Chapter 1: Introduction

From the community level up to the global scale, we are in desperate need of effective and sustainable approaches to managing the complex socio-ecological crises that face the world today. Extreme weather conditions are becoming more frequent, natural resources are dwindling, environmental buffers are degrading, pressures from escalating population growth are increasing, and competition for resources intensifies. Humanitarian challenges such as poverty and conflict over land and water rights deepen, and war continues to threaten the lives of millions and frustrate efforts for sustainable development. All the while, the globalised relationships between humans grow ever more complex, and the global drivers of these urgent and complex global problems become increasingly interrelated and deep-rooted (for example, ISDR, 2005, Folke and Rockstrom, 2008). While significant gains have been made in some areas, genuine solutions are still alarmingly rare. Professional or disciplinary boundaries encourage partial or fractured solutions; at worse, exacerbate existing problems (e.g. Connor, 2004, Newell et al., 2005). Specialist or expert knowledge tends to be prioritised over a plurality of perspectives (Brown, 2008); divisions between researchers and practioners continue. Fights over territory and power play out within and between academic disciplines, humanitarian organisations, corporations, government sectors and nations; genuine partnerships are rare. Globally it is recognised that these mainstream business-as-usual approaches are manifestly inadequate to address escalating environmental and humanitarian crises (e.g. Funtowitz and Ravetz, 1993, Newell et al., 2005, Brown 2007).

At the same time, increasing evidence is building up in terms of the range of approaches that do work: moving beyond modes of operation aimed at short-term gain to approaches based around longer-term concepts of resilience and sustainability, working from a systemic and holistic perspective, addressing whole-of-society problems with whole-of-society solutions, drawing from multiple sources of knowledge and resources including community, specialist, government and industry, and working collaboratively. A multitude of frameworks, theories, processes and modes of operation have been proposed and applied in this vein, from sustainable development to complex systems thinking to triple bottom line accounting. Globally, it is clear what genre of action is necessary.

This thesis examines rapid-onset natural disasters as an example of a complex socio-ecological problem, and international humanitarian disaster response as an example of a global mechanism to deal with the incredibly complex and challenging situations that arise in the wake of natural disasters. This approach is consistent with the global shift towards viewing natural disasters as phenomenon that unfold in the arena of interconnected environmental and human systems (Handmer and Dovers, 2007: xv). It recognises that disasters are contingent upon the vulnerability and capacity of communities, their ecological relationship with their local environment, as well as national and international factors. The term ‘natural disaster’ is thus used in this thesis “as shorthand for humanitarian disaster with a natural trigger” (Pelling, 2003: 4).

The aim of this research is to bring a range of theoretical frameworks and academic insights to bear on a practical problem; to deconstruct an example of effective intervention and make grounded recommendations to achieving systemic, integrative and collaborative action for transformative change. As a pathway into generating broad-based insights into practical problems, this thesis takes “public policy and human institutions as the primary means whereby societies frame common problems and generate responses to those problems” (Handmer and Dovers, 2007: xv). This thesis is therefore characterised by a discussion of the processes, policies and institutions that define the humanitarian space within which disaster response occurs.

Disasters are extremely complex and difficult policy problems. They are distinguished by a unique combination of key attributes including high stakes, pervasive risk and uncertainty, moral dimensions and multiple values, multiple and interrelated causes (both human and natural), varying temporal and spatial scales that do not often fit well with political and administrative boundaries, and poorly defined policy rights and responsibilities (Handmer and Dovers, 2007: 43-45). Large-scale disasters therefore fall outside of the normal situations that standard institutions and policy processes are designed to address, and a great challenge of institutions from national governments down to community groups is to improve the “poor fit between ‘policy as usual’ and ‘emergencies as exceptions’” (Handmer and Dovers, 2007: 29). Recognising that effective disaster management is a cornerstone of global sustainability and poverty eradication (ISDR, 2005a), international efforts have focused on incorporating strategies for disaster risk reduction (DRR), disaster preparedness and the development of resilient communities into mainstream governance. This has produced key international policy documents such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 - 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (IDSR, 2005b) and established the inter-agency International Strategy for Disaster Reduction after the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. These international policy directives have influenced the development of DRR strategies at both national and local levels, and the concepts of DRR and resilience are now widespread throughout the humanitarian aid industry.

