Although capacity development has been identified as the means to substantially reduce global disaster losses, it is a challenge for external partners to facilitate the development of sustainable capacities for disaster risk reduction in disaster-prone countries. The purpose of this study is to investigate potential gaps between how leading professionals approach such capacity development and guidelines found in available theory. The analysis of data from thirty-five qualitative semi-structured interviews reveals that there are gaps between theory and practise, as well as between the practitioners, in all seven elements identified in available theory. There is ambiguity regarding terminology, different views about the meaning of local context, ownership and capacity assessment, as well as contradicting opinions of the role and responsibilities of external partners. Focus is on training individuals, while other requisites are often ignored, and there is a general lack of understanding of what results to assess and how to monitor and evaluate projects.

No abstract

During the last decade, the interest of the international community in the concepts of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation has been growing immensely. Even though an increasing number of scholars seem to view these concepts as two sides of the same coin (at least when not considering the potentially positive effects of climate change), in practice the two concepts have developed in parallel rather than in an integrated manner when it comes to policy, rhetoric and funding opportunities amongst international organisations and donors. This study investigates the extent of the creation of parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. The chosen methodology for the study is a comparative case study and the data are collected through focus groups and content analysis of documentary sources, as well as interviews with key informants. The results indicate that parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have been established in all but one of the studied countries. The qualitative interviews performed in some of the countries indicate that stakeholders in disaster risk reduction view this duplication of structures as unfortunate, inefficient and a fertile setup for conflict over resources for the implementation of similar activities. Additional research is called for in order to study the concrete effects of having these parallel structures as a foundation for advocacy for more efficient future disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.

Many African countries face escalating challenges of increasing disaster risk and anticipated impacts of climate change. Although disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) are tightly linked and comprising virtually identical practices in vulnerable countries in Southern Africa, research has identified parallel governance structures across the region. This study applied comparative case study research, based on 27 semi-structured interviews, to investigate the reasons for and effects of such parallel structures for DRR and CCA in Botswana, Mozambique, the Seychelles, Tanzania and Zambia. It revealed overwhelmingly negative effects in terms of unclear mandates and leadership, uncoordinated efforts, duplication of efforts, suboptimal use of resources and competition over resources and control. The study identified both external reasons for the parallel structures, in terms of global or international initiatives or incentives, and internal reasons, with regard to the history and quality of the governance structures. Although the identified negative effects are common to a range of complex nexuses, there is a clear distinction with the DRR–CCA nexus comprising virtually indistinguishable practices in Southern Africa. There is, as such, no practical reason for keeping them apart. The parallel structures for DRR and CCA are instead the result of pervasive institutionalisation across the region, driven by coercive, mimetic and normative pressures coming from both within and abroad. Although much point to the difficulties of changing the studied institutional arrangements, these parallel structures for DRR and CCA must be addressed if the populations in Southern Africa are to enjoy safety and sustainable development.

No abstract