DRR - Inclusion key to resilience

CBM has been working strategically towards the Sendai conference – advocating to ensure the outcome is disability-inclusive – since 2012. We have been doing this independently and with partners as part of the Disability-inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Network (DiDRRN) and the ‘disability caucus’.
In 2009 we already implementing specific DRR projects and it’s also worth remembering that all emergency response work, if done inclusively, can contribute positively to DRR. With this in mind we can see that previous disaster response work will have helped improve resilience at the local level.

Natural events, which may lead to disaster can, in principle, strike anywhere at any time. But having said that, there are regions which, because of geographical location, socio-economic factors and climate change, are more regularly and more seriously affected. These include Southeast Asia (the Philippines is annually struck by tropical storms) and Africa (people in parts of the Sahel are often affected by food insecurity).

It is well-recognised that persons with disabilities are among the most disproportionately affected by disasters. CBM works to ensure that all our preparedness and response efforts are inclusive. But it is less well-understood that very often the best way to ensure an inclusive response is to have persons with disabilities actively involved in the work. Many of our partners are Disabled Person’s Organisations (DPOs), so will know first-hand what is needed in their local context and will have the networks and contacts to make our inclusive response more efficient.

As well as the points just mentioned, it is worth remembering that (according to the WHO) 15% of the world’s population live with disability. This is a huge proportion of any community, so quite simply no DRR efforts will be comprehensive without being disability-inclusive.

People with disabilities may have specific requirements: they may have lost mobility or other assistive devices (wheelchair, crutches, hearing aids) during the disaster and may need access to specific medicines. People who have lost their homes may have been relocated to temporarily shelter, which might not be accessible (think bathroom facilities, for example). There are many other potential barriers - communication for people who are deaf, navigating in a new environment for blind people, etc.
As well as these ‘specific needs’, it is essential to ensure that all the ‘mainstream’ support being provided by the major humanitarian organisations is made accessible to persons with disabilities – for example relief distributions, health services....

Yes. Only this week I was involved in a video compilation from Bangladesh, where the main subject (a wheelchair user) tells us his raised house provided safe shelter from flooding for six families last year.

Yes. A highlight of my visit to post-Haiyan reconstruction last year was seeing the enthusiasm and positive effect of one of our partners there (a DPO), which was developing community 'focal points’ to link persons with disabilities to the services they need.

This varies from situation to situation, but setting up good-practice examples like the focal points I just mentioned is one great way of persuading authorities. In fact, the Philippines focal points have been continued after our emergency response, and are now being run with positive involvement from the Local Government Units (LGUs). Creating a disability-inclusive post-2015 framework (which we hope will be the outcome of the Sendai conference) will provide countries with the guide and info they need to work inclusively in DRR.

CBM is working with peer organisations as part of the ‘disability caucus’ and the DiDRR network, advocating together – with one voice – to make sure that national and international policies and strategies (the post-2015 framework is the best example) are disability-inclusive.
CBM also works with more than 600 partners worldwide in our development projects. In principle, any of these organisations could be affected by disaster, so could become involved in an emergency response with us that would subsequently increase DRR capacities.
In fact, in the most recent developments of our Global Programme Strategy, DRR is now a ‘cross-cutting theme’, so will be considered at the setting-up stage of all projects.

Regions of Bangladesh are regularly affected by flooding. CBM has been supporting a partner of ours (CDD) as they advise a Bangladesh-based mainstream organisation on making their DRR work inclusive. This is the project I quote above where I speak of raised housing. They also ensured people with disabilities are actively involved in disaster management committee meetings and flood drills, etc.

As mentioned earlier, we do not only ensure that the end results of our efforts are inclusive, but we often work directly with Disabled Person’s Organisations (DPO) in programme work and support participation of persons with disabilities in national and international advocacy, so actively involving persons with disabilities in our work at all levels.

This conference in Japan has the specific objective to endorse the new framework, following on from the 2005 Hyogo framework, so it appears to be only every 10 years. However, every second year there is a global platform in Geneva to exchange on DRR practice and provide updates on implementation of the framework, and there are regional platforms in between. Therefore the topic is being continually addressed.

CBM, with our advocacy partners, has been working hard over the last three years to bring attention to the fact that disability inclusion was missing from the 2005-2015 framework. We are happy to see that the current draft recognizes that persons with disabilities are disproportionately affected and must be actively involved in all levels of DRR work. Specifically we also fully endorse references to accessibility and Universal Design (whether this is in communications, reconstructions, etc), and the need for data that is disaggregated (meaning ‘gathered and organised’) by disability as well as by gender, age, etc.

We are part of the ‘disability caucus’, which has been recognized along with the other ‘major groups’ (see http://www.wcdrr.org/majorgroups/other). This has given us more strength in negotiations up to now and will do at the conference itself.

During the conference, as well as reporting, we will participate in a working session and many side-events on disability, sometimes facilitating and speaking. For example we (Valerie Scherrer and/or Gordon Rattray) will be part of a panel during a UN DESA Public Forum entitled ‘Taking Action towards a Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (DIDRR)Framework (HFA2) and its Implementation’, and will moderate a side-event organized by DiDRRN.

Very importantly, looking ahead, we will be working to ensure that governments commit to the implementation of the framework and pushing for development of inclusive monitoring tools and indicators.

The organizers are committed to making the conference accessible, and we very much hope it will be. I expect there will be shortcomings here but we must recognize that UNISDR have made great efforts on this front and it should be seen as an example to follow for other global conferences in the future. Only with full inclusion can the goals be achieved.