Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Peacebuilding: Realizing DRR’s unexplored potential through environmental peacebuilding

art by Lynn Finnegan (Ireland)

Vincenzo Bollettino (Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University); Siad Darwish (The Initiative for Peacebuilding and CDA Collaborative Learning Projects)

Despite the increased recognition of the compounded risks of disaster, fragility, and potentially conflict, intersections between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and peacebuilding have remained largely unexplored. Environmental peacebuilding, with its focus on positive peace and environmental sustainability, is uniquely positioned to establish these linkages in policy, research, and planning.

Context

From 2004 to 2014, 58 per cent of all disaster-related deaths and 34 per cent of all people impacted by natural disasters occurred in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCAS).[i] Climate change is set to intensify this trend. The populations of 26 of the 39 states classified as highly fragile are at the greatest risk of exposure to chronic aridity, wildfires, floods, cyclones, rainfall abnormalities, and coastal erosion.[ii] Nine of these fragile states have at least one million people who are at very high risk from climate exposure.

DRR and Disaster Studies have long held that disasters are social and natural phenomena, created by the interaction between environmental hazards, such as short and rapid onset disasters, with economies, governance, and social systems. In FCAS, disasters come at greater human and environmental cost. Fragility limits adaptive capacities, or the abilities of communities to prepare for and cope with disasters and violent conflict, which further contributes to the degradation of vital resources.[iii] Peace and security, in other words, are pre-conditions for the most effective DRR. [iv] There is also emerging and contested evidence that disasters can serve as threat multipliers in existing conflicts; some of the states with a high compound risk of fragility and climate exposure experience higher than normal rates of civic unrest, riots, and civil disobedience.[v] Yet, while disasters may lead to fragility and conflict, they can also contribute to peace and social cohesion. A series of case studies in disaster diplomacy has demonstrated that disasters can have at least short-term positive outcomes on relations between warring countries.[vi] Disasters here generally do not generate entirely new diplomatic efforts, but can serve as a positive catalyst for existing efforts, as has been the case after the 2004 tsunami in Aceh in Indonesia.[vii]

What’s been done

Disaster policy increasingly views disasters as complex adaptive systems that interact with other types of systemic risks such as health crises, economic downturns, and fragility and conflict.[viii] Despite these emerging recognitions of the interconnections between risk profiles and vulnerabilities, frameworks, tools, and concepts to address vulnerabilities across these different systems are still largely absent. In fact, the intersection between peacebuilding and DRR in particular has been recently described as “terra incognita.”[ix]

However, there is some isolated case evidence that integrating social cohesion programming with disaster preparedness can turn compound risks into compound benefits, producing dividends for both disaster preparedness and peace.[x] Also, while no empirical research confirms this yet, theoretical attempts have been made to adapt the Sendai Framework for DRR, the UN’s primary framework and that of many governments, for conflict prevention.[xi]

Looking ahead

First, comparative research needs to answer some pressing questions: How are we to manage socio-natural systems so that they are more resilient to the compounded risks of disaster, conflict, and economic shocks? What kind of DDR practice is necessary in FCAS? Can we mobilize DRR to contribute to peacebuilding, and vice versa? Many of these questions are already being answered through environmental peacebuilding publications, but a robust transdisciplinary applied research agenda is needed. 

In policy terms, DDR must be central to the triple nexus—Humanitarian, Development, and Peacebuilding—discussions, venues, and frameworks. A very promising avenue for the integration of DRR within the triple nexus is preparedness,[xii] where DRR is particularly strong in frameworks and practice. On the whole, however, in order to prepare for and mitigate the looming impacts of climate change, we need to develop systemic compounded risk frameworks and response mechanisms that allow us to understand and address vulnerabilities of social and natural systems across DRR, peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian interventions. 

Footnotes

[i] Peters, K. (2016) When Disasters and Conflicts Collide, Overseas Development Institute: London. (https://odi.org/en/about/features/when-disasters-and-conflict-collide/)

[ii] USAID (2018) The Intersection of Global Fragility and Climate Risks. US Agency for International Development: Washington D.C. (https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PA00TBFH.pdf)

[iii] Peters, K., Dupar, M., Opiz-Stapelton, S., Lovell, E. and Cao, Y. (2020) Climate Change, Conflict, and Fragility: An Evidence Review, Overseas Development Institute: London (https://odi.org/en/publications/climate-change-conflict-and-fragility-an-evidence-review-and-recommendations-for-research-and-action/)

[iv] Peters, K., Holloway, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2019) Disaster risk reduction in conflict contexts: the state of the evidence. Overseas Development

Institute: London

[v] USAID (2018) The Intersection of Global Fragility and Climate Risks. US Agency for International Development: Washington D.C. (https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PA00TBFH.pdf)

[vi] Disaster Diplomacy (2009) Disaster Diplomacy. Oslo. (http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org/)

[vii] Gaillard, J.C., Clavé, E. and Kelman, I. (2008) ‘Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster diplomacy in Aceh, Indonesia’, Geoforum 39(1): 511–26.

[viii] UNDRR (2019) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Geneva: United Nations.

[ix] Peters, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2021) ‘Terra incognita: the contribution of disaster risk reduction in unpacking the sustainability–peace nexus’, Sustain Sci 16: 1173–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00944-9

[x] Peters, K., Holloway, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2019) Disaster risk reduction in conflict contexts: the state of the evidence. Overseas Development

[xi] Peters, K., Peters, L.E.R and Walch C. (2017) The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction as a vehicle for conflict prevention: attainable or tenuous? (https://www.preventionweb.net/files/66303_f341petersetaldeliveringdisasterris.pdf)

[xii] Peters, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2021) ‘Terra incognita: the contribution of disaster risk reduction in unpacking the sustainability–peace nexus’, Sustain Sci 16: 1173–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00944-9