Mainstreaming Disaster Mitigation Challenges to Organisational Learning in NGOs

7/29/2019 Mainstreaming Disaster Mitigation Challenges to Organisational Learning in NGOs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mainstreaming-disaster-mitigation-challenges-to-organisational-learning-in 1/8

Oxfam GB

Mainstreaming Disaster Mitigation: Challenges to Organisational Learning in NGOsAuthor(s): John Twigg and Diane SteinerReviewed work(s):Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 12, No. 3/4 (Aug., 2002), pp. 473-479Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4029516 .Accessed: 01/02/2013 02:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Development in Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 02:09:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ogb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4029516?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4029516?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ogb

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis



Developmentin Practice, Volume12, Numbers3 & 4, August2002

Mainstreamingi s a s t e r mitigation:

challenges t o organisational l e a r n i n g

In NO s

John Twiggand Diane Steiner

Thispaper discusses the implicationsor organisational earning of recentresearchon NGO

activityin naturaldisaster mitigationandpreparedness. t identifiesseveral institutionaland

other barriersto NGO learning.However;personal networks n NGOs are oftenstrong,and

determined and well-placed individuals can push significant innovationsthrough.Greater

emphasison this human actor maybe the keyto mainstreaming isastermitigationand other

new or marginalapproachesto development.

Introduction, research aims, and method

Ourpaper ooks at the implicationsfor organisationalearningof a recentstudyof the natureandextentof NGO activityto protectpeople in the Southagainstso-called 'natural'disasters.'In particular,we discuss whetherthe mechanismsby which NGOs normally earnsupport hepromotion of disaster mitigation and preparedness(DMP) within them. We believe ourfindingswill be useful to those seeking to push othernew or marginal ssues and approachesinto the mainstreamof developmentwork.

There are two main reasons why NGOs should be extensively involved in DMP. First,

disasters riggeredby naturalhazards suchas cyclones, droughts,earthquakes, ndfloods) area major threat o sustainabledevelopment.Between 1971 and 1995 they caused each year, onaverage,over 128,000 deathsand affected 136 millionpeople, and 99 percent of those affectedlived in the South.Between 1991 and 1995 theeconomiccost of suchdisastersworldwidewasUS$439 billion (IFRC 1997). Second, poor and socially disadvantagedpeople, whom NGOssupportthroughtheir development programmes, are usually the most vulnerableto suchdisasters(Blaikie et al. 1994).

Our research aimed to understand he scope and nature of relevant activities, identifygood practices for replication elsewhere, and examine institutional and other factors

influencing the work of NGOs.2An international esearch team collected evidence from asample of organisations:22 internationalrelief and developmentNGOs with headquartersin the UK and 40 NGOs in Bangladesh,Nicaragua, the Philippines,and Zimbabwe. Morethan 200 semi-structurednterviews were carried out with operationalstaff and managers,and hundreds of internaldocuments were collected. The results were written up as fivedetailed reports (Twigg et al. 2000; Matin and Taher2000; Rocha and Christoplos 2000;Luna 2000; Shumba 2000).

ISSN 0961-4524 print/ISSN1364-9213 online 030473-07 C)2002 Oxfam GB 473

CarfaxPublishing DOI: 10.1080/0961450220149807








John Twigg and Diane Steiner

The following discussion is based on evidence gathered from the study of the 22

internationalNGOs with headquarters n the UK (Twigg et al. 2000): four were relief

agencies, nine were development agencies, and nine were involved in both relief and

development.We focus on this study because it examined issues of organisational earning

in more depth than the other four country studies, which put greater emphasis on DMPactivities in the field. However, the discussion also presents importantcomplementaryor

contradictory indings from those studies.

Findings on organisational learning

Overall, the research shows that DMP has not establisheditself in the mainstreamof NGO

work.Thinkingabout disastersandvulnerabilitys beginningto penetrateNGO consciousness

at policy level but this is not being translated o the operational evel, where disasterrisk-

reductionactivity tends to be sporadic,poorly integratedwith development planning, and

largely unsupportedby institutionalstructuresand systems.Analysis of the reasonsfor this shedslight on the mechanisms hatNGOs use to acquireand

apply knowledge. While there are externalbarriers o mainstreamingdisastermitigationin

NGOs, in particular he limited interestamong donors,much of the problemis internaland

relates to differentdimensionsof organisationalearning.We set out the main featuresof this

in the following paragraphs.

