What Do We Expect from International Platform for Recovery?

And what do we expect from this International Platform for Recovery (IPR)? In order to put the expectations from the IPR in perspective with grassroot reality, let us draw from the recent post-tsunami monitoring missions by the UK based Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) and the long term recovery studies by the ProVention Consortium. DEC, which is going through one of the most significant institutional changes in the humanitarian sector by extending relief into recovery and risk reduction activities, in its mission covered the work of the most significant 11 international NGOs reaching out to an estimated 1.2 million victims. The DEC report brings in reality of recovery from tsunami in our expectations. Findings from the ProVention Consortium studies included the central role of local democratic institutions; gender; and livelihoods in making recovery sustainable. These three shape our expectations from IPR.

Adding a hands-on, practical dimension to further build this perspective that shapes our expectations are lessons from the Jeevika project supported by IFAD after the Gujarat earthquake in 2001, where a recovery project with sole focus on livelihood exclusively reaches out to 40,000 poor women over seven years. DMI has first hand experience of promoting risk reduction—identification, pooling and transfer—in this innovative recovery project.

The three dimensions—humanitarian, financial and operational—build our perspective to articulate our expectations from IPR. The focus is on the recovery efforts of the poor through market forces; government institutions; and civil society initiatives. Presented here is a summary of the expectations discussed under the three sessions of - advocacy and knowledge, capacity building and operational aspects of recovery.

1. Advocacy and knowledge: The first session on Advocacy and Knowledge identified, captured and discussed lessons; presented new initiatives; pin-pointed difficulties in disseminating learning; and anticipating challenges of moving ahead from articulating advocacy issues to actually influencing policies. Limits of networking, ambitious planning, repeated thematic events and closed circle of resource pools for recovery were also discussed. From these vibrant discussions emerged a long list of expectation. However only three key expectations have been highlighted here.

• Match recovery messages with investments in recovery. Messages for focus on recovery and risk reduction are now coming from many sides – across countries, disciplines, institutions and interests – but are hardly yet matched with suitable scale and duration of investments by NGOs, bilateral, multi-lateral and international financial institutions. Expectations from IPR is therefore to improve and support the case for investments in recovery, point out with its own work and work of others, the value of such investments without which messages have no meaning.

• Address questions of victims choices. IPR needs to address questions such as what choices - social, political, economic-victims make to access markets, governments and civil societies; what informs these choices; what impact it has on recovery; and how these choices satisfy victims?

• Push from publication to applications. IPR needs to make a special effort to ensure that publications are used in HQs and in the field, in institutions and by individuals in public and private plans. Applying a good idea in itself is a step towards advocacy and worth of any idea is in its application.

2. Capacity building: The discussions set off by a consultative document by ILO threw light on the nature of the current trainings, which were geared towards response and relief, having gaps in terms of material and trainers, and were uneven across sectors, regions, and institutions. Questions such as, whose capacity is being built and who is buildings it? When do we build local capacity and when do we build on local capacity? How to measure the impact of such capacity building activities over years of recovery, were raised during the sessions. 

• Build on Local Level Capacity for Recovery. Changes take place at field level. Impacts of good policies are seen at field level. Initially outside-in capacity building may be useful. But who should built this capacity? How to identify local capacity for recovery? Are accesses to markets central to such efforts? And how does one turn local capacity building activity into long term preparedness activity also? 

• Build Capacity to Integrate Risk Mitigation in Recovery. Recovery can not be left exposed to any disaster hazards, same or new. Recovery must be safer and must be protected. For this, risk reduction must be included into recovery plans and performance. But how to do so? Who does it? How do we know that risk reduction is integrated into recovery? IPR has a lead role here. 

• Let Women Lead Recovery. Women do take the longest route to recovery. They stay on and pay for slow recovery; suffer distorted recovery; and when given a chance can accelerate recovery. Why not make role of women central in all recovery efforts? IPR can initiate such a campaign, we expect.

3. Operational aspects: The most important aspect discussed in this session facilitated by UNDP, was finding ways to finance catastrophic losses suffered by communities. Discussion revolved around finding ways to enhance the quality of recovery; tools for developing standards for recovery; and mechanisms to make sustainability central to recovery. Operational tools and guidelines were demanded. 

• Make Decent Livelihood Operational from Relief and Recovery. Victims want work, not dole. Victims recover faster with work. Relief becomes more effective when victims work. Direct, concrete and one-to-one investments to making livelihoods work for victims in recovery are demanded. For this need assessment tools, benchmarking guidelines, institutional and project level indicators can be developed by IPR. 

• Develop Tools for Processes and Management of Recovery. Going beyond livelihoods, we need tools—for economic recovery, health and education recovery, for basic services and community infrastructure recovery—that are effective, low-cost and participatory. Many of these tools exist at community and project level. How to make them easily available? In real time? Simultaneously to many? We expect IPR to set up groups to work on there. 

• Develop Tools for Simultaneous Sectoral and Institutional Coordination. This is a new area, in many but not all ways. We need institutional tools that can make this framework of sectors and institutions work at local, operational, level over time and across communities. IPR must partner with local to global key agencies to develop such institutional tools.

Let us not forget, that communities are financing recovery with their own efforts and resources. In many places it is the governments that promote recovery. Thus, role of the outside agency is secondary to the communities and the governments. Dedicated resources make this role important. The challenge is in making this role serve recovery process. We must expect that IPR supports and not replaces this primary role of the communities in sustainable recovery.

Presented at the concluding session of the International Seminar on Recovery, held on 11-13 May 2005 in Hyogo, Japan. 

Mihir Bhatt is Honorary Director, All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, India. He can be contacted at dmi@icenet.co.in