Search

International audience; This paper sheds light on how the notion of resilience, in spite of its limitations, may contribute to a better understanding and management of disaster risk. The method used draws on two sites near to the Rhône, where flood hazard is similar to some extent. The first one is located in Culoz municipality, close to Lavours Swamps. The other one is situated in Chautagne, in Chanaz municipality. Yet, both cases show opposite risk management choices. Understanding the differences in both risk management and local development makes it possible to identify the reshaping of three major approaches of risk prevention, which are: a hazard-centered approach, a territory-based approach, and, today, a resilience-oriented approach. Considering those successive and intertwined risk approaches helps us to understand why the notion of resilience is so polysemic, why it potentially bears in itself so many contradictions and why it is questioned so much. Yet, drawing on the same elements, it is possible to defend why an integrated approach of resilience might be useful in understanding and managing risk. It could make both the benefits and shortcomings of disaster risk prevention policies more visible and explicit.; L’article justifie l’intérêt et les limites du recours à la notion de résilience, tant pour la recherche que pour la gestion, dans le domaine de la prévention des risques de désastres. Pour ce faire, il mobilise deux sites près du Rhône où l’aléa inondation est comparable (différencié, mais présentant des points communs), l’un à Culoz, près des marais de Lavours, et l’autre en Chautagne, sur la commune de Chanaz, mais où le risque d’inondation est géré de manière opposée. La compréhension du contraste de gestion et de peuplement observé révèle la recomposition de trois approches-types de la prévention qui sont : aléa centrée, approche territorialisée des risques, et résilience. L’intrication de ces approches successives permet de comprendre pourquoi il peut y avoir autant de définitions différentes de la résilience, leur caractère possiblement contradictoire, et les nombreuses contestations de la notion. Mais elle permet aussi de défendre pourquoi une approche intégrée de la résilience est utile à la compréhension des risques de désastres, tout autant qu’à la gestion. Ainsi envisagée, la résilience permet d’expliciter les apports, en même temps que les limites, des politiques de prévention des risques de désastres.

Disaster Prevention Policies: A Challenging and Critical Outlook discusses the ever-evolving threats associated with disasters and their prevention, presenting the widely known paradox in the field that "the more we know, the more we manage, and yet, the more we are supposed to lose", investigating, in-depth, this famous paradox and proposing solutions that will help readers understand and reconsider its existence.The authors also discuss conditionings behind this paradox, helping readers understand the existing solutions, also suggesting how to reduce the limitations of DRR policies.

El artículo reflexiona sobre la noción de resiliencia y los límites que supone su uso para los investigadores y para quienes implementan las políticas de gestión del riesgo. Por una parte, los organismos internacionales, como la Estrategia Internacional para la Reducción del Riesgo (EIRD) o centros de investigación, como Resilience Alliance promueven explícitamente el reforzamiento de la resiliencia. De otro lado, su uso es escaso en las políticas a escala nacional tanto en Francia como en Colombia y existe una gran cantidad de investigadores que cuestiona su utilización, tras resaltar la gran divergencia de significados que se derivan de esta. En la primera parte del texto se analiza la historia de la noción y sus acepciones en diferentes disciplinas. En la segunda sección se analizan los estudios de caso de Francia y Colombia y la manera como se emplea en las políticas públicas y en su implementación en el terreno. La tercera parte busca explicar el desfase entre su promoción en el discurso dominante internacional y las reticencias entre investigadores y gestores. Se resaltan los condicionantes políticos, institucionales y culturales asociados con su empleo y las contradicciones que implican. Al igual que el desastre, la resiliencia depende de las escalas y de los actores objeto de análisis, por lo que comprender esta relación es crucial para entender dichas contradicciones. La resiliencia no tiene un significado absoluto, pero su importancia se explica porque permite identificar factores de construcción del riesgo. O artigo procura compreender o interesse e os limites da noção de resiliência para os pesquisadores e os gestionários comprometidos com a gestão de riscos. De um lado, certas instituições internacionais, como ISDR, alguns pesquisadores, como aqueles da Resilience Alliance, promovem explicitamente a noção de resiliência. Mas, de outro, raros são os políticos que se prevalecem efetivamente da resiliência, seja na Colômbia ou na França. E não faltam pesquisadores reticentes a sua mobilização. A primeira parte do artigo traz o histórico dessa noção e de sua utilização, antes de mostrar, na segunda, o quanto é pouco utilizado pelos gestores, seja na Colômbia ou na França. Como explicar mara resistência que existe atualmente ao utilizar esse conceito? A terceira parte traz indícios que nos ajuda a compreender essas diferenças. Ela faz particularmente ressurgir os múltiplos condicionantes institucionais e políticos que são associados à mobilização da noção. Tal como seu caráter contraditório, em função dos atores e das escalas de análise que implicam o esforço de interpretação e de gestão associados à prevenção de desastres. A resiliência, por quais atores, a que nível? Este questionamento deverá ser posto para identificar as contradições. Porque, tal como para os desastres, e como mostrado, os pesquisadores da Resilience Alliance, a resiliência não pode ter um significado absoluto. Contudo, a noção pode contribuir para identificar tendências da preparação de desastres. Isso por si só permite compreender porque pode ser promovida pelas agências da ONU. This paper investigates a discrepancy concerning resilience. International institutions such as ISDR try to promote resilience as a notion useful for preventing disasters. And some searchers, mainly coming from ecology, such as Resilience Alliance group, found the notion relevant enough to promote it as a brand for their studies on disaster prevention. Yet, the second part of the paper will verify how other searchers are still not convinced by the relevance of the notion. Territorial managers are reluctant as well, in line with the poor number of policies trying to bring resilience to reality, be it in Columbia or in France. How can we make sense of this discrepancy? The paper will stress on various political, institutional and cultural conditionings hidden behind the notion. It will also enlighten the contradictions embedded within the notion, because resilience, as disaster, depends on the scales and the actors the analysis relies on first. Which resilience to whom and at what scale? These are critical questions that should be addressed in order to give sense to these contradictions. Resilience has no absolute meaning. However, it helps identifying trends towards future disasters. This is one of the main reasons why it may be found useful.

In 1996, the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) launched a regional approach initiative for natural disaster preparedness and prevention; this initiative focused initially on Central America, the Caribbean, SE Asia and Bangladesh. The first phase of this programme involved a diagnostic studies which constituted the basis for reflection and decision-making prior to the ECHO action plans as part of the Disaster Preparedness ECHO(DIPECHO).As regards SE Asia, and Bangladesh, the diagnosis in the strict sense of the word was carried out by CRED-UCL in collaboration with Luc VROLUKS, a CRED consultant (Cred/Vrolijks, 1997). The present study is aimed at supplementing this work and lays special emphasis on the consequences of natural disasters in the region, the damage-generating phenomena, the different criteria and levels of vulnerabilities and the risks incurred at regional and national scales, The study also aims at giving, in the same perspective, a graphical and cartographical base useful in the communication and decision-making.The study entrusted to CIFEG (International Centre for Training and Exchanges in the Geosciences) by CRED-VCL and ECHO was carried out jointly by Robert D'ERCOLE andPatrick PIGEON from the department of Geography of Université de Savoie, Chambéry, France. The study is based on a consistent documentation: scientific work, studies and reports collected by CRED-UCL, the United Nations offices in Geneva, the University of Savoie and that of Lausanne, Switzerland. The CRED-UCL Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) is, too, a key part of the study.