African Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Operations – A Case Study Of Multilateral Cooperation

Ibrahim J. Wani

Introduction

Africa has experimented with regional cooperation at both the continental level and the sub-regional level. Many of these efforts have not been successful. Within the last ten years there has been a revival of interest in rejuvenating regional cooperation arrangements. Unlike the earlier efforts, the recent attempts have emphasized different dimensions of security as a basis for regional cooperation. It is perhaps too early to evaluate the prospects for the new arrangements.

This paper reviews Africa’s experience with multi-lateral cooperation, an experience that to a large extent has been unsuccessful. With illustrations from disaster and humanitarian relief cooperation, the paper outlines different models of regional cooperation and suggests that common interests on issues such as disaster management will increasingly emerge as the basis for multi-lateral cooperation in Africa. This will result in institutional frameworks that balance the desirability for cooperation against some of the constraints that the region has confronted in previous experiments with regional cooperation. After a brief overview of the history of multilateral cooperation, the paper discusses the profile of disasters across Africa, the growing interest in a cooperative, regional approach to disaster management and the lessons that one can glean from beginnings of the effort to establish institutional mechanisms and processes to tackle disaster at the regional level. The paper concludes with some general observations about emerging institutional frameworks and the patterns and principles of multi-lateral cooperation.

I. Overview of Multi-Lateral Arrangements in Africa

There has always been a great deal of interest in multi-lateral cooperation in Africa. One of the key issues of debate among African leaders during the late 1950s and early 1960s, as African countries were gaining their independence, was about modalities for cooperation in the aftermath of independence. A substantial number of the leaders envisioned a United States of Africa where political boundaries would become irrelevant and the countries of the region, including the North African countries, would have strong linkages at every level – political, economic, security, and so on. Some in this group even advocated a single continental government. Others, however, advocated a gradual approach that would start with cooperation on specific issues of mutual interest and then evolve into more institutionalized cooperation.

The debate was intense, even acrimonious. Nevertheless, there was apparent consensus on the value of regional cooperation – because of the region’s common history and interests and other factors. Out of this debate emerged the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The OAU was in some ways a compromise institution. Its original mandate was less than the former group would have wanted, but its scope was also left sufficiently vague to allow for growth. De-colonization was about the only single issue that the membership could agree upon. The OAU’s mandate beyond the issue of de-colonization was left unclear. The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of member states, which emerged as one of the most cardinal principles of the OAU, ensured a limited mandate for the organization.

As a membership organization, moreover, its potential for growth depended very much on the members’ commitment and desires. It soon became clear that the commitment to entrust the organization with a greater role was lacking. Initially, the OAU assumed a very active role in many African countries’ struggle for independence and became the leading voice of the region in international relations. The independence struggle ended almost three decades ago and since then the mission and role of the OAU has been questionable, and there has been little political commitment to re-define its role.

At the sub-regional level, as well, there has also been a great deal of interest in multilateral cooperation. The defunct (and now being rejuvenated) East African Community illustrates the interest and history of such efforts. The East African Community started out in the early 1960s as a very robust organization. The three member countries, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, had a common history and many common interests. They maintained a common currency and passport, and jointly developed a railroad system, harbor, postal service, airlines and many other industries. They shared the same University system and worked on common policies in many other areas.

The East African Community was a government, and a very effective one at that. The East African Community folded in the early 1970s, largely for political reasons and personality conflicts among the leaders of the three countries. But there were also substantial differences over objectives and the increasing perception that the three countries were not sharing equally in the benefits of the organization.

There was no equivalent to the East African Community elsewhere in Africa, although there were always discussions of replicating it in Central Africa, Southern Africa and West Africa. Countries closer to East Africa, such as Burundi, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda and even Zambia flirted with the idea of joining the East African community. The collapse of the East African community sounded the death knell to any idea of sub-regional organizations. There were just too many obstacles to overcome. Most countries were in one crisis or another for most of this period and there was little incentive to look beyond the immediate challenge. The international political environment, particularly the cold war, was also another disincentive. Africa seemed to be pulled in different directions for most of the 1970s and 1980s, and the level of inter-state tensions rose.