Influences on learningat policylevel

Naturaldisasterpreparednessand mitigationare not addressedat policy level in most of theNGOs studied.Onlythreehave a formalpreparedness rmitigationpolicy. However,there are

signs in several NGOs that disasters,vulnerability,and disastermitigationare rising or are

likely to rise in the strategy agenda.It was difficult to assess the influence of intellectual debatesand new concepts on policy

change. We found indications of shifts in attitude,with the old view of disastersas one-offevents being replaced by awarenessthatdevelopment processes can influence the impactofdisasters.This suggests that extensive academic debates on this subject n the 1980s andearly1990s (Blaikie et al. 1994) have found theirway into NGO thinkingin very general terms.

However, the main influence on NGO thinking is recent disastersthemselves, because of

their impacton NGOs' own work and target groups.HurricaneMitch in October 1998 wasparticularly ignificant:its massive impact on CentralAmerica's development-9200 lives

lost and economic losses totalling U$5 billion (MunichRe 1998)-has forced NGOs workingin the regionto reconsider heirapproach o disasterrisk. We were struckby how many NGOstaff spoke of disasters as opportunitiesfor change in thinking and the adoption of newapproaches.Yet this potentialcan be overstated:even in Nicaragua t is not clear that Mitchhas led to much fresh analysis by NGOs of the complex issues involved in vulnerabilityreduction, and discussion of DMP is largely overshadowed by the national debate overdifferentdevelopmentmodels.

We were unable to reach firm conclusions about the influence of internationalNGOpartnershipsand networks on the policies of British NGOs towards DMP, as these varyconsiderably between individual organisations, but recent discussion of the subject inEuropeanNGO networks may be opening up what we term 'policy space' for discussing theissues and providinga mandate to take the work further.The Bangladesh study found that

affiliations with internationalorganisations nvolved in disastershave influenced the policy

positions of some NGOs (althoughoperationalguidelines are far less up to date). One would

474 Development in Practice, Volume 12, Numbers 3 & 4, August 2002








Mainstreamingdisaster mitigation

expect local NGOs to be more sensitive to hazard risk and the need for mitigation and

preparedness,but we found no evidence of SouthernNGOs influencingtheir Britishpartners'

disastermitigationpolicy.

Influences on operational learning: structures and systems

At country and especially project level, we found a lack of hazard risk assessment in

planning, showing that NGOs' systems have failed to incorporate his issue. Awarenessof

risk is, predictably,much higher in sub-SaharanAfrican countries where droughts are

frequentand affect wide areas. Sudden-onsetdisasters in other regions are more likely to

be seen as one-off events.

NGOs' operationalandfunding guidelineshave little to say aboutDMP.Where the subjectdoes feature, t is just as likely to do so in developmentguidelinesas in those for emergencies.In any case, the documentsvary in rangeand depth,and in generalsuch documentstend to

contain imitedpracticalguidanceon planningandimplementingprojects.Thisgives deskand

programme officers considerable leeway in applying guidelines, thereby making them

influentialplayers within NGOs, especially developmentNGOs. They may also have great

influence over the developmentof countryplans, projectapproval,and in some cases choice

of local partners.They could play a majorrole in promotingDMP but they have very heavy

workloadsand aregenerallytoo busy with theirongoing concernsto reflect on or absorbnew

ideas. One of the most significant,andemphatic, indingsof our research s that overworkand

pressuresof work are not minor factors in NGO operationsand performancebut systemicweaknesses.In our view, this is a majorobstacle to the uptakeof new approaches.

Emergency units and advisory teams have grown rapidly in recent years, which ispotentially significant for disaster mitigation because discussion of DMP has traditionallytaken place in the emergencies arena. However, in NGOs working in both relief and

development, institutional and cultural tension between emergency and development

departmentss evident,fuelledby lack of clarityaboutthemandatesof emergencyteams.One

developmentworkerspoke of the 'fear of relief culture' in theirNGO. Whereemergencies

specialistslead debatesabout disastermitigation, his may act as a brakeon the willingnessofother staff to become involved. The researchteam in Bangladesh,where severalNGOs haveset up separate disaster units, also questioned whether this separationis a strength (inpromotingDMP ideas) or a weakness (in marginalising hem).

