Cabinet Reshuffle: Change at DFID

As mentioned on GfGD's Facebook page - last week David Cameron reshuffled his Government, and made some changes to the Department for International Development (DFID).

Andrew Mitchell who has served as Secretary of State since 2010, and Shadow Secretary of State since 2005 moved to another brief within the Cabinet. He was replaced by Justine Greening. Lower down the ministerial ranks, Stephen O'Brien (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for International Development) was also replaced by Lib-Dem MP Lynne Featherstone. Alan Duncan retains his position as Minister of State. 

Many people will have their own opinions about the successes and failures of the past two and a half years of Coalition Government, and in particular how DFID has progressed. You can read a variety of posts and opinions on the Guardian (see Jonathan Glennie, Liz Ford and Sol Oyuela for example). The general feeling from tweets, articles and blog comments however seems to be that Andrew Mitchell can leave DFID with his head held high. After five years as Shadow Secretary of State, he was described as being one of the 'best-prepared' secretary of states with genuine 'commitment to the sector.' 

Here a few of my own thoughts. In my opinion, and I would certainly welcome other's thoughts and comments Mitchell has been one of the higher profile Secretary of States in recent times, bringing some positive leadership and direction to this department, that showed that a genuine belief in the importance of development. In the difficult economic climate, there has been little (vocal) public support for ringfencing DFID's budget. Despite this, Mitchell has worked solidly to defend and promote the importance of supporting the world's poorest communities which must be commended. It is regretful and disappointing that he didn't oversee the promised legislating of 0.7% of GDP to international development. I also have concerns that the focus on value for money, which is not unwelcome, could bring about a reluctance to support projects bringing long-term results. Vaccines are much easier than hygiene education for example. It should also be noted that Stephen O'Brien was held in high regard by a number within the development community. 

Justine Greening and her ministerial team, therefore have a big responsibility to build on this work, and have a lot in their various in-trays. Greening must continue to fight to win the argument over the 0.7% of GDP, standing up to some fellow Conservative MPs who are sceptical to say the least. In the event of pressure from the Treasury to back down on this pledge, Greening must remember the promise of her predecessor not to balance the books on the backs of the world's poorest. Greening should also re-examine the 'value for money' approach taken by Mitchell - to ensure that DFID are not just taking a short term approach to development, in order to show rapid results. Real value for money comes from investing in long-term change, prevention rather than cure. Alongside these massive tasks, DFID will be taking a leading role in the development of post Millennium Development Goal targets, must continue to implement the HERR recommendations and many other tasks.

Overall, we should be proud of the fact that the UK has an overseas development department, and the work that we do to fight poverty and improve the lives of communities around the world. Both Andrew Mitchell and Justine Greening are privileged to have led and to lead such an important department.  

Friday Photo (36) - Celebration in the Commonwealth

This week the Commonwealth has been celebrating sixty years of leadership from Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Many of our readers will be members of Commonwealth nations and you may be interested to know that the Commonwealth offers funding for Masters and PhD studies, as well as academic fellowships, both in the UK and in other Commonwealth nations. Some applications have closed for 2012, but have a read and keep an eye on this webpage over the coming months.

UK: DIAMOND JUBILEE CELEBRATION
HM Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth, with close member of her family at a celebration at Buckingham Palace, London, United Kingdom
(c) Geology for Global Development 2012

Reminder: Write To Your MP

Clean water and access to good sanitation benefit many other areas of development. "When we get it right [water and sanitation], so much else follows" says Alan Duncan, UK Minister for International Development. Join our campaign to write to as many local MPs as possible to tell them that we believe it is right and good news that the Government is doubling the number of people it intends to reach with clean water and access to good sanitation. 

Find out more about what to do here...

Write to Your MP: UK to Double Support for Water and Sanitation

Last week we posted on our Facebook wall the fantastic news that the UK Government has decided to double its support to water and sanitation projects in the world's poorest countries. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) will work to secure access to clean drinking water and proper sanitation for more than 60million people over the lifetime of this parliament.