After more than two decades of inaction, interest in multi-lateral cooperation has again revived in Africa. At the continental level there have been several discussions in the last ten years about enhancing the mandate and energizing the OAU. Alternative organizational models have also been examined: Recently, the Libyan President, Mouamar Gaddafi gathered a sizeable number of African leaders who declared their intent to increase continent-wide cooperation. At this point it is a matter of speculation if these efforts will result in anything tangible. But, the fact of the discussions itself is interesting.

Much more is happening at the sub-regional level. In Eastern and Southern Africa alone, a treaty has recently been signed to revive the East African Community, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is evolving, the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has become a more active organization and the Inter-Governmental Arrangement on Development (IGAD, originally established to deal with desertification and drought issues) was created. Elsewhere in Africa one sees similar patterns, although perhaps not to the same degree as in Eastern and Southern Africa. These developments represent the continuing belief in the value of multi-lateral cooperation. With leadership changes and new regional and political directions, there is more pressure to move towards better relations and more cooperation. International economic pressures and globalization are also key factors.

A number of interesting patterns are noticeable in the new sub-regional organizations. First, it is noteworthy that they seem to start with a small nucleus of states. This is in contrast to the earlier organizations which were oriented towards the whole continent. Second, interest in these organizations seems to grow fast. Rwanda, Burundi and several other countries have apparently indicated strong desires to join the revived East African Community, SADC’s membership now extends into Central and Eastern Africa, and COMESA also brings together countries from Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. This is breaking traditional political affiliations, but is also creating confusing overlaps. So far, there seems to be little inclination to merge these organizations. Instead, the overlaps are becoming the source of tension.

The third interesting pattern is that the new organizations seem to be focused on single or limited objectives. Economic motivations appear paramount. The desire to expand markets, enhance the movement of goods, and the reduction of tariffs and other obstacles to trade are some of the common objectives. In principle, all countries are interested in these issues, but differences in levels of economic development and industrialization may impede further progress. One lesson that can be drawn from the focus on limited objectives is that shared interest seems to be the single most important factor in the creation of regional, multilateral organizations.

Security has not been a primary factor in the creation of multi-lateral organizations in Africa. The only organization that was created solely with a security objective is ANAD (Accord de non aggression et des assistance aux matiere de defense). Although, even in the case of ANAD, one might argue that it was more of a reaction to ECOWAS and the perceived dominance of Nigeria rather than a coherent security objective that motivated its creation. It is, however, interesting that although security has not been the driving force behind the creation of the numerous sub-regional organizations, many of them have added security components. This started with the creation of ECOMOG (Economic Commission for West African States’ Cease-fire Monitoring Group) under the auspices of the Economic Commission for West African States (ECOWAS).

ECOMOG was a direct result of the Liberian crisis and the pressure on countries in the region, particularly Nigeria, to intervene. ECOMOG became the vehicle for this intervention and it is now being institutionalized and transformed into a West African peacekeeping and conflict resolution mechanism. SADC and the East African Community have also added security components, albeit small ones. IGAD assumed an important role in the conflict in the Sudan.

What these developments suggest about multi-lateral security cooperation in Africa is debatable. Clearly, there is a growing interest and a recognition that more attention needs to be paid to security arrangements: That countries can collectively play a meaningful role. In the case of ECOWAS, Nigeria’s leadership was obviously important, but it is also apparent that this leadership is not always well received. In fact, the big kid in the block syndrome seems to be an impediment. South Africa has tried to downplay its role in SADC partly for that reason. A gradual approach, centered on a discrete objective, also seems to be more successful in developing regional organizations. One wonders if ECOMOG would have been possible without the immediate exigency of the crisis in Liberia.

