CORRESPONDENCE

Dear Editors,

The correspondence from Frerks et al., ‘A Disaster Continuum?’, is a welcome presen- tation of issues about the relationship between disaster assistance and development. The chal- lenge of managing disaster assistance and, at the same time, ensuring development continues, is real. Addressing this challenge requires a clear understanding of relief-deve- lopment linkages. When disaster ’relief’ continues for months or years, the immediate, life-saving, justification for relief is perverted and destructive to participative development.

This letter provides several comments on the material presented by Frerks et al. in an effort to further discussion on the points they raise. Given the condensed nature of their correspondence, this letter is not a critique, rather an expansion on some of the points they raise.

Frerks et al. suggest that the concept of a ’disaster continuum’ is used to permit assist- ance agencies greater access to relief funds to maintain “’market share” of the overall aid budget’ in the face of relief expenditures which are increasing ’at the expense of development aid budgets’ (p. 362). That relief is taking funds from development is not endorsed by all (DHA, p . 7), but is clearly a subject worth further statistical analysis.

In a practical sense, what is lacking is a mechanism for funding post-disaster activities after the (maximum) six-month relief phase and before development funding is available. Approving development funding can require 18 to 24 months, and several more months before a project is operational. Thus, agencies may talk about a ’disaster continuum’ to justify access to funds for post-relief rehabilitation before development funds are available. The alternative is a gap of months or years between the end of relief and the beginning of develop- ment efforts.

As Frerks et al. conclude, there is a need for specific end-points for emergency relief assist- ance, if only because the victims will be getting on with their lives. Recognising that adminis- tratively there is a gap between the end of the

relief phase and the beginning of development assistance, funding is needed to assist disaster victims during the six- to 18-month post- disaster recovery (rehabilitation) period. If rehabilitation funding was formally part of the disaster to development transition, then the corruption of relief aid into long-term assist- ance could be avoided. Of course, the plan- ning, administrative and implementation framework for rehabilitation funds needs to be different from those used for relief or develop- ment funding: tighter than the former, looser than the latter, but integrated at both ends.

In their discussion, the authors point out that intervention costs can exceed relief needs, particularly if the relief phase extends for some time. It is important to recognise that there is also a gap which exists from the time a disaster is identified (via early warning or field reports) and when external assistance is available to victims. This ‘response’ gap (to the left of line R1 in Figure 3, or between R 1 and R2 in Figure 4, p. 365) represents the inadequacies of external agencies dealing with a disaster. The sue of this gap can also highlight the long-term nature of some ’relief’ efforts, particularly where inappropriate assistance is not cancelled for political or financial reasons.

Dealing with the response gap means making disaster assistance more effective through better early warning, planning and preparedness - points raised by the authors. In addition, policy is needed to provide for turning off the relief assistance pipeline, or formally diverting the relief to rehabilitation, when needs have moved beyond the imme- diate relief phase.

It is also important to recognise that relief cannot always be delivered during the actual ‘relief‘ phase due to distance, availability or time factors. Guidelines are needed on what assistance is appropriate under what conditions (and existing guidance needs to be followed more closely). These guidelines should cover the length and nature of the relief, rehabili- tation and reconstruction phases, and place limits on when and how assistance can be provided during these phases. This reinforces the authors’ conclusions on the problem of

DISASTERS VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3 0 Overseas Development Institute

Correspondence 277

providing lengthy relief assistance from a different perspective. It also highlights the need for relief agencies to refuse inappropriate assistance.

Discussion about models and evaluations often turn to terminology. In the case of disaster assistance (as elsewhere), ’Common definition and meanings are frequently elusive’ (DHA, p. 9). ‘Disaster continuum’ appears to have several different meanings and possibly no real meaning at all.

As presented by the authors, the conti- nuum refers to a concept about the shift from disaster relief to development activities used to justify funding. From another point of view:

the continuum between relief and development was usually defined in linear terms. Disasters . . . were perceived as temporary interruptions in an otherwise progressive development process. This view is increasingly being challenged. The idea of a ‘linear’ continuum does not reflect the chronic nature of conflict and vulnerability (DHA, p. 8).

Unfortunately, a new definition is not provided.

It is clear that there is a transition which takes place following a disaster. The affected population goes from emergency response to relief to rehabilitation to a return to normal life (if possible). What should this transition be called and how should it be defined in terms accepted by all? The quote above suggests that the meaning of the ’continuum’ has become unclear; for Frerks et al., ’there is no . . . ”continuum”’ (p. 366).

Fred Cuny suggested that in disaster man- agement there is a continuum of actions cover- ing response (relief), recovery, prevention, mitigation, preparedness and warning (Cuny, 1993). From this point of view, the ’disaster continuum’ relates to actions taken to prevent or respond to disasters. Some of these actions take place in a developmental context (preven- tion, preparedness, early warning), some trans- cend the shift from normal conditions to a disaster situation (warning, mitigation and response) and some focus on the post-disaster period (response and recovery).

The disaster continuum described above occurs within the functioning of society and as a part of the development process. Its relation to the term used to address the funding

problems cited by Frerks et al. appears to be minimal. Has a valid concept been bastardised into a buzz-word to the detriment of effective disaster management?

In the same definitional vein, one wonders why the term ’complex disaster’ has gained such importance recently. Disasters are cer- tainly complex to those who experience them. Most disaster relief is complex. If responding to a disaster is not complex, then the event is probably not really a disaster. Even in ’natural’ disasters, such as earthquakes or hurricanes, the social and economic context of the events, victims’ recovery efforts and external assistance can make for an extremely complex situation.

It seems that the difficulty of providing external assistance in conflict disasters has resulted in these types of disasters gaining the title of ‘complex disasters’. It seems more accurate to refer to these types of disasters as ’conflict disasters’. Assistance providers should avoid giving conflict disasters a name which reflects the problems of the assistance pro- viders, rather than the problems of the disaster victims.

It is hoped that further discussion of the points raised above and in the correspondence from Frerks et al. will improve a conceptual and practical understanding of disaster assistance which promotes development goals and provides appropriate assistance to victims.

Charles Kelly Number 309 7758 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 USA

References Cuny, F.C. (1993) Introduction to Disaster Manage-

ment: Lesson 2: Concepts and Terms in Disaster Management. Pre-hospital and Disaster Medicine 8(1), January-March.

DHA (Department of Humanitarian Affairs) (1995) Introduction. DHA News 14, MaylJune.

Frerks, G.E., T.J. Kliest, S. 1. Kirkby, N.D. Emmel, P. O’Keefe and I . Convery (1995) ‘A Disaster Conti- nuum’, Correspondence. Disasters 19(4), 382-6.

Schneider, S.K. (1995) Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.

DISASTERS VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3