As we have posted numerous times, access to clean water and good sanitation has a knock-on benefit to many other areas of life. It means children will no longer have to walk many miles to collect water, thus increasing the time they can spend at school. It means health problems, many avoidable diseases, can be reduced. This is turn can improve the life expectancy of mothers giving birth and young children especially. Improved health, through drinking clean water, can mean less days are lost to sickness and so people have the freedom to work and generate income. In fact, for every £1 spent on water and sanitation in the developing world, it is estimated by the United Nations that a staggering £8 is returned in reduced health costs, saved time and better productivity.

Alan Duncan, Minister of State at DFID, recently stated in a debate to mark World Water Day:

"Ensuring access to water and sanitation for the poorest is, to pick a metaphor, the bread and butter of development. When we get it right, so much else follows: children become more likely to reach their fifth birthday, and they are healthier and in a better position to benefit from education; women, who carry most of the world’s water, are empowered; and economic growth and prosperity are enhanced and facilitated. While we fail to deliver those most basic necessities, not only are there an estimated 2.4 million preventable deaths each year, but generations of people become trapped in poverty."

Any increase in the support the UK gives to water projects is fantastic news and deserves to be celebrated. We are asking those readers of the GfGD Blog who are UK Citizens to take this opportunity to write a brief letter to their constituency MP to express your support for this decision. It is important to let our MPs know when there is something we are happy with, as well as something we are not happy with. There is much debate about the UK aid budget at the moment, and it will be great for many MPs to hear that we think giving more support to water projects is the right thing! 

Some of you may be regular letter-writers to your MP, others may have never done it before. Here's our simple step-by-step guide:

(1) Work out who your MP is by putting your postcode into this website

(2) Write a letter addressed to your MP, stating why you are writing, why this is important to you and what you'd like your MP to do. 

(3) The letter can be very brief - the more concise the better. You can use some of the information in this blog post or other posts, or do further research if you'd like. Make sure you are polite.

(4) Post the letter to your MP (!)

At a cost of 50-60p for a stamp and about 10 minutes of your time - there's no real reason not to get involved in this GfGD activity! Once you've sent your letter - why not comment on this blog, stating who you are, what you do (e.g. PhD Student at King's College London) and which MP you wrote to. It will be great to see how many different MPs we've managed to contact to tell them that clean water and good sanitation save the lives of many of the world's poorest communities!

DFID - Graduate Scheme

This week the UK Department for International Development have announced that they will be launching a paid 50-week graduate scheme to give recent graduates experience within the development and humanitarian sector. The position is open to UK and EEA Nationals, Swiss and Turkish Nationals and Commonwealth Citizens with an indefinite right to remain in the UK without work restrictions.

The opportunity to work for a year in either DFID's London or Glasgow office (starting in September 2012), with the added advantage of being able to apply for internal jobs, is likely to receive much interest. It is open to all degree backgrounds and those with no relevant experience, making it an excellent opportunity to get a foot on the development ladder. It would be excellent to see some of the positions filled by those with a geoscience background - bringing an interdisciplinary knowledge that would well serve the UK Government's development objectives. The application form can be downloaded from their website, as well as supplementary information.

The scheme opened yesterday, and closes on the 20th March 2012. There will be launch events at a number of universites across the UK over the coming weeks, which give those interested an ideal opportunity to talk with current employees at DFID about their work and this opportunity. These are outlined in detail here, but currently include:

21st January - University of Oxford (with DFID Permanent Secretary Mark Lowcock)

23rd January - SOAS and LSE, London

30th January - University of Glasgow

2nd February - University of Cambridge

6th February - University of Strathclyde

7th February - University of Warwick

8th February - University of Sussex

9th February  - University of Cambridge (with Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell MP)

15th February - Univeristy of Edinburgh

20th February - University of Birmingham

21st February - University of Bristol

23rd February - Queen's University, Belfast

28th February - City University, London

7th March - University of Manchester

15th March - London Universities (at SOAS) (with Under Secretary of State Stephen O'Brien MP)

If you decide to apply for this graduate scheme then please be sure to mention Geology for Global Development when asked where you heard about this opportunity.

Risky Gold Mining in Senegal

Calcite Deposits with some evidence
of minor gold veins (Chile)

The BBC recently produced a video report of 'risky gold mining' in Senegal, West Africa. The video highlight how individuals are coming from Senegal, and across the border from Mali to hunt for and mine gold. The report highlights the lack of all supervision, regulation and safety procedures - with miners at risk of serious injury or even death. It also highlights how mercury, used in the gold mining process, is also regularly added to the local stream - which is also their drinking water supply. This poses a further risk of serious illness to the miners, and other users of this water. As the community of miners expands there is also the risk of disease from poor sanitation practice. 

