[Radix] Rethinking Disaster Definitions

[George Kent]

Salvano, thank you for this. I should explain that in my latest input  
(Feb 5, copied  below), I did not intend to limit "life saving" to  
actions that are taken after crisis events--pulling people out of the  
rubble. Life saving also includes actions that prevent or evade such  
events.

Thus I would agree with you that humanitarian action is also about   
avoiding the loss of lives.

I would suggest that it is NOT about avoiding the loss of livelihoods  
in itself. When middle or upper class people face loss of their jobs,  
usually that is not a life threatening event. Thus such events should  
not be a concern of those who provide humanitarian assistance.

Aloha, George



On Feb 5, 2007, at 4:53 AM, Salvano Briceno wrote:

>
> Dear George and RADIX friends,
>
> A quick comment, I have been constantly refering to "avoiding the  
> loss of
> lives", i.e., disaster risk reduction, as the most pressing  
> humanitarian
> action. Saving lives after the disaster strikes is clearly not  
> enough, it's
> too late and many times ineffective as poor health facilities  
> conditions
> usually makes it a greater disaster.
>
> So more than about saving lives only, humanitarian action should be  
> also,
> and mostly, about avoiding the loss of lives and livelihoods, thus  
> about
> reducing risk and vulnerability.
>
> Not being an expert myself, I would appreciate it if you could provide
> feedback on whether this is a wrong assumption.
>
> Many thanks, Salvano
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> *
> Please note that I am unable to read all my emails due to
> travel and heavy workload.  If an urgent matter is required,
> please contact Yuki Matsuoka at matsuoka at un.org or
> Connie Brown at brown32 at un.org
>
> Sálvano Briceño, Director, UN/ISDR
> International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
> Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
> Tel. +41 229172757, Fax +41 229178964
> briceno at un.org, www.unisdr.org
> ********************************************************************** 
> **
>
>
>
> -----radix-bounces at ecie.org wrote: -----
>
>
> To: radix at ecie.org
> From: George Kent <kent at hawaii.edu>
> Sent by: radix-bounces at ecie.org
> Date: 02/05/2007 01:51PM
> Subject: Re: [Radix] Rethinking Disaster Definitions
>
> Friends --
>
> We could think of humanitarian assistance as being mainly about  life-
> saving assistance. After all, it is that.  Yes, to some extent it
> gets involved in dealing with injuries, property damage,  economic
> and social development, and several other concerns, but can we agree
> that, at its core, humanitarian assistance is mainly about saving
> human lives?
>
> Correlated with that, we can think of a humanitarian disaster/crisis/
> emergency as any situation in which there is the fact or the risk of
> elevated mortality. “Elevated” could be defined in terms of
> comparisons in time or comparisons in space. There could be some
> emergencies that are not of the humanitarian type, such as the Exxon
> Valdez oil spill, which could be labeled as an environmental disaster.
>
> A humanitarian disaster then would be any situation in which there is
> elevated mortality risk, and as a result there is a need for
> humanitarian assistance.
>
> The main challenge of disaster work then would be to figure out when,
> where, and how humanitarian assistance should be delivered.
>
> In this conceptual framework, the effectiveness of humanitarian
> assistance would be assessed in terms of estimates of the degree to
> which it reduced mortality in particular situations. Where the bottom
> line of corporations is profit, the corresponding bottom line in
> disaster work would be lives saved.
>
> In this framework, it would be possible to estimate cost-
> effectiveness, subjectively and through more analytic models. It
> would become clear, for example, that many more lives could be saved
> by promoting breastfeeding than by sending more arms to Iraq.
> Arguably, sending arms to Iraq might have other benefits, but on the
> dimension of life saving, it would not score high.
>
> I don’t mean to take a reductionist approach to disaster work, but
> rather I want to suggest that there is a conceptually clear and solid
> core to it. Can we agree on this way of identifying that core?
>
> Aloha, George
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
> See more information about ECIE:  http://www.ecie.org/
> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
> http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/radix/