 |
 |
Any chance that we could exchange this very specific in-group lingo: ‘Access disruption due to marginalisation’: to something more universal like: ‘Fulfillment of basic human rights to water, food, shelter…. “ ? Marla > On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Lee Bosher <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Ben , Bob and all, > > Thank you for this healthy discussion. I agree that more needs to be done to understand the local ‘understandings of vulnerability’ and factors that restrict access to the decision-making processes leading to ‘permanent access disruption’. Here are a couple of examples. > > ‘Understandings of vulnerability’: During my doctoral research in Andhra Pradesh, India (admittedly conducted over 10 years ago) my initial intention of investigating how the local ‘communities’ coped with tropical cyclones was soon put into perspective when I started the fieldwork. The locals generally were not worried about cyclones (that in their view occur “once in a blue moon”), they were more concerned about the everyday crises that they had to deal with (i.e. lack of - clean drinking water, sanitation facilities, affordable/free healthcare, land tenure rights). So rather than imposing my ‘disasterology’ preconceptions on the villagers I encouraged them to frame their concerns in their own words (terms such as vulnerability or resilience were never really mentioned in English or in Telugu). If the local governmental and non-governmental agencies had bothered to gain similar insights then they may have been less likely to impose nasty (only partially subsidized) ‘cyclone resistant houses’ on the local populations; houses that in many cases were not really ‘cyclone proof’ but also were uninhabitable for most of the year. These apparent ‘solutions’ also dragged many people into long term debt and did very little to address the lack of other basic services (such as water and sanitation) thus it could be argued that ‘vulnerability’ of the most marginalised was actually increased in these circumstances. > > ‘Access disruption due to marginalisation’: Indeed, as already highlighted by Ben, in this case, power, institutional failure and intentionality were also overriding factors, all supported by highly entrenched social institutions that promulgated the inequalities that resulted in marginalised ‘communities’ having dreadful (or non-existent) basic services or circumstances of what could now be termed as ‘permanent access disruption’. I noted that just because a village had some wells or tap stands for drinking water, it did not mean that everyone in the village could use them. These are localised nuances that the ‘bean counting’ vulnerability assessors can often overlook and thus I am grateful that these matters are being so openly discussed. > > A journal paper that discusses some of these issues can be downloaded here [http://homepages.lboro.ac.uk/~cvlb/Bosher2007(D&C).pdf <http://homepages.lboro.ac.uk/~cvlb/Bosher2007(D&C).pdf>] or if you really have time on your hands the full research monograph is free to download here [https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/9897/10/Social%20and%20institutional%20elements%20of%20disaster%20vulnerability%20manuscript%20%28Bosher%202007%29.pdf <https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/9897/10/Social%20and%20institutional%20elements%20of%20disaster%20vulnerability%20manuscript%20%28Bosher%202007%29.pdf>] > > Best wishes, > > Lee > ______________________________________________________________________________________ > Dr Lee Bosher – Senior Lecturer > * WEDC, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU > ( T: +44 (0)1509 222887: W: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~cvlb/index.htm <http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~cvlb/index.htm> Twitter: @leebosher @CBESeminars > > > From: Radix [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben Wisner > Sent: 07 October 2015 19:13 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > Bob (aka ‘Barefoot Bob’ or BFB) has contributed a mini-monograph, and a very rich and welcome one. He has many years’ experience working with communities in East Africa. It is good to hear on RADIX from people with hands on experience like BFB, Loy, Ameen, Ana-Marie, Arthur, Marcus and others. > > Reading his message, I was struck by his notion of ‘access disruption’. I want to pick that thread up, leaving the other important points he makes for another time. > > In a personal email exchange with BFB, I mentioned that large numbers of people actually don’t have access to the decision-making processes, essential services and infrastructure, markets, space and natural resources they need to house themselves safely and make a living, that is: to survive. Commentators on the World Bank’s triumphalist statements about the recline of people living on USD 1.25 per day remind us that it takes at least USD 5.00 per day to maintain the conditions of ‘bare life’. > > For many years I have thought of people who have zero access as ‘marginal’ in three ways: ecologically (access to space, land, water, etc.), economically (access to employment, credit, markets and infrastructure, wealth, etc.) and politically (access to decision-making processes, to the state and public goods, not merely access to the ballot box). > > Returning to my critique of the way the UNISDR’s definition of vulnerability deflects attention from the big issues, a focus on access and access disruption is useful because it returns our gaze to risk creation. The hypnotic attraction of the buzz word ‘risk reduction’ is broken. We see that the system of maldevelopment has created a class of people who are marginal, who have little or no access and who are functionally ‘surplus’ to the population required to keep the maldevelopment system ticking over and delivering profits to the one-per cent and increasing the gap in wealth around the world. I wrote in Power and Need in Africa (Earthscan, 1988) that the ‘basic human needs’ approach to development (buzz word in the 1980s) was in place in order to ‘mop up excess mortality and morbidity’ created by the imposition of a neo-liberal economic order (e.g. structural adjustment, globalization, etc.). Although that sounds like an extreme and cynical view, today’s situation is even worse, and this is revealed by application of concepts such as Terry Cannon’s ‘damage to cure ratio’, GAR 2015’s ‘risk creation’, and, indeed, BFB’s ‘access disruption.’ > > BFB is currently somewhere near Lake Tana in Ethiopia and out of wireless range. I don’t think he’ll mind if I take his part and share his personal response to my thoughts about those with zero access. > > BFB: I entirely agree with what you said about the conditions that lead to people not having access in the first place, and I hope my RADIX message made it clear that I think that Part 1 of my definition of 'minimized access disruptions' is the most important part: access (for those who don't have it -- for reasons including marginalization). Not having access at all is the practical equivalent of 100% permanent access disruption … Part 2 is reliable access. Part 3 is reliable access with minimized disruptions. And I'd prefer that these be called 'parts' rather than 'steps' because risk-informed development and response implies that the whole shebang be provided in one-fell swoop in the first place with access provided originally in a way that optimizes its reliability with minimized disruptions. Accordingly, that means that my summary mantra of 'minimized access disruptions' requires that there be such access in the first place by overcoming the ecological, economic, and political barriers preventing such access. > > Best wishes, BEN > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Alexander > Sent: Oct 6, 2015 9:42 AM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > > > > Hi all – > > Quite an enjoyable and hopefully useful discussion so far…so I hope not to dilute its potency with my wee contribution of related thoughts: > > · We’ve bounced around this idea of how to make our terminology more useful for ‘vulnerable people’ (meaning: everyone on earth) or ‘vulnerable groups’ (meaning: everyone on earth) to use practically in English and in other languages for years – but I’m happy to see this discussion rear its lovely head again on this thread in a way that can hopefully influence resulting definition(/s). > · Although the conversation started with Ben questioning the definition of vulnerability, the thread has included some threading of intertwining terms. > · Much of my recent work has been trying to get understanding of vulnerability reduction and resilience strengthening so that decision-making can result in helpful actions in various parts of East Africa. > · Like Ameen and others have said, that all starts with getting people from the village/household level through the donor level on board with a consistent understanding of what we’re talking about. > · For whatever reasons (e.g., new paradigm fatigue, old paradigm inertia, hangovers [from previous paradigms or just a wild one the night before]), there are many people who cringe when the words vulnerability and resilience enter the room…regardless of what language is being used to express them or their translated approximations. So I’ve tried to invite easier and more productive ways of expressing such ideas to enter instead. > · I try to do so by getting people on board with definitions they can understand without ever using the actual words – like Lakshmi Fjord said about CARD’s approach. And I like Loy’s attempt at a fun metaphor for resilience using a toy. But since I don’t see how that metaphor can be translated into them taking practical actions to make themselves more like that toy, I hope that the next step is to introduce more to what they can practically translate as described below. > · People’s concern about personal salience requires them to focus on anything that they perceive concerns them or those they care about having a disruption in being able to access food, NFIs, income, and services at levels and in ways that enable them to live at some standard (all of which they continually redefine as part of daily living). > · If people are dead, they can’t access these things. And if they can’t access these things at a survival threshold level, they will die. So, in addition to wanting to care for their dead loved ones as deemed appropriate to individual or group practice, households generally at a minimum want to be better able to protect their lives and to protect what contributes to their survival from both immediate and ensuing impacts of regular and irregular processes and events that can occur. > · Having household members survive and live at a certain standard requires that they have: > - Initial access to food, NFIs, income, & services at the reasonable desired standard that they define (‘access’) > - Resources and processes to minimize disruptions in access to these things at this standard due to regular processes and events (‘reliable access’) > - Resources and processes to minimize disruptions in reliable access to these things at this standard due to irregular processes and events (‘adaptive access’) > · Unfortunately, there are conditions that contribute to a household’s potential to have some of this access disrupted when regular or irregular processes and events occur. > · Contributing factors to these conditions include what members of the household do, what others do (e.g., in their unit of population, in neighboring units of population [horizontally], at higher levels of governance of units of population [vertically]), and some of what is not perceived to be influenced by anyone’s actions. > · What households do includes tradeoffs in choices to increase the potential to have access to some items disrupted so that they might have better access to other items that they prioritize. And what is done horizontally and vertically includes tradeoffs in choices to increase the potential to have access to some items for some people disrupted so that other priorities for better access for them or others might be realized. > · Given this approach, it seems to boil down to: > - The goal is to ‘minimize access disruptions’. This is the mantra that I think we should be defining and using rather than nebulous terms with different meanings in different disciplines. It’s straightforward & also has the best hope of bridging all underlying silos of relief & development through risk-based development & response. > - The evolving potential to have access disruptions during and after times of regular and irregular processes and events (general definition of ‘vulnerability’ – should we choose to care about this definition) > - The access disruption expected during and after times of regular and irregular processes and events (general definition of ‘risk’ – should we choose to care about this definition) > - The evolving potential of a household or group to have a level or duration of disruption of access to an item or items during and after a particular regular or irregular process or event that causes a specified level of impact to the resources and processes that contribute to maintaining this access (full definition of ‘vulnerability’ [of whom, from what, & to what] – should we choose to care about this definition) > - The level or duration of disruption of access to an item