Small scale artisanal mining is widespread in many developing countries - providing an important source of income for many communities. However in many cases it is done in very poor conditions, and can be illegal. The risk of serious injury or diseases (such as highlighted above) can be significant. There are programmes working with some artisanal miners, to help protect them and improve their working conditions. For example,  DFID and the World Bank are involved in a "Collaborative group on Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (CASM)" that work to reduce poverty through improving the environmental, social and economic performance of artisinal and small scale mining in developing countries.   

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review: DFID's Response

When Lord Ashdown published his Humanitarian Emergency Response Review I authored a post broadly welcoming its conclusions. Its emphasis on anticipation, resilience and innovation was excellent and well thought through. The report seemed to be welcomed by NGOs across the country and it was sincerely hoped that the Department for International Development (DFID) would accept its conclusions.

Yesterday DFID's Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell, outlined the Government's response to the paper - and did accept the vast majority of its conclusions. Andrew Mitchell stated that resilience will be built into all of its country programmes over the next four years. This transition from simply responding to emergencies to anticipating them, and building resilience into its core development work will result in reductions in lost lives, and reduce the social and economic impacts of such disasters. 

Outlined below are some key policy commitments (blue) made within this response and their significance:

Improve DFID's use of science in both predicting and preparing for disasters, drawing on the Chief Scientific Advisors’ network across government. Ensure scientific data on disaster risks is used to inform and prioritise country and regional level work on resilience.

• The increased and improved use of science in predicting and preparing for disasters and building resilience is welcome. GfGD will be writing to DFID shortly to ask how geological science will be fed into this system, and state our belief that they should be making full use of geologist's knowledge and skills in this sector.

Make building resilience a core part of DFID’s approach in all of the countries where we work. Integrate resilience and disaster risk reduction into our work on climate change. 

• For every £1 spent on disaster risk reduction, around £7 can be saved in economic losses, as well as many lives saved. It is of huge benefit to build resilience across developing countries. As countries adapt to climate change, they must also build resilience to new and emerging threats. With this in mind GfGD will be writing to DFID to ask them to review their decision to end funding to the UNISDR

Make humanitarian research and innovation a core part of DFID research and evidence work. Establish a ‘virtual’ humanitarian research and innovations team, under the direction of DFID’s Chief Scientific adviser

• DFID's research must include ways to improve the anticipation of hazards and disasters. The development of multi-hazard risk assessments is one way to improve our understanding of the interaction of hazards.

Use innovative techniques and technologies more routinely in humanitarian response (for instance, cash transfers). 

• The use of GIS, remote sensing images and multi-hazard models will play a crucial role in planning a response to any humanitarian situation.

Work with others to establish a single set of common accountability standards, which require participation of the most vulnerable groups (women, children, old people and disabled people) in all stages of the programme cycle. 

• In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of any resilience programmes there must be wide-ranging participation of the community. For DFID to require participation of the most vulnerable groups is an important step towards improving sustainability. 

Designate a Director General as a humanitarian and resilience champion 

• The decision to have a senior member of the DFID team to champion resilience is welcomed. 

Incorporating disaster risk reduction into all areas of DFID's work is crucial to reducing the economic and social impacts of natural and man-made disasters. Building resilience within communities, improving modeling in order to help anticipate hazards and target resilience building, and improving innovation to reduce risk and improve our response are all very important. It is good news that the Government has welcomed the vast majority of the conclusions of this report. In order to get the maximum positive impact from adopting these measures DFID must draw strongly on good science and engineering knowledge. There is a clear role also for those with the specialised knowledge and skills of the geosciences.

Immunisations, Diarrhoea & The Missing Link

The decision today to pledge a further £814million towards a vaccination programme (GAVI) to reduce the impacts of pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases is admirable and welcome. In these times of economic difficulty the decision to make international development a key part of coalition policy must be applauded. We cannot balance our books on the back of the poorest people and it is fantastic that the UK can be global leaders in this sector. The percentage of our GDP that we spend on overseas aid is very small, currently 0.56% rising to 0.7% in 2013 – less than 1p for every pound that we earn. Yet this contribution can and does make a significant difference in the lives of people around the world. Our aid budget costs each person in the UK around 44p a day to help some of the billions around the world who have to live on less than £1.50 a day. That 44p each day puts millions into school, improves access to healthcare and vaccinations, prepares communities for natural disasters to reduce the impacts and cost of rebuilding, gives people clean and safe water – stopping them walking for hours to collect some… and many other things.

