Promoting child rights to end child poverty Plan Sweden Urban children’s risk and agency 1 Olle Castell Disaster Risk Management Advisor

Promoting child rights to end child poverty Plan International Child Rights organization Active in 50 countries Program Units – traditionally dominantly rural 8 impact areas – Disaster Risk Management is one of them 2

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 3 Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction Children are proportionally affected –Typically 50-60% of those affected by disasters –Death and illness, exploitation and abuse, failure to meet right to education, development and protection Children as agents for change –Children are often portrayed as passive victims –When provided with accurate support and protection they have a great capacity to become agents of change –“take the most advantaged and put them in the centre of the process”

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 4 Urban Risks The world’s population is increasingly urban Urban areas are increasingly recognized as being susceptible to the impacts od disasters and climate change A high proportion of urban residents are children

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 5 Is Disaster Risk Management different in Urban areas? Plans Toolkits largley developed and adjusted to rural contexts Is there a need to develop different models for urban contexts? Rural setting Village development committee 1-2 NGOs Clear family structures Low migration Agricultural dependency Urban setting Complex municipality administration Prolifiation of NGOs Many people are not registered by public authorites High migration Salaried work/factories

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 6 Scale of risk DisasterSmall disasterDay-to-day risks FrequencyInfrequentFrequentEvery day Scale>10 killed4-9 killed1-3 killed Impact on premature death and illness Catastrophic for particular places and times but overall low Significant and under estimated Main cause of premature deatch and serious injury IntensiveExtensive Resilience versus Disaster Risk Reduction

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 7 Study on Urban Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction Plan International and IIED undertook a study on urban childrens risk and agency Jakarta, Manila, Dhaka and Kathmandu Focus Group Discussions and Interviews with street children, working children and children living in squatters and slums

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 8 Who is at risk Urban children are generally better off than their rural counterparts. However, this is not true for hundred of millions of children live in urban poverty. Risk = Capacity x VulnerabilityHazard Who within an urban population is at risk? Those who live and work in overcrowded informal settlements concentrated in hazard prone areas that lack basic protective infrastructure and service Children, particularly girls, are disproportionally affected Street children, working children and children living in squatters and slums

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 9 Urban Slums UN Habitat: five slum deprivations, lack of (one or more): –Access to improved water –Access to improved sanitation –Security of tenure –Durability of housing –Sufficient living area (< 4 people/room)

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 10 City profiles DhakaKathmanduJakartaManila % urban pop.28% urban17%50%48% City pop15.4 M1 M (3-5 M)9.7 M11.9 M % living in slums 60%7%25%37% Pop/km

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 11 Orfan scavengers in Manila Parentless street children in Dhaka Child labourers in Kathmandu

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 12 Priority action for reducing urban children’s risks Enhance access to quality housing and other buildings with appropriate basic infrastructure Build capacity of families and communities to cope with shocks and stresses Foster shared planning processes between children and adults Target beneficiaries based on better understanding of the differentials in risk between high- and low-income children

Promoting child rights to end child poverty 13 Particular aspects in Urban DRR programming Much is same as usual, byt some things differ: Common goods – sewage system, piped water, public transports instead of individual HH solutions as pit latries and wells More complex public administration Closer to central ministries (if in capital) Need for strong analysis to reach the most vulnerable – can’t target all Proliferation of NGOs Dynamic population, migration Livelihood different - workers – not farmers. Need to address worksite environment, factories…