or items during and after a particular regular or irregular process or event that causes a specified level of impact to the resources and processes that contribute to maintaining this access (full definition of ‘risk’ – should we choose to care about this definition) > - Processes involving factors not perceived to be influenced by people or choices at higher levels of governance of units of population that increase the potential to have access to some items for some people disrupted so that other priorities for better access for others might be realized (‘marginalization’) > · And ‘resilience’? I agree with David that it’s overtly simple…so simple that I don’t understand why I keep getting stuck in meetings in which people announce with great drama that that they need to ‘unpackage resilience’ (as if doing so requires the same level of understanding and tools as brain surgery). > · In resilience literature, there is talk of ‘absorptive capacities’ to better ‘resist’ and ‘respond to’ shock impacts, ‘adaptive capacities’ to better identify temporary changes in processes and events affecting the access systems and modify actions to ‘resist’ and ‘respond to’ them, and ‘transformative capacities’ to better identify long-term changes in the processes and events affecting the access systems and modify these systems permanently to better ‘resist, ‘respond’, and ‘adapt’. In my lingo, ‘resist’ capacities will better enable complete avoidance of any access disruptions. But since it would be impossible to avoid all access disruptions from all potential processes and events, there will inevitably be some ‘residual’ access disruptions. Capacities to ‘respond’ effectively quickly will better enable reduction of the severity and duration of the resulting disruptions. > · Strengthened ‘transform’ and ‘respond’ capacities should enable risk-informed development and response. As Ilan suggested with examples of ‘negative resilience’, there are prevailing processes that prevent attainment of reasonable desired levels of access. The time during and after regular and irregular processes and events provides opportunities for change to better enable reliable adaptable access at these reasonable desired levels (e.g., risk informed response to an irregular event that enables an access system to ‘bounce back better’). > · No household and its respective population unit and livelihood and service delivery systems can ever achieve a state of perfect access disruption minimization (so there are none that can be called ‘resilient’ and no ‘resilient’ state). Households and their respective population units and livelihood and service access systems can increase these capacities to better minimize access disruptions (so this result would be ‘more resilient’ and the process is ‘resilience strengthening’). > · Given this approach, it seems to boil down to: > - Vague evolution of capacities to minimize access disruptions (‘resilience’ – should we choose to care about this definition) > - Increasing capacities to minimize access disruptions (general definition of ‘resilience strengthening’ – should we choose to care about this definition) > - Increasing capacities of a household or group to minimize disruptions of access to an item or items during and after a particular regular or irregular process or event that could cause a specified level of impact to the resources and processes that contribute to maintaining this access(full definition of ‘resilience strengthening’ [of whom, from what, to what] – should we choose to care about this definition) > · Is ‘resilience’ just the opposite of ‘vulnerability’ (and ‘resilience-strengthening’ just the same thing as ‘vulnerability reduction’)? In my lingo, the answer is a qualified ‘maybe’. Because resilience strengthening focuses on improving everyday access in a risk-based development and response process that also reduces vulnerability to absorb impacts of regular and irregular processes and events to minimize access disruptions, it is more than vulnerability reduction. But vulnerability reduction should be done through such a process of resilience strengthening. So the qualification is a resounding ‘but who cares?’. I agree with Ben and others that words matter. But for these particular words, I think that all that matters is that resources are chosen and utilized in processes that are constructed and implemented in systems to ‘minimize access disruption’. Might we seek to get some version of this in the UNISDR definitions? > > hopefully and gratefully, > bfb (bob alexander) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Independent Disaster, Climate Change, & Development > Vulnerability-Reduction & Resilience-Strengthening > Researcher, Trainer, & Consultant (currently under contract as > Senior Advisor for the Joint FAO/WFP/UNICEF > Food & Nutrition Security Resilience Initiative in Ethiopia) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 07:43:57 +0630 > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Dear Colleagues, > > I agree with the point Anto has made. Communicating both vulnerabilitiy, capacity and resilience and their precise technical meanings can be very challenging at an operational level to community members and leaders, school children and teachers and even Government officials, who then have to apply these categories in their regular work on emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction. > > While Bamboo is an important and useful image for resilience which helps explain it, and exemplify it, the image and object of a child's toy found in every pagoda in Myanmar - the Pyit Taing Taung - helps in such communication with young and old. See the image below. Knock it down, drop it from a height throw it gently in a lob, and it will come up standing. Children and adults alike immediately break our in a smile when I show them the image which adorns my carry bag of books and say now I get what you are talking about resilience. > > The standing up again image speaks to empowerment, dignity and inherent capacity and about seeing everyday things and ourselves differently, all ingredients of resilience , otherwise having to be explained in complex words and formulas. and best of all it is an inner image they carry within their mind and heart and internalize far better than any lecture or film. > > I am advocating PTT as a Myanmar symbol of resilience, and all cultures have similar toys with wide bases and light material, ( papier mache in this case) which can be used similarly as well. > > Warmly, > > LOY REGO > Yangon > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Aaron Clark-Ginsberg <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > It's good to remember that in some cases people