However the announcement today, in particular the immunisation programme to reduce deaths due to diarrhoeal diseases must be set into its correct context:

Firstly… The vaccination to reduce the number of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases is only for those cases caused as a result of the rotavirus, accounting for on average 39% of childhood hospitalisations as a result of diarrhoeal diseases. In order to fully address the problem of diarrhoeal diseases there also needs to be significant investment in, and prioritisation of access to clean and safe water, improved sanitation and more hygiene promotion (WASH). Simple measures such as increasing handwashing can reduce the number of deaths by anything between 33-44% – but this requires investment in sanitation facilities, community hygiene workers and education programmes. Investment in clean water supplies is also fundamental to reducing the risk of disease. Oral rehydration cannot be done without clean and safe water. Dirty water carries bacteria and viruses, which can result in serious disease and adverse effects on health.

Secondly… Funding for the vaccination itself is the easy part; the difficult part is the administration of this vaccine. Investment in the health-sector to ensure there are health-workers to administrate the vaccine is required also. This point was raised in David Cameron’s Q&A session following his speech by Save the Children, and Cameron recognised this as a requirement also.

Thirdly… There are the challenges of infrastructure, and poor access to many of the poorest communities due to lack of or very poor roads. These vaccines are no use in a box, on a shelf, in a storeroom… they only have use if administered to those in need.

In conclusion, the reduction of diarrhoeal diseases requires an integrated approach and cannot be done solely through immunisation. The UK contribution to GAVI must be welcomed, however it would be good to see an integrated strategy to deal with this preventable disease through both immunisation and significant improvements to water, sanitation and hygiene promotion. Earlier posts have set out the fundamental role of geologists in locating and developing water resources – and this case study highlights why clean water sources, improved sanitation and hygiene promotion are fundamental to the reduction of disease and poverty in communities across the developing world. Immunisations are a good and positive step forward - but the 'missing link' is improved WASH... which should be playing a much more prominent role in the discussions and debates taking place today.

Fighting The Case For Overseas Aid

For those keen watchers of the BBC political programme Question Time, you may remember a few weeks ago Melanie Phillips, the Daily Mail columnist, stating her belief that the Department for International Development should be closed down. Since then the Daily Mail have published a few articles and columns such as this one yesterday, followed by numerous comments from members of the public supporting the view that aid should be slashed and very few in favour of our overseas aid spending (although this could partly be due to the fact that the Daily Mail moderate their comments, perhaps giving a somewhat skewed opinion). 

The public perception of overseas aid is difficult to state outright. Melanie Phillips' comment that DFID should be closed down was overwhelmingly booed by the Question Time audience - although this again is probably not a reasonable representation of the UK view overall. The Daily Mail comments section is probably not completely representative either. It's more likely that opinion is somewhere between these two extremes, regretfully nearer to the Daily Mail side than the Question Time side according to some surveys. Around the time of the Emergency Budget this time last year, one survey suggested only 6% of people thought DFID's budget should be ringfenced and 43% thought it should be slashed.

Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development, has reportedly stated that the decision by the Coalition Government to ringfence this budget, and increase spending to 0.7% of GDP is one that needs "daily justification" to members of the public. Although he is supported by the vast majority of MPs from all political parties, as stated before the public are wary about this in the current economic climate. I've been impressed by the Government's attempts to persuade people, and their attempt to push other G8 nations into meeting their pledges - although there is still a lot of work to do before public opinion shifts. Andrew Mitchell is due to appear on Question Time this week - it will be interesting to see if overseas aid is discussed again (Thurs 9th June, BBC 1, 10.35pm).