However, while it is critical for the root causes of vulnerability to be addressed as part of long-term efforts to curb the impact of disasters, and despite significant global efforts towards DRR, there is nevertheless a persisting need for effective humanitarian responses to disasters. Over 200 million people have been affected by disasters every year over the past two decades, and the impact of disasters continues to increase (ISDR, 2005b: 1), destroying property and taking human lives, undermining development, destabilising societies, and creating the humanitarian need for effective disaster response.

This thesis focuses on disaster response as a necessary component in disaster management, within the long-term global agenda of improved DRR and resilience. While the impact of disasters can be devastating at any scale, this thesis looks at the disasters in the global context, with a focus on international humanitarian response. The humanitarian sector in general - aid agencies, both local (LNGO) and international (INGO) - is an important subject of analysis, but not for being the solution or the saviours in disaster response: although the humanitarian sector can mobilise significant resources, it is important to recognise that recovery starts from within disaster-affected communities, and that the state has the primary responsibility to assist in bridging the gap between recovery and community capacity to cope (The Sphere Project, 2004: 18). Instead, the humanitarian sector is significant because it is the only constant stakeholder in the disaster landscape; it is always ready to be mobilised in response to a mass-scale disaster. In other words, the humanitarian sector can be considered as a multi-faceted, disparate global institution charged with the responsibility of devising effective responses to disasters - which thus has the grace to prepare and improve the quality of that response. This thesis therefore focuses on the international community of disaster responders for whom emergencies are a job, not an exception.

International disaster response is also a valuable topic of research as it embodies explicitly collaborative problem-solving. In the Sphere Project’s international manual for humanitarian workers, the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, one of the 8 standards common to all sectors is to actively involve the disaster-affected population in all aspects of assistance (The Sphere Project, 2004: 29). The Cluster system that structures international disaster response (discussed further in Chapter 3) is explicitly designed to improve the coordination and collaboration between humanitarian actors (IASC, 2006). Lead agencies within a Cluster have responsibilities including “inclusion of key humanitarian partners, establishment and maintenance of appropriate humanitarian coordination mechanisms, coordination with national/local authorities, state institutions, local civil society and other relevant actors, [and] participatory and community-based approaches” (IASC, 2006: 7). How policy objectives like these plays out in practice, how they are incorporated on arrival into an already complex local environment can provide insights into the challenges of implementing effective collaborative processes.

International disaster response is generally carried out by aid agencies with a clear humanitarian mandate. Within this humanitarian context, there are specialist disciplines to address different aspects of disaster response, including shelter, health, water and sanitation, livelihoods, and information management. Consideration of the environment is a cross-cutting issue to be integrated into each sector (HRSU, 2008). It is increasingly recognised amongst lead humanitarian agencies that environmental issues are fundamental to effective humanitarian response (Hampson et al., 2008: 10). Firstly, the environment is often a major causal factor in humanitarian disasters, and the human-environment linkages must be understood in order to provide effective aid (Kelly, 2004: 1). Furthermore, disasters can cause massive disruption to existing ecological relationships, and re-establishing these is often a critical factor in returning communities to normality. In addition, international disaster response entails a tremendous amount of resources, and well-meaning recovery efforts can unintentionally jeopardise the local environment.

However, in a high-pressure emergency when human lives are at stake, and humanitarian resources are limited and frequently inadequate, environmental considerations tend to come in much lower in the list of priorities (Hampson et al., 2008: 13). It would be unacceptable for many humanitarian workers to spend time contemplating long-term environmental implications if it compromised their ability to save human lives in the short-term. Indeed, prioritising ‘live-saving needs’ is written into the international Sphere standards on disaster response (The Sphere Project, 2004: 34). Thus despite acceptance that environment issues need to be considered in disasters, and despite a number of existing environmental assessment tools, the environmental impact of disaster response is rarely the subject of serious consideration in practice (Kelly, 2008b). In fact, as I will elaborate in chapter 4, environmental issues receive tokenistic treatment by the humanitarian community in both arenas of policy and practice. With few sincere exceptions, the humanitarian perspective on incorporating environmental issues into disaster work is that they are secondary to the primary goal of providing humanitarian aid. The common view from the field is that in the time-scarce environment of disaster response, environmental considerations actually impede the successful and timely provision of aid, and thus are in conflict with core humanitarian objectives.

