The role of governance in (re)producing ineffective disaster risk reduction: Evidence from landslides in Uganda and Cameroon

Disaster research is an established research field and scientific studies are rapidly increasing. Despite the extensive scientific literature and unprecedented growth in disaster-related investment and institutions, the number of humans and assets being exposed to natural hazards is rising faster than the reduction of their vulnerability to these hazards. We therefore argue that several gaps persist in and between disaster research, policy and action. Moreover, disaster risk reduction practice fails to address its objective, namely reducing disaster risks. The goal of this dissertation is to contribute to the better understanding of these mismatches. Moreover, we focus on landslides, an overlooked and under-researched natural hazard.Based on a bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on landslide risk reduction in the tropics between 2005 and 2015, we illustrate the current mismatches in and between landslide risk reduction research, policy and practice. This review shows that the most recommended landslide risk reduction component is ‘risk management and vulnerability reduction’, while the most implemented component is ‘risk assessment’ with a focus on ‘hazard assessment’. Furthermore, it confirms the persisting dominance of the natural sciences in landslide research.
Disaster risk reduction is increasingly viewed as a governance issue by disaster scholars and practitioners. Our study acknowledges that disaster governance is complex, as it is shaped by the interaction of multiple actors and institutions, geographical locations and their physical conditions, disaster phases, hazards and scales. By incorporating contributions from ‘politics of disaster’, ‘science and technology studies’, ‘network governance’ and ‘discourse analysis’, we tried to enrich the literature on disaster governance and to answer the repeated calls for both empirical cross-scale disaster analysis and a re-politisation of disaster research.
The gaps in and between the objective and practice of landslide risk reduction were studied through in-depth case studies of disaster governance. Case studies were selected from a much under-researched landslide-prone region, being Sub-Saharan Africa. Based on empirical data from landslide risk reduction in Uganda and Cameroon, we provided insights on specific examples of landslide risk reduction, such as disaster platforms in Uganda and disaster risk zonation policies in Cameroon. Concerning disaster platforms at decentralised politico-administrative levels in the Rwenzori Mountains region (West Uganda), we showed that these types of horizontal governance are used as spatial tactics to centralise power for the ruling party. This resulted in unequal risk through blame dissolution and scale jumping. As a consequence, decentralised platforms cannot be considered a panacea for disaster risk management without conditions for its implementation despite such claims of international treaties on disaster risk reduction. Concerning disaster risk zonation in Limbe city (South-West Cameroon), this study illustrated that the current policies are characterised by ad-hoc risk assessment and poor enforcement of the law, leading to risk accumulation instead of risk reduction. Moreover, this study revealed that these perverse effects in Limbe can partly be attributed to socio-political drivers like the use of a post-political discourse by national and local-level authorities. A post-political discourse portrays disasters as a pure technical and a-political problem. As a result, it becomes difficult for citizens to contest the proposed disaster risk reduction measures.
Furthermore, we developed a methodology for evaluating appropriate landslide risk reduction measures based on a pilot study in the Rwenzori Mountains region, as this type of methodology is currently lacking for several natural hazards, including landslides. Therefore, we propose a social multi-criteria evaluation which draws from both local and scientific knowledge. This method combines a two-phased multi-criteria analysis with an institutional analysis for its design and a discourse analysis for interpreting its outcomes.
Lastly, we conclude with illustrating the role that governance plays in producing and reproducing ineffective landslide risk reduction by drawing from several examples of the different chapters and embedding these in our analytical framework. Based on this dissertation, several implications, reflections and avenues for future research are then distilled.