A while ago, when DFID announced the results of their Aid Review, I wrote an article outlining why it is the right thing to spend money on international development. I understand there is a need to address issues of corruption and accountability, but the key point is that we are doing the right thing in spending money on international development. As someone who therefore believes in the importance of international development, believes in the huge responsibility we have to reduce poverty and improving the conditions of life for people across the globe, and someone who has seen firsthand the benefits this can make - I also have a duty and desire to work to bring the British public on board. My sphere of influence will obviously be far smaller than Andrew Mitchell's but I can still comment on articles in the media, draw people's attention to the good work DFID, NGOs and overseas governments are doing, and make a reasoned case for the 0.7% GDP pledge - making and fighting the case for overseas aid. If you also believe in the importance of this... why not take five minutes to write to your MP, local newspaper etc to outline why you support this crucial and important work!

An excellent resource you could use to outline why it is so important for us to take a lead can be found at www.ifitweremyhome.com/index/GB. This site contrasts what life would be like if we were born in, and lived in another country. For example if I was born in Tanzania, I would be 31 more times likely to have HIV/AIDS, over 14 times more likely to die in infancy, die 26.7 years younger and make 96% less money. This site helps you to put life in perspective, empathise, and hopefully makes it hard to say no to spending less than 1p from every pound earned in this country, on overseas aid.

Key Themes: Natural Resources

Native Gold

The 'Key Themes' posts are a series of short articles outlining the role that geologists have in various aspects of global development.

Natural resources include things such as precious metals, rare earth metals, base metals, industrial minerals, gemstones, fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and construction materials (aggregate, sand, clay, limestone). These materials are found in various types, proportions and qualities across the globe. The natural resources of a country can contribute significantly to its economic development through increasing production and manufacturing, securing energy supply, increasing export revenues and reducing costs for local businesses and households.  

Chile: Copper Mine

The extraction of natural resources can be done on a number of scales. Large scale mining is heavily mechanised, productive and normally involves a large global consultancy or mining company. Small-scale mining is done by local people, working with limited tools, in difficult conditions and low productivity. Artisinal mining or subsistence mining is done by individuals - panning gold, generating aggregate etc. It is often done in poor conditions, and can be illegal. DFID and the World Bank are involved in a "Collaborative group on Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (CASM)" that work to reduce poverty through improving the environmental, social and economic performance of artisinal and small scale mining in developing countries.  

What role do geologists have to play in this sector?

Geologists have a crucial role in locating, extracting, processing and protecting the natural resources that our economies and lifestyles are reliant on. 

Chile: Mapping of calcite veins

Locating: Geologists use a wide range of techniques to identify economic reserves of minerals and fossil fuels. These techniques can include a desk-based review of the geology (predicting possible reserves), geological mapping of surface outcrops, correlation of borehole logs, geophysical techniques, geochemical analysis and remote sensing. 

Extracting: Geologists work on extracting the mineral/fossil fuel through effective planning. Mining and engineering geologists use their skills in rock mechanics, tunneling and slope stability in order to design opencast and deep mines. Hydrogeologists work to ensure mine waste and materials don't contaminate local water supplies. 

Processing: Many materials are extracted in an impure state and need further processing. geologists can be involved in the analysis of material, determination of its quality and the extraction of further materials to be used in the processing of the material.

Protection: Geologists must play a crucial role in ensuring that the extraction of natural resources is done in a safe and sustainable way. Geologists must ensure that groundwater and soils are protected from contamination, employees are working in a safe environment (not at risk of mine collapse, poisonous gases etc) and resources are being used in a sustainable manner. Natural resources are finite, and thus will run out.

Geologists also have a role in protecting the development of the wider community, through standing against corruption at all levels. Those extracting the minerals/fossil fuels will normally pay fees to the host country government, a valuable source of income that should be reinvested into education, healthcare, water and sanitation and infrastructure. Corruption, however, means that sometimes this money ends up in private bank accounts. An open and accountable attitude within the sector would do a lot to improve this state of affairs. If mining companies, for example, declare the fees they pay to the government - local people can hold them to account to make sure they are getting the best deal, and are investing the money wisely. The NGO Tearfund are campaigning for a change in the law to make this declaration of payments compulsory. 

Further Reading

> Design and Pilot Implementation of a Model Scheme of Assistance to Small Scale Miners (Prepared for DFID)

> Artisinal & Small Scale Mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo

> Mining & Poverty Reduction

Global Platform 2011 - Why is DFID ending aid to the UNISDR?