want to be labeled victims. Taking on a label of a victim or vulnerable can be a way of drawing attention to the structural inequality and powerlessness at the root of risk--it can be a rallying cry for change. Conversely, it can be used negatively to imply that a group of people are somehow inferior, lacking in a basic element of humanity. I think the important thing is, as many are saying, to give people at risk control over language and terminology. Vulnerability is an identity marker, and people need the power to use the word as they see it. Not sure how this would tie in with a UNISDR definition though! > > Thanks for this great conversation, > > Aaron > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Arthur Neame <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Hence the “We refuse to be Victims, We choose to be resources” strapline of the local NGO, Balay Mindanaw, that I work with…thanks for your help, but if you label us and we will label you > > > > From: Radix [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ana-Marie Jones [CARD] > Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 2:44 AM > > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > > > Hi All, > > > > I do love this discussion. After a couple of decades obsessing over how to transform readiness and seeing what works in different places, I am convinced there is no one right answer, no one right description, and I think history supports this. When I'm asked to keynote at a conference, I often ask what terms and phrases they use in their discussions, so that I can be more sensitive to their listening. I apologize in advance for using terms and phrases that conflict with some of their understandings, especially when I know I won't be changing my language or tools. > > > > In the US there are words that virtually must be used just to be understood by emergency management audiences, and in grant applications -- hence the reason 'vulnerable' and 'special needs' became a standard. Somewhere I have a list of the 20+ phrases I've heard used to describe the people who tend to suffer most in disasters -- special needs, vulnerable, at-risk, marginalized, hard-to-reach, disadvantaged, under-resourced, AFN, etc. Each one has its champions and detractors, and some are more clearly steeped in the politics of the users. > > > > In CARD's presentations we have a long list called "The Labeled People" and we took to sharing why the above labels cause their own harm. For example, when the official word came down that "Access and Functional Needs" (AFN) was to new term across the US, it left many scrambling for how they would change everything from the names of their courses, their printed materials, the search engine listings, etc. The actual humans I train and serve NEVER refer to themselves as having "access and functional needs" so they didn't know that certain classes, publications, and offerings were even intended for them. > > > > We are seeing the same issues with "resilience" conversations. "Resilience" is now slapped on so many efforts that it is getting harder to understand what people are speaking about. I do react especially strongly when it is simplified to the "Weeble" definition of "bounce back" to where you were pre-disaster. And I cringe when a beach ball is used to illustrate the point. I remind people that the poorest people in our community will not align behind a time-intensive and costly effort that helps them to "bounce back" to poverty. > > > > MOST of the words and materials on our website are old, and do not reflect my current desires for the conversation -- other than the points about ending the use of fear to motivate, disposing of the one-message mentality, and the passion for normalizing and socializing safety and resilience behaviors into everyday life. I'm still entirely committed to those things. > > > > Thanks all, > > > > Ana-Marie > > > > > > > > Ana-Marie Jones, Executive Director > CARD - Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters > 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 450, Oakland, CA 94612 > Phone: 510-451-3140 ~ Cell: 510-207-0189 ~ Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Helping Nonprofits Prepare to Prosper! > > > CARD can be found online at: > www.CARDcanhelp.org <http://www.cardcanhelp.org/> ~ http://CARDcanhelp.org/Blog <http://cardcanhelp.org/Blog> ~ www.Twitter.com/CARDcanhelp <http://www.twitter.com/CARDcanhelp> ~ www.Facebook.com/CARDcanhelp <http://www.facebook.com/CARDcanhelp> > > Ana-Marie Jones can be found online at: > www.LinkedIn.com/in/MsDuctTape <http://www.linkedin.com/in/MsDuctTape> ~ www.Facebook.com/MsDuctTape <http://www.facebook.com/MsDuctTape> ~ www.Twitter.com/MsDuctTape <http://www.twitter.com/MsDuctTape> > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Lakshmi Fjord <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > To piggyback on Ameen's description of social mobilization processes, since 1989 after the Loma Prieta earthquake, a nonprofit called CARD (Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters) in Oakland, CA developed a participatory assessment and preparedness dialogic model that they continue to this day. The word "agencies" is misleading, for their work has expanded to any organization or group of people, such as homeless people who gather at churches for meals. Together, they talk about what hazards they in particular face during earthquakes or mudslides and flooding, the resources they use everyday to live without shelter, electricity, water, cash, and familial support; and their ideas about whom to receive disaster funds to prepare for disasters so these everyday services can function during and after disasters. Such as, the libraries where they stay warm, wash in sinks, get on the internet, doze safely everyday; the churches and community centers that give meals regularly; the EDs of hospitals that give them medical care. > > > > The dialogue includes group identification of the skills they use to survive everyday and recognition of their value to everyone trying to survive during and after disasters. Without naming that what they are talking about is also known as "resilience" and "building resilient communities" -- buzzwords that have taken on a life of their own in the press for grant funding in the U.S. > > > > On CARD's website, one finds the non-fear based messaging they bring to their trainings and public teach ins, and how to mobilize community-participatory rather than one size fits all preparedness planning. The language is meant for easy access and translation across the diverse spectrum of US constituencies and languages. They continue to use "vulnerable people" as this is the expected buzzword too. > > > > Not