For most developing countries at risk of disasters and climate change, adopting structural measures to reduce disaster risks remain a challenge. This paper presents findings of a study conducted through a mixed methods design in a flood risk city in Malawi, Sub-Saharan Africa. The study assesses the city's vulnerability to floods and actions being taken to reduce the risks. It then investigates how resettlement is being promoted as one such risk reduction measure. The study finds multiple vulnerability factors, including unsafe construction practices, poor drainage systems, unregulated solid waste disposal, institutional incapacity, inadequacy of land, settlements in high risk areas, deforestation, siltation of rivers and national disaster risk reduction policies that neglect urban areas. However, efforts to tackle underlying causes of vulnerability are wanting. One positive programme is a slum upgrading pilot project implemented by non-state actors that also lacks government support. In the case of resettlement, its planning and execution is fraught with multiple challenges emanating from haphazard planning and lack of community participation. The paper argues that the emphasis on resettlement is obscuring the key drivers of vulnerability, while simultaneously exposing both resettled and those left behind to further risks. It, therefore, calls for caution when planning and implementing disaster risk reduction policies that have the potential to create new forms of vulnerability to hazards or exacerbate them.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–30, calls for countries to strengthen disaster risk governance systems as a pathway to disaster risk reduction. This paper assesses the disaster risk governance system in Malawi, Sub‐Saharan Africa, to understand how the positioning of multiple actors is contributing to the creation of an environment generating either positive or negative outcomes. The study utilizes a landscape governance analytical framework grounded within network governance theory and predominantly relies on qualitative approaches. The study finds that non‐governmental organizations are delivering the majority of disaster risk management services in the country. However, there are shortfalls within and across key actors and institutions that are frustrating progress and could reverse isolated gains that the country has made. While central government is largely detached from community‐level implementation, its incapacity is worsened by politicians and local government actors who have positioned themselves to capture risk reduction finance. The paper, therefore, questions the rationale behind the urgency in decentralizing disaster risk governance before addressing critical challenges within the local government system. These findings, while specifically for Malawi, are also pertinent to other developing countries struggling to deal with the consequences of climate variability and change.

Chiefs are at the centre of household and community development efforts in most low-income countries around the world. Yet, researchers and scholars have paid limited attention to the institution of chieftaincy and to understanding its role in the management of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. This paper draws on a micro ethnographic evaluation conducted in two predominantly rural districts of Malawi in southeast Africa to assess two different manifestations of elite control. In the first case, a resettlement programme was implemented where chiefs were co-opted and took the lead. In the second case, a food insecurity response programme was designed to exclude chiefs. The study finds that neither co-opting nor countering chiefs prevents elite capture. Rather, the majority of chiefs oscillate between malevolent and benevolent capture. The findings require that states focus on the cultural and political dimensions of rural life when designing climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction programmes.

Conducting research among peers and communities that a researcher also serves may be both daunting and rewarding. Researching peers may make the researcher feel uncomfortable raising certain questions that are sensitive or that could be construed to be testing their competencies. This paper is inclined more towards showing that it is advantageous to be an insider, whose position can facilitate collection of information that could not have been accessed, or revealed to an outsider. The paper reports on fieldwork conducted in a low-income country in Sub-Sahara Africa as part of a doctoral study with communities affected by disasters and those that work with such communities. The paper demonstrates the complexities of conducting such research and provides some insights that may be useful to insiders, outsiders or “in-betweeners” embarking on fieldwork in low-income countries and among vulnerable population struggling with manifold stresses and shocks.

No abstract