But as an enduring global institution providing essential emergency services to millions of people each year, and as an industry that will continue to grow, humanitarian disaster response can no longer be exempted from environmental scrutiny. Nor should it be viewed as an activity conducted outside of the global sustainability agenda. The segregation of environmental issues from humanitarian work is fundamentally inconsistent with the globally accepted understanding of sustainability. I argue in this thesis that the humanitarian industry is based on a long-outdated conceptualisation of the human relationship with the environment. Environmental objectives should not be viewed as competing with humanitarian objectives. The inability to incorporate sustainability into humanitarian policy and practice not only has the potential to impact negatively on the environment, but as discussed further in chapter 5, will result in a far less effective disaster response.

This issue is not well-represented in the humanitarian literature, which pays lip service to the concept of sustainability and environmental issues and does not accurately reflect realities in the field (see chapter 4). Furthermore, as is clear from the extensive humanitarian literature on environmental concerns, the abstract concept of sustainability is of no use if such it is only incorporated into the periphery of disaster management, and not across humanitarian response as a whole. Thus this thesis is not focused on the work of dedicated environmental NGOs in disasters, or at analytic tools that function as add-ons to existing processes. It looks at what can assist in incorporating sustainability into the everyday practices of field workers in mainstream aid agencies with humanitarian mandates.

As research that has been conducted outside of the humanitarian industry, and that is not wedded to a particular disciplinary perspective, this thesis takes a different approach to other work on this topic. Research within the humanitarian community such as reports and commissioned research tends to be produced within the logic of the humanitarian industry. In comparison, this thesis analyses the logic of the humanitarian industry within the broader context of disaster response. However, it also remains focused on the chaotic reality in the field. It recognises that although the humanitarian enterprise is an international endeavour, influenced and constrained by factors at multiple levels, disaster response is ultimately carried out by disaster workers in the field, engaged with communities at a local level.

Thus my entry into critical reflections on the topic was through discussions with a community of passionate, opinionated, frank and highly analytical disaster workers, who were often known in the field for speaking their minds. However, like Layder (1998), whose methodological approach guided my exploration of this topic, I believe that problem-oriented approaches to research can greatly benefit “by taking on more explicitly theoretical objectives” to “enhance the explanatory power of such research” (1998: 12). Furthermore, I recognise that disaster workers tend to have minimal access to academic literature, and little time to reflect formally on their experiences. Thus my research aim has been to contribute an academically rigorous insight into the critical observations on sustainability in disaster response that were shared with me.

My theoretical approach to this topic is in accordance with the view that disaster response is a complex whole-of-society problem that is best addressed through an integrative, systemic approach. I consider the human and environmental aspects of sustainability to be interlinked. I frame my analysis with systems theory and resilience thinking, which also connects my analysis of disaster response with wider international efforts towards DRR. I also draw on concepts of ‘universals’ and globalisation to discuss the philosophical foundation of humanitarianism. In agreement with Handmer and Dovers, I have focused less on a detailed case study, and more on “broader lessons - both cautionary and positive … in order to inform policy and institutional responses” (2007: xvi). The literature is indeed “replete with detailed retrospectives of specific disaster events and the way in which they have been impressively or poorly conceived and handled” (Handmer and Dovers, 2007: xvi). Documents that offer how-to guidelines or checklists for assessing sustainability are also common. In contrast, this thesis interrogates the conceptual grounds on which sustainability is understood and dealt with in disaster response.

To illustrate some of the theoretical conclusions, I will briefly present a case study of disaster response that was widely seen as a highly successful example of sustainable practice: the humanitarian response to the Joygakarta earthquake in May 2006. The contrast between the humanitarian sector’s formalised efforts towards sustainability, the lack of interest in practice, and how that manifests in two examples of disaster response creates a dialogue that is at the heart of these conclusions.

This introductory chapter has presented the research objective of examining how to achieve sustainable disaster response in the field. Chapter 2 presents the methodological approach and research methods. Chapter 3 unravels some of the complexities of disaster response through discussing a ’soft system’ diagram generated through the fieldwork. It further considers the philosophical foundation underpinning the humanitarian narrative. Chapter 4 examines the alternate narrative of sustainability and environmental issues in policy and practice. Chapter 5 presents resilience thinking as a integrative framework for conceptualising sustainability in disaster response and re-interpreting the humanitarian principle. Chapter 6 summaries the thesis and suggests avenues for further research.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Return to the thesis homepage.