surprisingly to Radix subscribers, this nonprofit struggles mightily to get funding now, when ever more often, large quasi-governmental organizations such as the US Red Cross assuages public funders into thinking brochures with lists of "special needs" or "vulnerable people" and the accompanying "preparedness kit" each must pay for and assemble on their own -- constitutes best practices. And, that paying top dollars for the latest emergency equipment and billions in funding of the US Red Cross to swoop in where they have no existing social networks constitute response planning. > > > > So enjoying this discussion, > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Deborah Cousins <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Right on – Whose reality counts? > > > > From: Radix [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ameen Benjamin > Sent: 02 October 2015 02:58 PM > > > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > > > To concur with Ben around the point of social mobilisation, where the greatest value resided in these participatory assessment processes, was not as much our (the outsiders) understanding of local vulnerability, but more so the locals own understanding of their vulnerability. > > > > A number of participants from a range of different study locations echoed the sentiment that, the value they gained from the process was the opportunity provided to them to look at their own conditions and becoming more aware of the elements which causes them to be vulnerable and at risk. A somewhat "mirror effect". This is because under their normal routine of just trying to survive another day, there is no time provided for such critical self- and community-reflection. > > > > This awareness positively led to purposive community-based risk reduction measures ---the transformation Ben alludes to. > > > > Perhaps herein lies a possible approach to understanding vulnerability ... from the bottom-up, rather than the top (academic/technical/political) - down. This so that the definition has meaning to those it matters most ---those at risk by circumstance, not choice. > > > > Regards, > > Ameen > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:27 PM, <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I find Ameen's description of a 'rich discussion' between the facilitator and locals very helpful and accurate. It resonates with my experience. > > A team I worked with between 2008-2014 in Tanzania had similar discussions about Swahili terminology that made sense to local people. The additional twist was that local people found 'official' Swahili used in government documents about climate change and extreme events linked to CA difficult to understand. The discussion often broadened out to address words that we'd not consider 'technical' (specifically focused on extreme weather events or events triggered by them such as landslides or floods). The word 'change' was problematic, for example. Finally, it wasn't just individual words but the entire discourse of 'climate change' that some locals suspected was aimed at manipulating them, even 'blaming the victim' and used by elites to justify land grabs. > > This 'rich discussion' (in Ameen's phrase) was as much among locals as between them and our facilitator team. That sort of discussion is very positive and can lead to social mobilisation and (dare I use another problematic term?): transformation. > > These recent emails in the chain not only pick up the message in my original note that 'words matter', they also show how the three silences I identified in UNISDR's definition of 'vulnerability' are interconnected: Power, institutional failure and intentionality. The last of these three is clearly seen in the push back by locals Ameen described and our team experienced in Tanzania. It is also there in the statement by the NGO with which Arthur works that they 'choose to be resources' (not 'victims'). > > Best wishes, BEN > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ameen Benjamin > Sent: Oct 1, 2015 8:46 AM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > Hi Ilan and others, > > > > We experienced precisely the same challenge when translating a rudimentary definition of vulnerability (and other DRR terms) into other South African languages, particularly isiXhosa. See for example Weathering the Storm: Participatory Risk Assessments for Informal Settlements (http://www.preventionweb.net/files/4163_weathering.pdf <http://www.preventionweb.net/files/4163_weathering.pdf>). > > > > Experts fluent in the indigenous language were challenged in translating the concept (and other terms) to locals. Locals were further challenged in understanding the term, and many CRA/PDRA/CBDRM sessions ended up in a debate (or rather rich discussion) between the "expert facilitator" and the community in terms of the correct definition of the term/s in the local indigenous language -i.e. in order to be more simply understood by the common folk. > > > > Regards, > > > > Ameen Benjamin > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Avianto Amri <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Very interesting discussion. The words that we use are influenced by language, perspectives, and culture. My areas of working is with children in South East Asia region in the past few years, and it has been a challenge to use these terms, particularly to children. For example, the best way that I can find to explain resilience is using bamboos as a metaphor. > > Therefore, it looks like there will not be a single definition that will please everybody and fits for all people. Even though there is a consensus, there still be some that will be lost in translation. What is important again is to identify the essential elements so we can best define vulnerability and resilience that will eventually helps the people who will disseminate this to others. For example, a school teacher trying to explain the terms to a 10 year old children or how local NGO staff use it to convince the local policymakers. If we can succeed using this mindset, I think it is a good start. > > > > Kind regards, > > Avianto > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Ilan Kelman <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > We struggled with exactly these vocabulary and language challenges when writing and editing "Disability and Disaster: Explorations and Exchanges" http://palgrave.com/page/detail/disability-and-disaster-ilan-kelman/?K=9781137485991 <http://palgrave.com/page/detail/disability-and-disaster-ilan-kelman/?K=9781137485991> as well as the Council of Europe's work http://www.coe.int/en/web/europarisks/-/disability-and-disaster-preparedness <http://www.coe.int/en/web/europarisks/-/disability-and-disaster-preparedness> on