Effective CBDRM builds on different bodies of knowledge

5. Effective CBDRM builds on different bodies of knowledge

This key-strategy refers to the importance of combining scientific knowledge with local knowledge and DRM-practitioners knowledge. Many examples exists about how these different bodies of

26 See Christian Aid, CAFOD, Trocaire (2007) Monitoring Government Policies: A Toolkit for Civil Organisations in Africa. This is a practical tool to help local organisations plan how they can monitor different government policies and implementation.

knowledge complement each other, especially when designing early warning systems that link local forewarning signs with scientific indicators facilitated by NGOs and governments. However, the use of local knowledge requires precaution and further examination since it is differentiated, partial and at times conflictive to NGOs and government’s pre vailing viewpoints. The question here is not about whose knowledge is correct or incorrect, but how to recognize the social interests and meaning attached to a particular body of knowledge, and how to make sense and reconcile them.

The appreciation of local knowledge in CBDRR stems from the realization in the mid-1990s that techno cratic and scientific approaches alone cannot reduce losses (IDNDR, 1994). CBDRM handbooks assume that the use of local knowledge will improve disaster risk reduction policies and practice (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004; UNISDR, 2008; Haverkort et al, 2011). Research and evaluation reports on humanitarian assistance regularly conclude however, that aid practice is often based on simplified realities and little on local knowledge and situational analysis (Buchanan-Smith and Fabbri, 2005; Cosgrave, 2007). This refers to the discrepancy between policy and practice, and that it is apparently difficult to grasp people’s local knowledge and risk perspectives. But what is local knowledge actually?

The UNISDR distinguishes local knowledge from other types of knowledge in that it originates from the community, that it is disseminated through informal means, it is collectively owned, subject to adapta tion, and embedded in a community’s way of life as a means of survival. Most common examples of the use of local knowledge are indigenous warning signals for impending danger and building tech niques to with stand typhoons, floods and earthquakes. Local knowledge and practice further refer to mutual help systems like bayanihan in the Philippines, gotong royong in Indonesia to mobilize community labour, to specific values and rituals to create harmony or to justify defence in conflict situations, to routines to dismantle and hide assets, or to farm in groups as a form of protection against violence.

However, research into what constitutes local knowledge revealed that local and indigenous knowledge shouldn’t be romanticized, since it is often partial and has its limitations (Heijmans, 2012; Hilhorst, 2004). Local knowledge can be viewed in three ways:

n The first one is the instrumental view that sees ‘local knowledge as a barrel of knowledge’ that can be tapped for reducing risks. This instrumental view reso nates with the definition of UNISDR.

n The second view positions ‘local knowledge in contrast to modernization’, assum ing that local knowledge blends nature with culture and that it can inspire re sistance to western, colonial or outsiders’ ideas. The revival of ‘adat’ (custom, tradi tion) in post-Suharto Indonesia fits in this view. ‘Adat’ is associated with his tory, land and law, with order and consensus. Here, revival of adat has, among others, the strategic purpose to oppose land appropriation by the state for mining, timber, plantations, and transmigration (Henley and Davidson, 2008). In this view, local knowledge is used to oppose government and private sector’s intentions and plans.

n The third view closely relates to the second view: local knowledge as a source of political- economic empowerment of local people, instrumental to mobilize people. It stresses participatory societal change aimed to address the root causes of people’s vulnerability. This view is linked to the strategy of mobilizing social action (point 5).

Further, local knowledge is never purely local. People construct their knowledge through interaction with their neighbours, through social networks, from what they hear on the radio or in the market, Further, local knowledge is never purely local. People construct their knowledge through interaction with their neighbours, through social networks, from what they hear on the radio or in the market,

Discussions between communities and scientists can improve e.g. early warning systems, but also in the context of climate change adaptation, partnerships between scientists, local government, NGOs and vulnerable communities are vital. All bring their specific bodies of knowledge to the discussion table to find risk solutions that are appropriate for vulnerable communities and enhance the institutional capa city to innovate DRR practice (Christian Aid, 2011). Understanding local knowledge is time-consuming, but when unraveled it generates valuable insights for appropriate and sustainable CBDRM interventions.

6. Effective CBDRM is linked to, seeks cooperation with, and involves different actors, including government departments towards establishing formal GO-CSO DRR Coordination Bodies

The root causes of people’s vulnerability to disasters can often be found in national and global political, social and economic structures and trends: weak planning and building codes, inadequate policies governing civil protection and disaster response, inadequate policies on greenhouse gas reduction and climate change, a lack of national welfare system or safety nets, indebtedness and aid dependency (Moss, 2007; Blaikie et al, 1994). Disasters can therefore be understood as the product of a cumulative set of changing institutional arrangements and policy decisions over a long period of time (Olson, 2000; Christoplos et al, 2001; Pelling and Dill, 2009). To reverse these institutional arrangements and decisions, much more is required than community-based work to ensure that people’s lives and livelihoods are resilient to disaster. The change process requires a supportive political and legislative environment in which good initiatives can thrive, be sustained and be multiplied.

Actually all DRM actors nowadays acknowledge that a multi-sector, multi-actor and multi-level approach is a prerequisite but they differ in views on how multi-stakeholders should engage. The UN Hyogo Frame work for Action promotes CBDRM that engages with multi-stakeholder platforms as a way to enhance public participation and institutional reform in DRM. Multi-stakeholder platforms suppose a harmonious interaction be tween the government and civil-society actors: the government shapes poli cies and institutional frameworks, while civil-society actors play a complementary role in sup porting vulnerable communities. This approach, however, raises questions about mutual trust, the nature of participation of grassroots people, about representation and power dynamics (Warner, et al, 2002). Multi-stakeholder platforms are best regarded as political arenas where government and civil society debate, negotiate, resist and decide on DRM policies and practices. Instead of viewing CBDRM as a project, it is essential to regard (CB)DRM as a long-term process with results at local, district, provincial and national level objectives.

In the various countries in Southeast Asia, multi-stakeholder platforms differ in status and effectiveness. In Vietnam, government-civil society interaction happens mainly at the local level, while in the Philip pines, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils exist from national to In the various countries in Southeast Asia, multi-stakeholder platforms differ in status and effectiveness. In Vietnam, government-civil society interaction happens mainly at the local level, while in the Philip pines, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils exist from national to