At programmeandproject evel we did not see signs thatSouthernpartnersare pressing forgreater activity in mitigation-if anything, the limited evidence available suggests thatpartnersneededpushing by the BritishNGOs and aresometimes resistant.The reasons for thisremainunclear,although t is likely thattime and workpressuresplay a part.Even in a countryas hazard-prone s Bangladesh,NGOs' approach o disasters tends to be responsive.

Institutionalmemory, learning and information mechanisms

Several factors hinder NGO leaming about good practice. Project documentation s poor

overall, often difficult to find, and of varying quality.This is significant, since we found thatinternalprojectdocumentationmakes up a significantpart of interviewees' reading.

Monitoringand evaluation of DMP is weak, focusing on performanceof activities, not onprojects' impact in reducing disaster risk. Most of the few projects that attempted o assesstheirimpactdid so at a relatively early stage. NGOs arecomfortablewith indicatorsof output,especially where these are quantitative,but shy away from indicators of impact and seemunsureof how to apply them.

Development in Practice, Volume 12, Numbers 3 & 4, August 2002 475









Evaluationof disastermitigation s problematicbecause of what one NGO workerreferred

to as its 'preventive ogic': the measureof success is thatsomething-the disaster-does not

takeplace. More workis needed to develop appropriatendicators.However,the consequence

of poorevaluation s a lack of evidence thatmitigationcan be effective, makingit muchmore

difficultto persuadeother NGOs anddonorsof the value of investingin mitigationmeasures.Added to this is the problemthat evaluationsarerarelyshared outside the organisations hat

commission them.

We discovereda handfulof strategic nitiatives to trainNGO staff, local partners,andother

NGOs in mitigationandpreparednessheoryandpracticeon a regionalbasis. Suchtraining s

expensive. Thereis some evidence that it has influenced individuals who took partin it, but

there are clearly challenges to 'internalising'trainingat the organisational evel, and more

attention o long-term follow-up is required.We sensed that demand for trainingcoursesand

materials s high, althoughwe noted one NGO's perception hat its partnerswere puttingtoomuch effort into new courses and materialsto the detrimentof local capacity building.

The issue of informationsupply and use is a threadrunning throughthe study. Work

pressuresclearly leave NGO staff very little time for readingandthinking.However,it does

not necessarily follow that they are not well informed:in fact, they draw on a variety of

informationsources, selecting those that best meet the practicalneeds of theirjob.Unsurprisingly,books and academicjournalsdo not have a wide readershipamong NGO

staff, who prefershort case studies and similar materialon lessons learned from experience.The Bangladeshstudy highlightedan additionalproblem n that most materialon disasters s

in English and thereforeparticularlynaccessible at the grassroots evel.

Conferences,seminars and the like are not consideredsignificantsources of information:

interviewees are aware of such events, but rarely attend them (possibly because of thepressuresof work). However, internalworkshopsor lunchtime debates are recognised as avaluable means of communicationand awareness-raising.

Personalcontacts, n the sameNGO or partnerorganisations,are a very important ource ofinformation.Learning romother individuals s often immediate, o the point, and happens nthe course of operationalwork. Some intervieweespointedto key individuals n NGOs whosepersonality, enthusiasm, role, or history within an organisation makes them importantinformationconduits. E-mail plays an important ole in maintainingsuch personal contacts,

especially with partnerorganisationsoverseas.On the other hand, knowledge of what non-partnerNGOs are doing is limited: NGO

workers want to know,but aretoo busy to spend much time finding out. This seems to be incontrastto NGO staff in Bangladesh and the Philippines, who find personal and operationalcontacts with other organisations to be important sources of information (and like theirZimbabweancounterpartseem generallymore keen to attend workshopsand seminars).

Language and its limitations

Like manyotherprofessionalandacademicdisciplines, disasterstudiesand managementhavedevelopedanumberof theoriesand an extensivevocabularyof technical erms.We investigated

how NGO staffunderstood ome of these concepts and terms. In particular,ntervieweeswereasked how they definedtwo key terms:'preparedness'and 'mitigation'.3The replies broughthome to us how important erminology s in the take-upof ideas.