the topic led by David Alexander https://www.ucl.ac.uk/rdr/people/david-alexander <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/rdr/people/david-alexander> > > > The differences amongst US, UK, and European English, not to mention between disaster and disability fields, were remarkable--in addition to different fields within disability and different fields within disaster. And, quite fairly, people have individual preferences regarding how they wish to describe themselves. Some people were militant regarding what words must be used. Others, chose their own and did not mind what others chose. > > > > Then, there is the mess of climate change vocabulary which also has to be different. See the citations on vulnerability and resilience given previously. > > > > Finally, once we have thoroughly bloodied each other over how to speak and write English, we must translate it all into other languages. In French, the usual phrase is 'personnes handicapées' which seems to some to be anathema in English, apart from an international NGO using the phrase in English (and, naturally, apart from French being a different language to English). Trying to translate 'resilience' (the way we are debating it here) into Norwegian is almost impossible, so either the English word or the variant from English of 'resiliens' is used, although I have seen 'robusthet', i.e. robustness, as well. > > > > Any comments from those speaking other, especially non-European, languages? Preferably in English, thank you. Best to everyone, > > > > Ilan > > > > http://www.ilankelman.org <http://www.ilankelman.org/> > Twitter @IlanKelman > > > > > > From: Lakshmi Fjord <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [RADIX] Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > > > In the US disability rights movement, advocates call themselves disabled people. Why? Because they argue that what disables them is not their traits or embodiments so much as as the social and environmental barriers that make it impossible for them to participate fully ie. the limitations in experience of able-bodied thinking and designing. And, when these barriers are addressed creatively using disability expertise, then everyone is better off. Who hasn't been injured or tired or sick and needs to use ramps, adjustable clinical exam tables, and the like? Who doesn't enjoy texting or other uses of their keyboards? To be labeled a person "with" a disability locates the cause of their marginalization in their embodied traits -- their "special needs," to use a US common fallacy -- deflecting attention from social and built barriers that will disable anyone who grows deaf or loses sight as they age, etc. > > > > Claiming "disabled people" as a language choice follows a social theory of disability -- with the aim to get over the tendency to locate the causes of disablement in individuals and away from exclusionary social practices enacted everyday. Of course these naming practices are not universal but take place within cultural spaces of advocacy and paradigmatic shift negotiations.Yet, a social theory of disability can cross linguistic, geographic, and cultural borders to identify the barriers to inclusion that keep certain folks out of access to social resources and others right up front. > > > > As disability advocates repeat often, "Nothing about us without us." To what extent can we in disaster studies think similarly about vulnerability by carefully and always shifting causation from particular persons -- however different in different cultural contexts -- to the social practices that "make vulnerability"? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Hanson <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Marla, I would agree but with a critical eye. Indeed, people would not want to be called 'vulnerable' or 'disabled' or be referred to as such. Perhaps an ideal alternative would be to call them 'survivors' or something more neutral/positive. Nevertheless, I believe that there is no bad publicity or controversy. A contested terms brings attention to the issues. I think the feminist movement and development researchers have benefited to an extent by using terms such as 'vulnerable' and 'poor'. Vulnerability, even if it is highly contested and means different things to different people, still evokes a sense of hurt, differential impact, risk, lack of resources, inequality, powerless etc.. Putting a positive or neutral spin on things may draw attention away from the issues at hand. > > > > Vulnerebel > vulnerable? > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Marla Petal <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Thank you fro this. > > > > Perhaps we could nuance our language and take care not to refer to ”vulnerable people” - at all. > > For several reasons: > > 1. individual people in these groups would take offense if they know that we are talking about them in this way. > > 2. This ’shorthand’ in the English language clearly reinforces the error that this vulnerability is either intrinsic, or due to individual or group shortcomings. > > 3. Just as people with different functional, communication and access needs (aka people with disabilities) have rejected being called ‘disabled people’, we could take this hint and refer to “people (or groups) of people made (or left) vulnerable” – esp. by denial/differential safeguarding of their human rights). > > > > Marla Petal > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Lakshmi Fjord <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > Avianto has identified an important paradox that occurs when disaster studies and policy rhetoric link the concept of vulnerability to categories of persons based on their natal population/"race," age, socioeconomic or immigrant or indigenous or disability status, gender, and more. It is this slippage I find troubling in some of the examples given in this thread, despite knowing the rhetorical aims (and their implementations) are to shift existing paradigms and foci by planners and policy makers. > > > > As the anthropologist Laura Nader pointed out ruefully to our discipline in the 1970s -- “Don’t study the poor and powerless, because everything you say about them will be used against them” (Nader in Dell Hymes’Reinventing Anthropology, 1972). > > > > The paradoxical flip side is, as we all know and have advocated: the very people identified as "embodying vulnerability" are the most expert at identifying the nuts and bolts barriers they face everyday to full participatory citizenship. They are very creative and strategic with their resources, and their everyday negotiations of social and built barriers point to often low cost pre-planning