Earlier this year, DFID announced the results of two major aid reviews. The first, at the start of March, was the UK Aid and Multilateral Aid Review. The second, at the end of March, was the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR), conducted by Lord Paddy Ashdown. One of the key findings of the HERR was the importance of making disaster risk reduction (DRR) an intrical part of DFID's work, increasing anticipation, resilience and innovation. These are tasks in which geologists have the potential to play an important role. The HERR, interestingly, came after DFID announced earlier that month that they were ending their contributions to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

The core mandate of the UNISDR, as stated on their website, is to serve as the focal point in the United Nations system for the coordination of disaster reduction and to ensure synergies among disaster reduction activities. The UNISDR main work includes:

- COORDINATING and sustaining partnerships to build disaster resilience and promote disaster risk reduction.

- CAMPAIGNING to build awareness of disaster risk reduction and reduce communities vulnerability to the impact of hazards.

- ADVOCATING for greater investment in disaster risk reduction

- INFORM and connect people by providing practical services and tools.

DFID's justification for the decision to end funding was based upon an assessment of value for money, effectiveness, results, leadership and accountability. In the Multilateral Aid Review, it states:

"UNISDR has not performed its international co-ordination role well. Other more effective institutions such as UNDP and GFDRR are judged to provide better value for money and DFID will increase its funding to them. UNDP is central to the delivery of the MDGs and is at the heart of the UN development system and currently plays an important co-ordination role on disaster risk reduction at the national level. GFDRR is more effective at mainstreaming DRR and climate change adaptation in country development strategies.

The UK will still be a member of UNISDR as it is part of the UN Secretariat, but DFID will no longer provide additional voluntary funding. This funding averaged £0.9m between 2002 and 2010."

However, in light of the HERR, was this the right decision to make? I recently came across an interesting article by Dr Tom Mitchell, who works at the Overseas Development Institute, which discusses the possible reasons behind DFID's decision. In the article, Dr Tom Mitchell suggests a number of reasons for this decision, labelling them as either wrong, very unlikely or very likely. The suggested reasons include things such as... was it very expensive to the taxpayer, is DRR not a priority for DFID, is there a better organisation to take its place or is DFID following a global trend in ending funding - all of these were labelled very unlikely or wrong. The reasons labelled as likely are more related to the appearance of a 'co-ordinating agency' in an era of results and weaknesses in the Multilateral Aid Review process. Dr Tom Mitchell concludes with an assessment that this was the wrong decision, and a hope that the HERR will stimulate a rethink.

So these are the two sides of this debate, and I'm sure there are many other points that others could contribute to this discussion. Dr Tom Mitchell states that many in the field would recognise that the UNISDR has considerable shortcomings - so it seems clear that there is a need for reform and improvements, the key question is whether DFID short be withdrawing its funding, and whether that decision should have been made before the HERR? Disaster risk reduction needs to be a central part of the UK's development programme - its results are not always obvious, until after a disaster happens, but it has the potential to make a significant difference - it is preventative, rather than a cure... and that surely must be an important part of global development.

Any thoughts, comments, feedback very welcome.

The Role of Geologists in Humanitarian Emergency Response

As reported on Monday, a review into the UK’s response to humanitarian emergencies has been conducted by Lord (Paddy) Ashdown and released yesterday. The review outlines ways in which the UK can improve its response to such emergencies, and anticipate such emergencies. Incorporating these into the core of DFID’s work is crucial – making sure their development work and humanitarian assistance are integrated. 

The report highlights seven threads to the approach needed to be adopted including:

1.   A more anticipatory approach – using science to aid in the prediction of and preparation for such emergencies. It is important to be preparing for disasters as well as reacting to them (including equipping at-risk governments/civil society with the means to act).

2.   Resilience – working with local people to strengthen the community’s capacity to be resilient to an event. This was highlighted as an area that needs to become much more central to DFIDs development activities. Resilience will mean the damage is less lasting and communities can recover more quickly.

The report cites an interesting example where Mozambique asked in 2006 for £2million pounds to invest in preparing for the impacts of floods – which it could not receive. Soon after, the international community had to spend £60million pounds responding to a flood season

3.   Improve the strategic, operational and political leadership of the international humanitarian system, including pushing for reform within the UN’s response procedures.

4.    Innovate to become more efficient and effective – using the best of new technologies and science, new processes and practices, and new ideas from those affected. More investment needs to happen in research and evidence.