Few of those we spoke to are comfortablewith the terms, especially 'mitigation'. Severalsee such terms as jargon or over-academic,and find them off-putting.Unsurprisingly, eople

working in emergency relief are most likely to use the words, while those working indevelopmentareleast at ease with them.Policy workerstend to be relatively conversantwith

476 Development in Practice, Volume 12, Numbers 3 & 4, August 2002








Mainstreamingdisastermitigation

the terminology,althoughthis does not necessarilymake them any happierto use it. People

working on food security issues have an alternativeset of terms, including 'shock' (for

'disaster') and 'risk/vulnerability eduction'(for 'mitigation').

'Mitigation'and 'preparedness' re understood r wereexplained n avarietyof ways, with a

substantial verlapbetween the two. Many ntervieweespreferredo give examplesof whattheyconsideredto be mitigationand preparedness e.g. 'cyclone shelters', 'crop diversification',

'contingency plans') insteadof definitions.This preference or the concrete over the abstract,

which we foundagainwhen we askedthe interviewees what sources andtypes of information

theyusedin theirwork,has significant mplications or thepromotionof new approaches.ZimbabweanNGOs are also uncomfortablewith the terms 'preparedness' nd 'mitigation',

and, since droughtis the main naturalhazardthey are addressing,are more likely to adoptterms used in food security and natural resource management.The difficulty in clarifyingterms and concepts may be partly due to the fact that many have no equivalent in local

languages.In thePhilippines,understanding f the two key terms is better,perhapsbecauseof

the higher proportionof disasterspecialists interviewed,but the term 'disastermanagement'

causes some confusion.Elsewhere thereis a tendencyto re-label othertypes of work (relief/

rehabilitation n Bangladesh, developmentin Nicaragua)as 'mitigation' or 'preparedness',

showing thatthere has been little or no thinkingaboutwhat these conceptsmean.

The formal languageof DMP may be valuablein academiccircles and among some full-

time disasterprofessionals,but we believe thatthe use of such technicalterminology n writing

and discourse acts is a barrier o many more who are unfamiliarwith it, preventingtheir

engagementwith the issues-especially since NGO workersare often extremely busy. This

does not mean thatthey do not understand he mainissues if these can be explained n a more

appropriatemanner. It may be time to discard the old terminology and adopt the moreaccessible languageof 'risk' and 'riskreduction',which is already n commonuse andmore

readily understood.

The human factor

Greateremphasison the human factormay be one key to progress. Organisations re notjust

structuresbut communitiesof people, and ourstudyshowed that determinedand well-placed

individuals can push significant innovationsthrough,even at policy level and in large and

highly structuredNGOs. It also demonstrated hat investment in good personalcontactscanhelp defuse institutional tensions between emergencies and development structures. Inaddition, a growing army of technical advisers of every kind is building up within largerNGOs. They operate across intra-institutional oundaries and they have a mandate-and,

crucially,time-to think.They arepotentially mportant igures in bridgingthe gap betweenpolicy and operationalpractice.

We found that the influence of such individualsdepends as much on cultural actors-thetime they have been in the organisation, heir personality,and their personal networks-ason their formal position within the structure,but can be considerable. High rates of staff

turnover n British NGOs, shown in our study and other research (Wallace et al. 1997:5-6),

probably amplify the influence of a core of long-serving staff, particularlyas guardiansofinstitutionalmemory.

A similarpicture appearsamong NGOs in the South, althoughhere formal seniority n theorganisationplays a moreimportant ole. In BangladeshiNGOs, experiencedsenior managersare influential in setting disaster policy, while NGOs in the Philippines benefit from asubstantialcadre of long-serving staff experienced in DMP (as well as relatively low staff

turnover).NicaraguanNGOs have recruitedexperienceddisasterplannersand managerswho

Development in Practice, Volume 12, Numbers 3 & 4, August 2002 477









lost their obs in governmentas a result of recent retrenchment.However, amongZimbabwean

NGOs it is felt that senior managementm headquarterss too dominant n decision making,and does not always understandhe situation on the ground.

This suggests that targetingkey individualsin organisationshas potentialas a means of

disseminating deas and good practice,althoughit may be difficult for outsidersto identifythem.

Conclusion:ways forward

Our researchshows that NGOs, as learningorganisations, ace considerablechallenges in

bringingmarginalised ssues such as DMP into the developmentmainstream,but the studies

also indicate how learning about such issues can be stimulated. We have three main

recommendations o make here.

