Ambivalence towards discourse of disaster resilience

Abstract

This paper investigates empirically how the international aid community (IAC)—donors and practitioners—considers and implements disaster resilience in a specific country setting, Nepal, and throughout the rest of the world. A key finding is that there is ambivalence about a concept that has become a discourse. On a global level, the IAC utilises the discourse of resilience in a cautiously positive manner as a bridging concept. On a national level, it is being used to influence the Government of Nepal, as well as serving as an operational tool of donors. The mythical resilient urban community is fashioned in the IAC's imaginary; understanding how people create communities and what type of linkages with government urban residents desire to develop their resilience strategies is missing, though, from the discussion. Disaster resilience can be viewed as another grand plan to enhance the lives of people. Yet, regrettably, an explicit focus on individuals and their communities is lost in the process.

Benchmarking Community Disaster Resilience in Nepal

“…Moreover, the international development agencies played a positive role to forward disaster risk reduction and resilience in the country, despite the absence of coordinating agency, legislative tools, and political impasse. However, the international development agencies also lack a comprehensive view of disaster resilience, and it is often used as an operational tool for influencing the Government of Nepal [67]. Additionally, disaster risk reduction activities are primarily focused on a single hazard type.…”

Addressing power and scale in resilience programming: A call to engage across funding, delivery and evaluation

“…Another critical challenge is that many resilience measurement frameworks have so far failed to holistically reflect the varied nature of resilience and different aspects of the resilience-building process (Ruszczyk, 2019). For example, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) 's monitoring tool includes a suite of 14 monitored indicators.…”

“…As such, there is an inherent danger that M&E of resilience‐building interventions reflects what evaluators choose to measure and highlight (Olsson et al 2015). Given continual pressure to demonstrate successful outcomes in short project timeframes, there is high risk that evaluators select “easier” indicators: ones that allow for straightforward processes of quantification, and that best reflect the progress of a given project (Béné et al 2017; Ruszczyk, 2019). While frequent use of consultant evaluators helps to provide some objectivity and reduce the bias in evaluations, consultants' heavy dependence on funders like DFID and USAID inherently limits full independence.…”

“…In reflecting on the suitability of evaluation frameworks for resilience‐building interventions, Ruszczyk (2019, p. 18) notes that:

these types of projects may be difficult to account for in a log frame or within other project management tools … the benefits of such projects would also not be immediate, making it difficult for INGOs to demonstrate the impacts of their projects to donors.

…”

“…While aspects of the political economy of resilience have been acknowledged in both academic and practitioner literatures, scholarly inputs have had limited influence in addressing issues of scale and power as applied directly to resilience programming – and tackling the ethical challenges that ensue (Matyas & Pelling, 2015; Ruszczyk, 2019). To promote better uptake of geographic enquiry in the operationalisation of resilience‐building interventions, we argue that geographers must be more proactive in engaging directly with resilience practitioners.…”