5.   Increase transparency and accountability towards both donor and host country populations. More conversation needs to occur between donors and communities to ascertain exactly what they need, how they can be helped and who can help them. Vulnerable people can often be overlooked. On the flip side, measuring the impacts of resources is a key way to ensure accountability to donors.

6.   Create new humanitarian partnerships to allow DFID to better influence and work within an increasingly complex humanitarian system. The need for multilateral work in this area is crucial, and while DFID is commended for adopting this approach it suggests they should work to enable new partnerships with emerging nations, NGOs, faith groups etc

7.   Defend and strengthen the humanitarian space – humanitarian workers should be granted access and protection as they give assistance in areas affected by conflict. DFID should work with agencies that can access and help those in need and humanitarian aid should not be politicised.

The full report can be found here.

Over the past couple of years we have witnessed some awful natural disasters that have required significant humanitarian assistance. Earthquakes have rocked developing countries such as Haiti, as well as more developed countries such as Chile, New Zealand and Japan. Floods have been catastrophic in Pakistan, and Australia, and large landslides and flooding have hit Brazil. The way in which the UK responds to such disasters – especially in developing countries where the effects disproportionately affect the population is very important. The UK is the second largest bilateral global humanitarian donor, although in terms of its percentage of GNI trails behind a number of countries.

The results of the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review are broadly welcomed. As developing countries are urbanising, vulnerability to disaster is in many ways increasing and steps need to be taken to ensure the international community’s response to disasters matures, as well as the anticipation of disasters and building of resilience develops.

Geologists have a very important role to play in the factors of anticipation, resilience and innovation.

ANTICIPATION: In disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides etc – geologists study the science of how they occur and can use their skills to understand and recognise vulnerable areas. While prediction is not always possible, understanding of vulnerable areas, frequency and magnitude can be understood to a certain degree

For example: The study of palaeoseismology can provide information on the frequency of historical earthquakes and their magnitude. This information can help inform governments and civil societies to prepare. The UK for example knows to expect earthquakes up to approximately magnitude 6 following the M5.3-5.9 earthquake in the late 1500’s (although this size is extremely rare (See here for more info on UK Seismic Hazard). In Chile, they must prepare for earthquakes significantly bigger than this, at Magnitude 9 or greater.

Data for some hazardous areas can be significant, but often in developing countries the data is gathered at a much slower rate, and so is less sizeable, as governments can invest less in their own monitoring and evaluation programmes. Geologists can play a major role in building up knowledge of the mechanisms of hazards, their appearance in history and the likely impacts of the hazard.  

From: http://www.afronline.org/?p=3835

RESILIENCE: Building resilience to minimise the damage of the hazard is another area of humanitarian work that geologists can play a crucial role in. The education of communities to understand how hazards are triggered can help people recognise the warning signs for a number of hazards. Understanding the relationship between landslides and water can help communities construct simple drainage mechanisms, avoid the undercutting of slopes and ensure deforestation doesn’t occur on vulnerable slopes. Understanding the relationship between earthquakes and tsunami’s was not understood by many communities in the tragic 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Indonesia, understanding the risk of a tsunami following an earthquake can give communities that vital extra time to move inland. Education can involve a community led, participatory approach in order to build a sustainable programme.

As well as education, improving physical structures can develop resilience. Geologists can play a major role in identifying which areas of the city are must vulnerable and how resilience methods can change from place to place. The types of buildings required to withstand earthquakes will differ from one rock-type to another for example.   

INNOVATION:  With regards to innovation, geologists are doing various pieces of research, and must do more, to improve the understanding and preparation for humanitarian emergencies. Geologists and other scientists must work closely with social scientists in order to develop and improve better risk assessments for developing countries – including the development of multi-hazard risk assessments. Research into the effects of global climate change at a local scale, and mitigating any risks, is fundamental research to be collated, as is how increased urbanisation will impact the consequences of disasters.

The response DFID gives to this review, and the speed at which they respond, will be very interesting. DFID must take seriously the importance of Disaster Risk Reduction, and the economic benefits of it, and ensure it is integrate into the core of its work. The crucial role that scientists can play in this sector must also be recognised further – not only in terms of health and agriculture – but also with regards to geology and engineering.