Interview with Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Famine Centre

Interview with Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Famine Centre. at Tufts University. For many years, Peter Walker has worked on issues relating to natural disasters, including international strategic policy on mitigation, prevention and response. Much of his work has been in collaboration with international NGOs and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Walker is associated with the so-called group of ‘radical geographers’ who, at January’s World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, sought to present an alternative approach. He spoke to IRIN about his beliefs: QUESTION: To what extent is the finance for development de-linked from the multilateral funding of disaster prevention? ANSWER: There is basically nobody at the conference from the development community or corporate sector, so there is a real disconnect[ion] between economic development, political development [and] trade development [fundraisers] – they don’t see disaster as part of their portfolio. The real issue, that results in whether disaster reduction works or not, is good governance. Q: Do you think the Kobe conference is too ambitious - expecting nation states to agree on measures for disaster reduction? A: Unless we address the real underlying issues, we will make no progress. We have to start chipping at the block. Once communities get involved, we can start to measure the reduction in risk. There is an example of community veterinarians in sub-Saharan Africa – they are linked into the government process. The results of having community-based vets reducing rinderpest [a virulent cattle plague] ultimately means export of livestock increases. There is a direct linkage between community involvement, risk reduction and increased export sales. The corporate sector understands this, but the development sector is still behind. The challenge sometimes is to create an alternative approach, especially [for] countries more affected by natural disasters. Like AIDS, the initial response to natural disasters is technical, but later the process of community involvement takes place. Good governance is at the core of disaster reduction and people are beginning to see this.The real challenge is institutional change, of taking the normal development process in countries and to stop being blind. This is the future of effective disaster reduction. Q: What are the most important changes globally that affect disaster reduction? A: Climate change, sea-levels [rising and] the development of most mega-cities along coastal areas - the highest population growth is in cities and shanty towns. Economies are not changing as fast as climate. Adaptation to climate change is crucial. For example, there has been a 20 percent increase in severe storms recently. Disasters have suffered from being kept in a niche. Disasters have failed development. Q: Why should addressing disasters be an international responsibility, and not just a national responsibility? A: Three points here: firstly, economic concerns, which affect the community or urban centre but also have global consequences. For example, the creation of shanty towns is linked to decisions made in the corporate sector and raises issues of social responsibility. Secondly, many of the issues concerning disasters are not natural. For example, slowing down climate change is totally an international issue in relation to CO2 [carbon dioxide]. Thirdly, we must recognise the shared sense of humanity – in that sense disaster reduction is a global concern. Q: People are calling for an urgent increase in the priority of disaster-risk reduction, but are the deaths caused by natural disasters preventable, or a priority, in comparison with other causes of death such as HIV/AIDS etc? A: What are preventable deaths? Many of the deaths caused by a disaster are preventable through relatively easy measures. Anti-earthquake building stipulations for example. Deaths from natural disasters are the tip of the iceberg. What they tell you is the nature of development in the communities affected. There is a whole secondary tranche of deaths from issues related to disasters - whether they be work-related, disease, suicide - which may be caused by something like the tsunami, but will never be in the statistics. The statistics are therefore unreliable. Government stability is also at stake when disasters strike; governments cannot afford a high death-rate from disasters. Q: Some delegates have already made statements suggesting that Kobe could be another talk-shop, and that we know no more than we did 20 years ago. How is this conference any different? A: The only difference will be if it forces government[s] to set serious targets around risk reduction. Good words [only] this time will be morally unacceptable. The Drafting Committee is already saying that they cannot avoid dealing with the issues in a more preventative way. People who never think about disasters are now being challenged by it and thinking about targets. NGOs are pushing for specific targets with clear benchmarks, but this may not be realistic. What we do need is the mainstreaming of natural disasters, and the development of indicators of success. Q: Has the tragic event of the tsunami so close to the start of the conference been somewhat fortuitous for the urgency/relevance of this conference? A: The tsunami has opened a window of opportunity. The worldwide reaction has been both compassionate and angry, so it has given us a window of potential pressure as well. We cannot treat the conference as if the tsunami did not happen – the questions raised are not just about our compassion but why were so many people affected. The pressure is now on to have real targets and benchmarks, and an agency to monitor them: whether it is ISDR [UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction] or another agency. Q: Are we entering a new era for disaster-reduction intervention? A: The tsunami has come at a time when the world is ready for a new look and a new focus for disaster reduction. We can no longer do business as usual. It is also exposing new aspects. People say that Aceh is now like a street fair of Asian agencies and civil society [organisations] helping out with the massive influx of displaced. Maybe there will be a new generation of aid agencies as a result. We cannot do a King Canute; we cannot stop the water. But we can work on issues of mitigation and insurance, and improved back-up and provision for those affected. If we cannot stop tsunamis, then the question is, what to do for mitigation? This brings us to the issue of good governance. Risk management is about managing the risk, not wishing the risk away.