Perceived Adverse Effects of Separating Government Institutions for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Within the Southern African Development Community Member States

• Published in: International journal of disaster risk science Vol. 12; no. 1; pp. 1 - 12
• Main Authors: Nemakonde, Livhuwani D., Van Niekerk, Dewald, Becker, Per, Khoza, Sizwile
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Beijing Beijing Normal University Press 01.02.2021; Springer; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Adaptation; Annan samhällsbyggnadsteknik; Civil Engineering; Climate adaptation; Climate Change; Climate change adaptation; Disaster management; Disaster risk; Disaster risk reduction; Disasters; Earth and Environmental Science; Earth Sciences; Engineering and Technology; Environment; Environmental Analysis and Construction Information Technology; Environmental aspects; Environmental risk; Global temperature changes; Institutions; Integration; Landscape/Regional and Urban Planning; Miljöanalys och bygginformationsteknik; Mixed methods research; Natural disasters; Natural Hazards; Other Civil Engineering; Research design; Risk management; Risk reduction; Samhällsbyggnadsteknik; Southern African Development Community; Surveying; Sustainable Development; Teknik; South Africa; United Kingdom; Madagascar; Zambia; Botswana; Southern African Development Community; Disaster risk reduction; Climate change adaptation; Sustainable development
• ISSN: 2095-0055; 2192-6395
• DOI: 10.1007/s13753-020-00303-9

Integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) is widely recognized as a solution for reducing the risk and impacts of disasters. However, successful integration seems elusive, and the two goals continue to function in isolation and in parallel. This article provides empirical insights into the perceived effects of separating government institutions for DRR and CCA within the Southern African Development Community member states. A mixed method research design was applied to the study. A total of 40 respondents from Botswana, Eswatini (until April 2018 Swaziland), Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe participated in face-to-face interviews or an online survey. Five major effects of separating the organizations for DRR and CCA that impede efforts to reduce disaster risk coherently were identified: duplication of services, polarization of interventions, incoherent policies, competition for the same resources, and territorial contests. Given the continued fragmentation of institutions for DRR and CCA, highlighting these effects is important to emphasize the need for integrated approaches towards the reduction of disaster risk.