First, NGOs must recognise that organisational eaming is much more than a matterofmaking informationavailable. NGO staff must be given time and opportunity o learn.

Second, advocates of alternative theories and approachesneed to think of NGOs as

communities,not merelyas formalstructures.They shouldidentifyandtargetkey individualswithin NGOs who can shareinformation,promoteideas, and influencepolicy and practice.

Third,thereshould be greateremphasis on practicalaspectsof learning.It is relatively easyto arguea new idea successfully,especially if it is presented n everyday language,but muchmoredifficult to explainhow to putit intoeffect operationally. t is here,crossing theboundaryfrom policy to practice,that NGOs want to learn more.

Notes

1 The term 'naturaldisaster' is widely used to refer to the impact of naturalhazards(e.g.cyclones, earthquakes, loods) on society. This is misleadingbecause the impact of suchhazards s profoundly nfluencedby the extent of society's vulnerability o them, which isinfluenced by socio-economic conditions and trends (i.e. developmentprocesses).

2 The research was funded by the Department or InternationalDevelopment (DfID) andmanagedby the British Red Cross, but undertakenby a team of independentresearcherswho are solely responsiblefor the outputsand the views contained n them.

3 The technical literaturegives a range of definitions. We have interpreted hem broadly asfollows. 'Mitigation':any actionbefore, during,or after a disasterto minimise its impact orpotential impact (ranging from physical measures such as flood defences or buildingreinforcement o non-structuralmeasures such as training, and use regulation, egislation,and public awarenessraising). 'Preparedness': pecific measures before disasters strike,usuallyto forecastandwarnagainstthem, takeprecautionswhenthey threaten,and arrangefor the appropriate esponse (e.g. organisingevacuations,stockpiling food supplies, andtrainingrescue services).

References

Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, and Ben Wisner (1994) AtRisk:NaturalHazards,People's Vulnerability nd Disasters, London:Routledge.International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (1997) WorldDisasters Report1997, Geneva and Oxford:IFRCand OUP.Luna, Emmanuel (2000) 'NGONaturalDisasterMitigationandPreparedness: hePhilippineCase Study', availableat www.redcross.org.uk/dmpaccessed 3 August 2001).

478 Developmentin Practice, Volume12, Numbers3 & 4, August2002








Mainstreamingdisastermitigation

Matin, Nilufar and Muhammad Taher (2000) 'DisasterMitigation n Bangladesh:Country

Case Study of NGO Activities', available at www.redcross.org.uk/dmpaccessed 3 August2001).

Munich Re (1998) Annual Review of Natural Catastrophes 1998, Munich: Munich

Reinsurance.Rocha, Jose Luis and Ian Christoplos (2000) 'Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness n

NicaraguaafterHurricaneMitch', available at www.redcross.org.uk/dmpaccessed 3 August2001).

Shumba, Owen (2000) 'An Assessment of NGO Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness

Activities in Zimbabwe: Country Survey Report', available at www.redcross.org.uk/dmp

(accessed 3 August 2001).Twigg, John, Diane Steiner, Mary Myers, and Charlotte Benson (2000) 'NGO NaturalDisaster Mitigation and PreparednessProjects:A Study of InternationalDevelopment and

Relief NGOs based in the UK', available at www.redcross.org.ukldmpaccessed 3 August

2001).Wallace, Tina, Sarah Crowther and Andrew Shepherd (1997) StandardisingDevelopment:Influences on UK NGOs' Policies and Procedures, Oxford:WorldView.

The authors

JohnTwigg is a ResearchFellow at UniversityCollege Londonspecialisingin organisationalaspectsof sustainabledevelopment,especiallyinnon-profitorganisations.DianeSteinerwasanindependent esearcher n thestudydiscussed n thispaperand s nowManagerof the Centre or

Intergenerational ractice at the Beth JohnsonFoundation,Stoke-on-Trent.Contactdetails:John Twigg, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre,Departmentof Geological Sciences,UniversityCollege London,GowerStreet,LondonWC1E6BT,UK. <[email protected]>.

Development n Practice, Volume12, Numbers3 & 4, August 2002 479

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 02:09:28 AM


Documents

Mainstreaming Disaster Mitigation Challenges to Organisational Learning in NGOs