|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 4, 2011 11:07:01 GMT
Should Sanitation in Disaster Relief be linked to long term development?
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 6, 2011 0:10:44 GMT
Disaster relief employs short term solutions which aim to prevent loss of human life and encourage local recovery. However, it has been criticised as a “quick fix” approach, aimed solely at emergency response and failing to acknowledge longer term needs. Alternatively, development involves creating resilient communities by implementing sustainable long term technologies which can reduce poverty and improve quality of life. Both approaches are focussed on the welfare of the community, but the link between the two is often weak and sometimes non-existent, giving rise to waste of resources, loss of valuable man power and opportunities for growth.
Can we do something about this? Can we create a sanitation technology that will be simple and efficient enough to be applied in an emergency setting; effective enough to be developed into infrastructure and community friendly enough to be implemented and/or adapted in any region?
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 7, 2011 9:36:57 GMT
Disaster relief = Supply
Development = Demand
Two different approaches, two different types of people.
Do they have anything in common?
|
|
|
|
Post by felipe on Jul 7, 2011 19:38:33 GMT
I do think that sanitation in disaster relief should be linked to development, however caution should be taken when approaching this matter as it involves the participation of numerous stakeholders, and making sure all these are satisfied can be quite difficult! Integration between different social-economical factors and different available forms of technology is vital for an optimal outcome of tackling this "missing link"
|
|
hui
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by hui on Jul 9, 2011 10:55:50 GMT
Why are the people who require disaster relief different from those who would like economic development? Aren't these the same people who make their lives in the area affected by the disaster? If so, its just two stages of the same thing. Firstly they want to secure their lives, then they want to make it better.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 12, 2011 9:30:15 GMT
The people who require disaster relief are not different from those for the long term, however, the people who provide the help in both scenarios are.
So the challenge is whether we can get them to agree on a plan to provide something that connects one with the other. The challenge is whether we can design/create that "something" that enables the connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 12, 2011 9:35:04 GMT
When disaster occurs lot of people/NGOs arrive to help, but how many of those people are thinking about long term?
|
|
|
|
Post by claudia on Jul 14, 2011 10:01:11 GMT
If as they say crisis = opportunity, I wonder how many people/teams/organisations focus on humanitarian opportunity and how many on economic opportunity?
|
|
yin
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by yin on Jul 14, 2011 19:06:56 GMT
Well it's difficult but I think the key lies in the exit strategies of NGO's.
The people may be the same in development and relief, but the needs are very different to accomplish either. In relief there is a need to secure the lives of the people, and there is a need to supply food, shelter and sanitation. This "supply" can often create a dependence, but is a necessity.
In development the aim is to enable the local community, allow them to provide for themselves sustainably. This requires time and proper stakeholder engagement to understand specific community needs.
So if the two are to be linked then we need to consider that relief is immediate and more important for the short term. But can the applications used for relief be in a way that would not hinder development.
For example in the case of Haiti the relief effort in sanitation didn't work so well and created a cholera outbreak. This hinders long term development. Or cases where sanitation in relief has been badly thought out and ended up contaminating groundwater sources.
If NGO's had clear entry and exit strategies that had long term development in mind, then it may allow better room for development to take place. I think this is probably the case of the Sichuan earthquake, since the Chinese government were co-ordinating the relief efforts they could have long term development high on their priority.
|
|