that ought to be front-loaded instead of after-the-fact mop ups after deaths and destruction. > > It is easy to make these links for others outside our fields from key examples: curb cuts from sidewalks to roadways built for access of people using wheelchairs and now indispensable to local businesses loading and unloading, folks pushing strollers or bicycles, rolling suitcases... The link between the invention of the first (& most ergonomic) typewriter keyboard in Denmark by a teacher of the deaf (mid-1800s) to promote the literacy of deaf students who could not hear spoken language; TTYs (text messaging); videophones (Skype, etc); voice recognition (OK, we don't love verbal cueing our way through a phone queue, but Dragon anyone?); first transcribing pens, and on and on. All catalyzed by disablement experiences to now benefit and give communication ramps to everyone with access to them. > > > > In previous writing on the topic of reconstituting vulnerability by locating it in persons rather than systems and processes, one of my foci involves the levee failures that deluged mostly African American unevacuated residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina actually gave the city a pass-by. Who died: elderly disabled Black people. Justifications for delay of humanitarian for militarized responses rely on rhetorically mobilizing the disability concept. Black people in New Orleans were less able to "plan ahead," were "unable to act in a timely way," were unable to "act in a civilized manner, so looted while others died." All cognitive and developmental impairments, to shift focus from the Congressional environmental racism that de-funded levee construction and maintenance; the political racism that brought National Guard empty-handed except for weapons and appropriated for themselves the few relief supplies and transport that got through the barriers of water. We find recent resonances in apologists for Saudi Arabia's lack of trained personnel and preplanning that place blame on African Hajjis who bore the greatest losses by attributing whole-scale cognitive impairments to them. > > > > Now I am engaged as a participant observer in a further US federally-supported project where environmental racism arises in targeting whom shall forfeit clean air, water, and land in the "sacrificial zone" (gas industry term) for the super-sized fractured gas compressor station (4 X greater than other compressor stations - instead of 400,000 cubit feet a day of fracked gas propelled by engines, 1.4 billion cubit feet a day) proposed by Dominion Power acting as a limited liability company that applied to FERC (US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). Because the gas industry has been entirely successful in their advertising campaign that "gas is clean energy," such sacrifices are required of private citizens to secure domestic energy solutions. I don't need to elaborate that fractured gas shale reserves are from 96% lower in CA to a little more elsewhere than industry estimates; that the gas propelled by this super compressor station requires routine emissions of methane, Co2 and No2 at geometrically higher than already unsafe levels of smaller versions, is now intended for foreign sales at higher than domestic prices. > > The site for the 1 compressor station to cover the state of Virginia is a historically Black community, rural, majority elderly because of out-migration from no local jobs, disproportionately chronically ill, in Buckingham County. This geographically large, very rural county, is one of the poorest in the nation, with 25% living below the poverty line, 45% African American, many of whom are descended from people enslaved by white families in this county. They do not want activists against the ACP to talk about this as environmental racism. In their eloquently crafted statements, Union Hill community members use public health and environmental data to express concerns for anyone living in proximity to this project. This community has learned not to play "the race card," the "victim card" as individuals among them receive a few of the teaching or social work jobs available in a county whose revenues mostly come from resource extraction (clear-cutting forests, kyanite mine, slate quarry) and a prison. > > > > As both ethnographer and social justice activist, I navigate that razor's edge of how to discursively connect the dots for Virginia's Democratic state politicians, the governor and 2 senators who support the ACP, about their own legacies and this unacknowledged example of environmental racism and the wishes of this most impacted community. > > > > This is the discursive issue Ben raised and all of us ponder in our ongoing process of connecting the dots for those who make policies, who fund programs, who design and implement preparedness strategies and post-disaster responses. How do we use our data, bringing the science and social science together in grounded, meta-analytical concepts, without our work and words being "used against" the very people whose perspectives we try to foreground in public and governmental fora? > > Thank you for raising this rhetorical yet materially consequential issue in this thread, > > Lakshmi > > > > Lakshmi Fjord, PhD > > Scholar-in-residence, Dept. of Anthropology > > University of Virginia > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Avianto Amri <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I echo Ilan's comments. The Sendai Framework has recognised the role of at-risk groups such as children, older persons and indigenous groups to play significant roles in reducing disaster risks. Eventually we will be facing grave challenge in translating and disseminating the message across all groups, especially to the most vulnerable. > > Best regards, > > > > Anto > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Ilan Kelman <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Not all resilience is necessarily good, positive, or desirable: > > > > 1. http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2707/2013/nhess-13-2707-2013.pdf <http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2707/2013/nhess-13-2707-2013.pdf> > > > 2. http://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/866 <http://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/866> > > > > 3. http://phg.sagepub.com/content/39/3/249.full.pdf+html <http://phg.sagepub.com/content/39/3/249.full.pdf+html> > > > > 4. http://www.ilankelman.org/articles1/kelman2008udp.pdf <http://www.ilankelman.org/articles1/kelman2008udp.pdf> > > > > 5. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5 <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5> > > > > 6. