unless in very extreme severe
deterioration of these
cases) not destroyed.
Requirements:
distinction between
- emergency
actions (to stop
conflict, take
crisis to an end)
and
- institutional
building
(peace-nation
building)
Type of intervention
Response to reconstruction needs, which should Respond to restoring
be “owned” by the victims and lead to
non-conflict situation
mitigation, prevention and disaster reduction (in which allows for
the continuum or cycle of prevention- reduced
building social, human
destruction-less costly reconstruction-proactive and economic capital:
mitigation) both in terms of investment,
establishing a “normal”
infrastructure and institutional/organization
functioning society that
policies and actions.
sets goals, priorities and
Move from reactive to proactive interventions,
development paradigm
leading to the local ownership of disasters’
in accordance with
mitigation and reduction.
societal needs, culture
As in post-conflict the development paradigm is and priorities.
at stake and may be subject to change.
Move from direct
3
POST DISASTERS
POST CONFLICT
(CRISIS)
Foreign intervention is seen as supplementary to intervention to enabling
national / local / community / socially agreed
and empowering local
strategy for reconstruction-mitigation
population to manage
its own development
process through
consensus-building
institutional and
political commonly
agreed.
Foreign intervention is
seen as crucial first
phase in generating
post conflict minimal
consensus and
functioning institutions
and policy formulation
processes.
For analytical purposes there tend to be less differences instead of similarities. Nevertheless
there are differences that must be outlined at the outset to provide for meaningful discussion and
analysis that leads to better post-conflict assessment, seen at present to be imprecise, casuistic
and non systematic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
starting point: pre-disaster conditions provide a baseline for reconstruction process
while post-conflict situations require defining socially acceptable baseline, goals and
aspirations.
response: there tends to be an eagerness to act after disaster (by donors, society,
government) while in post-conflict there tends to be a more passive, less responsive
reaction in which external intervention is needed (to generate dialogue, consensus
building and credibility among the stakeholders and society at large. In both, though,
government may be part of the problem. In post conflict intervention the absence of
government may be the problem.
Even though there may be construed to be a different typology, valuation of impact may
no necessarily be totally different (just as valuation methods do not differ much whether
it is a geological, meteorological or physical dynamic cause disaster). Conduct patterns
and path to return to normalcy (pre-disaster, non-conflict situations) will of course be
different.
Basically reconstruction vs. nation building are qualitatively and quantitatively different
goals and are arrived at by different strategies, in the absence of which there may a
vicious circle developing between disasters and conflicts.
An analysis of what caused the conflict is crucial to its resolution, just as a causal
analysis of a disaster is instrumental in defining the reconstruction strategy.
Institutional aspects are more relevant in post conflict, due to their absence or
destruction as part of the conflict, although they may be endangered and/or affected by
a disaster, depending on the response and strategy pursued after it.
invent a whole institutional framework, social and economic structures (currencies,
markets,
In post conflict a major strategic goal is to rebuild social capital (trust), in post-disaster
credibility is also an issue in terms of response, provision of assistance and conduction
of the reconstruction process.
substantive transformation /creation
4
-
timing and security problems
revert destructive tendencies and in post conflict generate positive synergies
disasters are “discrete” processes
post conflict as “recovering alcoholic” and reverting to low-level conflict
difference in response (proactive-positive in disaster, destructive-passive in postconflict.
Similarities are evident in at least two crucial aspects.
o the humanitarian response and mobilization of international cooperation to
post-conflict and post-disaster; and
o assistance is geared to respond to needs and provide the supplementary impetus
to the establishing of a normal situation. In post conflict –unlike in postdisaster—foreign outside intervention seems to be the firstly perceived driving
force where political will of stakeholders has to be established.
Since there is no consistent approach and how to do interventions, as for example occurs at the
World bank both for disasters and post-conflict, there is a need for good practice exam and
define some of the requirement for interventions:
- donor coordination
- poverty profile and targeting of resources
- social impact analysis (promote coordination and partnership) (monitoring and
grievance control)
- reasons for severity of damages (causal analysis)
- consultations and participation (with beneficiaries/affected)
- lessons learned (go back after the valuation of damages and evaluate the response and
its consequences)
- disaster risk management (strengthen institutional capacity to respond in advance to
potential disaster)
Among the keys to success seem to be:
- quality of project design (whether stated objectives are achieved at completion) (Entry
issues) linked to having rapid assessment methods (distinguish between emergency and
chronic need)
- Implementation / implementability – by team and by country
- Performance /Supervision (not substitute government’s role but support, backstop and
“push”)
In the interventions in the area of Conflict there is also a need for specific consideration of
prevention. This entails a broader approach to needs assessments: collective vs. individual needs
(overriding need for “peace” beyond infrastructure). Conflict analysis has, thus a different
nature. An overriding concern thus is how to do conflict analysis: a framework that leads to a
checklist may emerge from the above double entry table.
In this context it is reiterated that, much as in the case of disaster reduction a move from
response to prevention is to be seen as a more broader framework of risk management (be it in
the face of natural phenomena, internal conflict or external shocks). This implies vulnerability
and risk identification, and the derivation of risk transfer and risk mitigation policies, going
beyond needs assessment. This framework is of an analytical nature, i.e. it must illuminate the
underlying causes of vulnerability –in the multidimensional sense it is indicated—before a
quantification of needs is made. That is to say there is the need to combine needs quantification
with other methods that map risk and go into explaining the causes beyond the consequences.