Learning from recovery after hurricane Mitch

LDR

05658nam^^22004693a^4500

001

FI13010912_00001

005

20130423144418.0

006

m^^^^^o^^d^^^^^^^^

007

cr^^n^---ma^mp

008

130214n^^^^^^^^xx^^^^^^o^^^^^|||^0^eng^d

024

8

|a FI13010912

245

00

|a Learning from recovery after hurricane Mitch |h [electronic resource] |b experience from Nicaragua. |y English.

260

|a Geneva, Switzerland : |b ProVention Consortium, |c 2009.

300

|a Summary report

500

|a Hurricane October 1998.

506

|a Any part of this article may be cited, copied, translated into other languages or adapted to meet local needs without prior permission from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies / the ProVention Consortium, provided that the source is clearly stated.

510

|a Christoplos, I., Rodríguez, T., Schipper, L., Narvaez, E. A., Mejia, K. M. B., Buitrago, R., Gómez, L., & Pérez, F.J. (2009). Learning from recovery after hurricane Mitch: experience from Nicaragua. ProVention Consortium, Glemminge Development Research (GDR), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Nitlapan, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

520

3

|a This document provides a detailed assessment of the reconstruction and recovery processes after Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America in 1998 and their impact 10 years. It specifically investigates the optimistic claims made during the initial phases of Nicaragua’s recovery planning as well as the effectiveness of its disaster risk management (DRM) measures. Early on, it was believed that recovery efforts following the 1998 disaster would fundamentally transform Nicaragua. The authors found that while there was some overall improvement in Nicaragua’s economic situation as a result of aid following the disaster, the truth is that these changes were much less stellar than expected due to changes in livelihood patterns, market disruptions, and the country’s heavy dependence on foreign aid. Such observations continue to strengthen the analysis that development processes affect both recovery (DRR) and poverty, which in turn affect one another. The authors came to 4 main conclusions on Nicaragua’s recovery: (1) there is greater engagement and participation from the state, private sector and civil society in DRR; however, the DRR process is still overly-centralized at the national level due to a lack of capacity from the other actors; (2) recovery and reconstruction have had very little impact on the livelihoods of the poor, who are most vulnerable to the impact of disasters; (3) the social fabric of local communities have been restored and local institutions have been strengthened; and (4) there is a discrepancy between national and local level DRR, with the national level seeing progress and the local level lagging behind. Overall, this document acknowledges that DRR policymakers and practitioners need more than good ideas and practices to see greater DRR effectiveness; that these ideas need to be grounded in the reality of the places they are being implemented– the social, economic, and political realities faced by each state and its local communities – so that adaptation and modification can be made to ensure the optimal result, a safer society.

520

0

|a Recovery

520

2

|a Executive Summary p. 7; 1. Introduction p. 9; 1.1 Overview p. 9; 1.2 Methods p. 10; 1.3 Report structure p. 11; 2. The Return of the State and Civil Society p. 12; 2.1 Mitch: Not just another hurricane p. 12; 2.2 Humanitarianism and beyond p. 14; 2.3 Decentralisation, but to whom? p. 15; 2.4 Capacity development did not start or end with Mitch p. 16; 2.5 Coordination and LRRD p. 17; 3. Poverty, Livelihoods and Economic Recovery p. 17; 3.1 New trails on the rural development road map p. 17; 3.2 The emerging food security agenda p. 18; 3.3 Transformations of the poverty profile p. 19; 3.4 Vulnerability and social protection p. 20; 4. Rebuilding the Social Fabric p. 21; 4.1 The social fabric: Impacts and recovery p. 21; 4.2 Conflict p. 22; 4.3 Labelling of ‘vulnerable groups’ hides complexity p. 22; 5. Reduction of Risk p. 23; 5.1 A window of opportunity to mainstream disaster risk reduction? p. 23; 5.2 Risk mapping, decentralisation and sustainability p. 25; 5.3 Climate change and risk reduction p. 26; 6. Lessons from Hurricane Mitch in Dipilto, Terrabona and San Francisco Libre p. 27; 6.1 Dipilto p. 27; 6.2 Terrabona p. 30; 6.3 San Francisco Libre p. 31; 7. Comparisons of the three municipalities p. 31; 7.1 Return of the state and civil society p. 32; 7.2 Poverty, livelihoods and economic recovery. p. 32; 7.3 Rebuilding the social fabric p. 35; 7.4 Risk reduction p. 38; 8. Conclusions p. 39; Bibliography p. 44

533

650

1

|a Natural hazards and disasters |z Nicaragua.

650

1

|a Disaster response and recovery |z Nicaragua.

650

1

|a Poverty |z Nicaragua.

650

1

|a Sustainable development |z Nicaragua.

650

1

|a Resilience (Ecology) |z Nicaragua.

650

1

|a Risk management |z Nicaragua.

662

|a Nicaragua. |2 tgn

700

1

|a Christoplos, Ian.

700

1

|a Rodriguez, Tomas.

700

1

|a Schipper, Lisa.

700

1

|a Narvaez, Eddy Alberto.

700

1

|a Bayres Mejia, Karla Maria.

700

1

|a Buitrago, Rolando.

700

1

|a Gomez, Ligia.

700

1

|a Perez, Francisco J..

710

2

|a Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Florida International University (DRR/FIU), |e summary contributor.

776

1

|c Original |w (OCoLC)664846162

830

0

|a dpSobek.

852

|a dpSobek

856

40

|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13010912/00001 |y Click here for full text

992

04

|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/13/01/09/12/00001/FI13010912thm.jpg