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/DPM-12-2012-0143 <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/DPM-12-2012-0143> > > > Ultimately, so much depends on the definitions used--which is Ben's point of ensuring that the definition is suitable for our ultimate aim. Both 'vulnerability' and 'resilience' have so many definitions given and applied that they could mean almost anything--and there will be a citation for it. Then, consider trying to translate these words into other languages and cultures; often, there is no translation, meaning, or description feasible. > > > > One more definition to add to the mix, expanded in some of the above papers with citations to the original work proposing this view, is to look at vulnerability and resilience as social processes. Considering the 'vulnerability process' and the 'resilience process' moves away from definitions which set up an artificial snapshot in space and time to aim for a static description. > > > > Best to everyone and thank you for this discussion, > > > > Ilan > > > > > > From: Omar Dario Cardona A. Uniandes <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: [RADIX] Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like Marley's ghost his chains! > > > Dear Ben, > > Vulnerability has been a key concept to provide an epistemological framework > to disaster risk but also to other frameworks related to sustainibility, > development an adaptation. As predisposition and susceptibility it has been > very useful. As you know, the perpectives of taxonomies and underlying > causes or factors (also recently used as risk drivers) should be mantain but > the new draft terminology of UNISDR (with that definition) and the SFA > making only few references to the term are unfortunate. This is ironic > because there are now many followers of the concept due to the IPCC SREX > (Ch. 1 and 2) and the IPCC AR5, notwithstading they (the IPCC) have had > other approaches on vulnerability in the past. > > I am sharing some of our frameworks thinking in the role of vulnerability to > explain risk and disaster from a holistic perspective and using a dynamic > systems approach (on an area or territory, national, subnational or local). > You know these contributions from many years ago. I agree it is necessary to > attempt keeping these approaches for risk understanding, including the lack > of resilience as a component of vulnerability (or not...) but looking for a > comprehensive view useful to identify the need of transformation and safety > taking a transdisciplinary perspective. The emphasis in resilience (e.g. > resilient cities...) and to leave vulnerability is clear in the UNISDR to > provide a positive term, but how much resilience is enough resilience? how > much safety is a enough safety? Vulnerability es very useful term to > complain... > > All the best, > > Omar-Dario > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > From: Ben Wisner > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:44 PM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Sendai framework drags old HFA definition of vulnerability like > Marley's ghost his chains! > > Dear Radixers, > > I sent the attached short reflection on how one defines 'vulnerability' to > folks at UNISDR on the eve of an inter-governmental meeting whose goal is to > consider the terminology used in disaster risk reduction with a view to > eventual common monitoring of the roll out of both the new Sendai Framework > of Action and the Sustainable Development Goals. > > Words matter. Definitions (and corresponding models and framings) nudge > people to questions some things and to ignore others. I find, regrettably, > that on the eve of this meeting the technical review commissioned by UNISDR > recommends using a definition of 'vulnerability' that steers people away > from asking questions about power, about institutional failure and about > intentionality. > > My note, attached, is a quick read. I'd appreciate feedback, and also, if > you are inclined, the diverse and deep experience of Radix participants > since its founding in 2001 provide a credible basis from which to urge the > UNISDR to take this opportunity to bring its definition of 'vulnerability' > up to data. > > Thanks and warmest regards, > > BEN > > Dr. Ben Wisner > Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London, UK > & Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania > & Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA > > "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." > > > > > > > -- > > Avianto Amri (Mr.) > Disaster Risk Management Specialist > M: +61 416515720 > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> || Skype: avianto.amri > Alternate email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > > > > Marla > > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Skype: shmarla > > > > US Mob. +1 (408) 806 7888 > > E-Fax. +1 (408) 516-5841 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > David Hanson > > > > > > > > > -- > > Avianto Amri (Mr.) > Disaster Risk Management Specialist > M: +61 416515720 > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> || Skype: avianto.amri > Alternate email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > > > Dr. Ben Wisner > Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London, UK > & Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania > & Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA > > "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." > > > > > Disclaimer > This e-mail transmission contains confidential information, which is the property of the sender. The information in this e-mail or attachments thereto is intended for the attention and use only of the addressee. Should you have received this email in error, please delete and destroy it and any attachments thereto immediately. > > Under no circumstances will the Cape Peninsula University of Technology or the sender of this email be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages for any use of this e-mail. For the detailed e-mail disclaimer please refer to , CPUT Disclaimer <http://www.cput.ac.za/email.php>or call +27 (0)21 460 3911. > > > > > > > <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > -- > http://www.aaroncg.me/ <http://www.aaroncg.me/> > > > > Dr. Ben Wisner > Aon-Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, University College London, UK > & Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania > & Environmental Studies Program, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA > > "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." Marla Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Skype: shmarla US Mob. +1 (408) 806 7888 E-Fax. +1 (408) 516-5841