Urban Lessons from Natural Disasters

1. BAM Earthquake, Iran 2003 Urban Lessons from Natural Disasters

2. IFRC Role (both rural and urban): • Key Driver – Humanitarian Mandate, saving lives, reducing post-disaster risk, restoring basic human needs & human dignity. • Key Process– Supporting/expanding first responder role (RC/RC National Society) – enabling International RC/RC Response. • Recovery/Development – enabling recovery and where appropriate & practical ‘building back better’, capacity building of RC/RC National Society. • IFRC Response usually multi-sectoral not restricted to WASH.

3. The operational urban context: • In developed countries – RC/RC capacity & established role in response often works well – closely aligned with and auxiliary to Government efforts (e.g. Japan Earthquake/Tsunami) • In many less developed countries/fragile states – NationalRC/RC limited capacity, especially for Urban disaster response. • Often exacerbated by weak or disrupted Government/service provider capacity. • Level 3 Urban Disasters – RC/RC continues to have a key role, however, struggles to adapt established tools/methodologies to urban context (though some limited improvement since BAM). • Though IFRC can leverage significant funding, scale of response, and long term engagement - struggles to use resources coherently & to best advantage of affected population.

4. Coordination: • Emergency response coordination platforms/clusters crucial but still driven by short-term goals. • Level 3 disaster coordination (urban & rural) challenging when there are many actors, many of whom may be short term humanitarian actors. • WASH coordination/response HR skill-sets still predominately humanitarian as opposed to recovery/developmental. • ‘Pooling’ of resources and approaches (partnerships and consortia) not fully understood/challenging and potential added value is often missed. • Coordination must be expanded to provide more strategic direction to all stakeholders – both short and long-term.

5. lessons learned: • Humanitarian WASH actors must ‘open the door’ to recovery/development actors ASAP post-disaster. • Established rural population engagement/participatory methodologies often not appropriate in urban contexts. • Humanitarian WASH actors not usually the best choice as delivery agents for major urban infrastructure programming but may indeed have a role. • Recovery/developmental programming benefits when coordination platforms/clusters evolve into a more developmental focused body (don’t close down clusters – let them evolve & grow!!!!)

6. key issues to be addressed by WASH actors: • Organisational commitment towards harmonised approach to Shelter and WASH and with other sectors (e.g. security, livelihoods, gender, environment) • Need for larger ‘pool’ of expertise for Urban disasters (HR roster, private sector, academic and research bodies, recognised urban contractors) • WASH Donors/stakeholders need to see potential to leverage funding to recovery/developmental programming as an outcome of disaster response – more flexible and innovative use of funding streams. • Tools/methodologies/equipment for urban disasters need to be further developed, streamlined and ‘rolled-out’. • Broad collaboration and inter-agency commitment to a common goal and strategy on Humanitarian Urban WASH response & transition to recovery & development.

7. Thank You VinaySadavarte Regional Water and Sanitation Delegate International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Regional Representation office for East Africa|Woodlands Road | PO BOX 41275 - 00100  | Nairobi | Kenya Tel: +254 20 2835 000 | Dir: +254 20 283 5258   | Mob: +254 736309755 | Fax: +254 20 271 2777 Email: vinay.sadavarte@ifrc.org Skype : vsadavarte