Brief for GSDR - 2016 Update Addressing the cultural gap between humanitarian assistance and local responses to risk through a place-based approach By: Karlee Johnson, Darin Wahl, and Frank Thomalla, Stockholm Environment Institute Cultural differences between international organizations engaged in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and communities at risk can create and perpetuate social vulnerability to disasters. In this brief, we propose a place-based approach to address the gap between contemporary DRR efforts and local cultural interpretations and responses to risks in order to develop context-specific and more effective risk reduction strategies. Introduction The burgeoning humanitarian assistance community: Increasing costs and growing risks Despite decades of international humanitarian efforts to reduce risk and build resilience, Climate change is exacerbating human disasters and climate-related risks are rising. vulnerability to disasters (UNISDR 2015a) during Recent international fora including the 2030 an era of unprecedented socio-economic and Agenda for Sustainable Development (ASD) and population growth, urbanization, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk environmental change (Steffen et al. 2004). As Reduction have explicitly recognized that the risks increase, the scope of engagement for drivers of disaster risk need to be addressed in international actors has expanded. The DRR, innovative and people-focused ways if DRR development and humanitarian aid scene has efforts are to be meaningful. burgeoned (Donini 2010), with a global estimate of $3 trillion in aid in the past two Recent research has recognized culture as a decades (Kellet & Caravani 2013). This scene is determinant of vulnerability and an important also becoming increasingly diverse as a range of factor in DRR (Thomalla et al. 2015; Hoffman new actors, including the private sector, join the 2015; IFRC 2014). In light of this, a more holistic, field. The motivation and values of actors can “people-centered” approach, acknowledging greatly vary, for example, they may be tied to the significance of “cultural diversity” (United protecting financial investments (UNISDR 2013). Nations 2015, para.36) and a “cultural The growth and diversification of the perspective” (UNISDR 2015a, p.8) has been put international aid community has resulted in forth. However, these references to culture are organizational culture clashes, fragmentation, vague, making the integration of culture and a concerning disconnect from on-the- difficult to operationalize in diverse local ground realities (Alexander 2006; Bello 2006; contexts. Calhoun 2004). Furthermore, the growing recognition that disasters are driven by poor development choices (Lavell & Maskrey 2013) opens the argument that the international *The views and opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not represent those of the Secretariat of the United Nations. Online publication or dissemination does not imply endorsement by the United Nations. community has contributed to risk creation system, i.e. its ability to absorb disturbance and through investment decisions and by return to stable functioning (Folke et al. 2010). implementing DRR measures that reinforce unsustainable development pathways (UNISDR Importantly, a place can consist of a 2015b). conglomeration of cultural groups, each with varying access to available capital and different While the ASD and the Sendai Framework historical human-environment relationships. suggest more holistic and collaborative efforts, These groups vary in cultural identity and putting these agendas into practice in diverse practices, each of which contributes to overall local contexts will be challenging. Effectively levels of vulnerability and resilience (Gallopín reducing risks requires a culturally nuanced 2006). By not recognizing these often invisible understanding of why individuals, communities, practices, interventions may miss the and organizations make certain decisions in underlying causes of vulnerability tied to these regards to risk, and this must be reflected in cultural elements (Mercer et al. 2012). DRR frameworks and operational agendas. Power and bias: The interactions between the Culturally embedded interpretations and cultures of humanitarian organizations and responses to risk local communities Culture includes, inter alia , beliefs, values, and Culturally embedded interpretations of and attitudes regarding what actions people should responses to risk are also present among aid take to risks (IFRC 2014; Schipper & Dekens organizations. Disaster aid is increasingly 2009). The cultural mediation of disaster risk is globalized, bringing together multiple actors often closely tied with place-specific historical whose perceptions, priorities, and modes of trajectories that encompass trans-generational working have developed in different cultural social memories of past disasters (Dyer 2009). contexts (Hewitt 2012). While this doesn’t Over time, culturally embedded responses to automatically present a conflict, the risk and disasters emerge which are shaped by convergence of multiple cultural responses to people’s culturally-influenced environmental risk formed in distinctly different contexts can perceptions, religious views, and land-use lead to misunderstanding, compromising the management practices (Renaud et al. 2013; effectiveness of DRR efforts. Collins et al. 2015; Dyer 2009). Communities in developing countries are often Culture is fluid (Eiser et al. 2012) and thus perceived by aid organizations as clinging to culturally embedded risk responses are antiquated, religious, or fatalistic beliefs about continually evolving. The capacity to engage in hazards (Becker et al. 2008; Eiser et al. 2012). these responses is founded in the natural, This is viewed unfavorably when contrasted human, social, physical, and financial capitals with the technocratic, ‘expert’-driven cultures (Gunderson & Holling 2002; Scoones 1998) that of humanitarian organizations that are typically can be accessed within a place. It can be argued informed by scientific knowledge. The recurrent therefore that responses to risk reflect the ‘local versus scientific knowledge’ debate dynamic resilience of the human-environment (Nygren 1999) opens up deeper issues of 2 identity and power when placed in the context argue that social science, specifically place- of culture and disasters. Power imbalances exist based research, can help address the current between international organizations and local ‘culture’ gap in DRR efforts driven by the largely communities (Citraningtyas et al. 2010). technocratic organizational culture of aid External actors may project their cultural biases organizations. on communities and bypass existing social arrangements, distributing aid in a way that is Sense of place (and place-based) research inequitable and culturally irrelevant (Kruks- explores the emotional attachments people Wisner 2010). This can cause new power create with the biophysical places they inhabit, dynamics and favoritism to emerge within the including place-influenced individual and group community (Daly 2014), and reinforce existing identity (e.g. feelings of belonging and inequalities, for example, related to gender, purpose), and the meanings associated with ethnicity, or disability (Kruks-Wisner 2010). that (Stedman 2003; Sampson & Goodrich 2009). By incorporating social and cultural ‘Culture’ is often perceived as a marker of memory, it captures historical attachments and ‘otherness’ (Hewitt 2012) and this narrow identities along with the physical spaces linked conceptual understanding can be used by to them, e.g. a sacred forest grove (Santos- outside actors to distance themselves from Granero 1998). These attachments to place, culture altogether. International experts often when threatened (e.g. by extreme events) can perceive their disaster risk knowledge as motivate action (Devine-Wright 2013; Lewicka ‘unbiased’ and ‘non-cultural’, failing to 2011; Davenport & Anderson 2005) toward recognize that their own culture has influenced adaptation or risk reduction (Fresque-Baxter & their understanding of risk and framed their Armitage 2012). By understanding the place- current modus operandi (IFRC 2014). These based cultural values, including local and actors are significantly shaped by their indigenous knowledge (Adger et al. 2011) that prevailing organizational cultures, which include can drive change within a community, external organization-specific power structures and actors can develop strategies that are more donor-driven priorities (Donini 2010). aligned with sociocultural priorities and practices. A place-based approach to connect humanitarian disaster assistance with local Conclusions responses to risk To ensure the success of the ASD and SFDRR, People’s perceptions of risk are tied to culture, tools and frameworks must be developed that reflecting complex belief and value systems that equitably reflect diverse culturally-influenced shape responses to both risk and aid. understandings of risk. Without an engagement Integrating culture in DRR is challenging with culture, the implementation of culturally- because culture is dynamic, sensitive, difficult mismatched DRR and development plans will to define, and often intangible. Nevertheless, result in both wasted resources and increased this cultural knowledge needs to be better risk. reflected in DRR policy and practice if disaster risks are to be reduced or better managed. We 3 A place-based framework offers an entry point