Recent experience with disaster management lends some credence to the proposition that prospects for developing multilateral cooperation mechanisms are enhanced when they are focused on limited shared objectives. In the case of disasters, the fact that groups of countries share common interests has been a strong incentive for multilateral cooperation. Until recently, there was little cooperation among African countries on disaster management. This is now slowly changing for some of the reasons discussed above, and there is growing interest in institutionalizing regional disaster management cooperation.

Disasters have security as well as other dimensions. There is, therefore, the potential that if cooperation on disaster management materializes, it can become the vehicle for increased regional security cooperation. Armed forces are a key part of disaster response and that itself can enhance the opportunity for greater interaction and confidence building which are essential bases for security cooperation. The rest of the paper examines some of the developments on disaster management and their potential as a vehicle for security cooperation.

II. The Profile and Patterns of Disasters in Africa

Despite a history of rather devastating natural and man-made disasters, African countries have not established effective mechanisms to manage disasters either at the national or sub-regional level. This is a result of many factors, including some of those discussed above in relation to the general history of multilateral cooperation in the region. As indicated above, attempts at creating regional organizations in Africa have historically not been successful. However, the nature and frequency of disasters in the region is putting a lot of pressure on African governments to search for regional solutions

African countries are very prone to disasters. Both natural and man made disasters are fairly routine across the continent.[1] Common disasters include displacement because of civil strife, famine caused largely by drought, epidemics such as AIDS, Ebola, Cholera (these are increasing in frequency, complexity and the magnitude of harm), technological and industrial accidents (resulting from inadequate safety precautions). These disasters cause significant property destruction and loss of lives, and disrupt social relations as the myriad conflicts in the continent amply illustrate. Yet, there are literally no regional mechanisms for disaster management.

Characteristics of disasters in Africa, and circumstances in many countries in the region, explain the patterns of disaster management. African countries typically confront what is referred to as “creeping disasters.” Unlike disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, train crushes and industrial accidents such as the Bhopal incident in India which occur suddenly and cause intense destruction over a very short period of time, creeping disasters emerge slowly. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, terrorist bombings attract a great of deal of attention and tend to generate fairly widespread sympathy which translate into reactions. Over the medium and long term, they tend to be the catalysts for policy responses and remedial action, albeit not always successful.

Creeping disasters such as drought, crop failures, ecological disasters and refugees tend to develop over a relatively longer time frame and slowly diminish their victims’ capacity to acquire food and other necessities to a point where survival is jeopardized. They are slow to attract attention and last much longer, but they disasters in every sense of the term. They cause phenomenal disruptions to ordinary life patterns, overwhelm national resources and capabilities, and require extraordinary intervention. For example, a drought situation might develop over a period of a couple of years before its impact is manifested in famine. Until it reaches the recent magnitude in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, however, famine rarely has the dramatic effect of an earthquake, for example. In the end, famine might cause more loss of life as has been the case over the years in many parts of Africa, but it lacks the dramatic effect of an earthquake and rarely generates the same level of sympathy.

In principle, “creeping” disasters should be preventable and easier to contain. In practice, however, that has not been the experience in Africa. Although the typical African disasters are small in magnitude, several such disasters occur simultaneously. Often drought occurs alongside locust infestation, refugees and civil strife and conflict situation. At the international level, drought, refugees and similar disasters consistently fail to attract the required kind of comprehensive response and search for solutions, perhaps because they do not project the same sense of urgency. On the contrary, long lasting disasters tend to lead apathy.

Many African countries also tend to face recurring disasters over many years, almost in a predictable pattern. Ethiopia and other countries in the region have suffered from drought almost continuously over the last fifteen years. Refugees have been a feature of Ugandan life – both as a source and recipient – almost without a break since the 1950s. Even the floods in Mozambique – not exactly a creeping disaster – has happened twice in the last three years alone and can be traced back many years. Yet, countries continue to be unprepared. No doubt there are many reasons for this level of apathy. For the international community perhaps it reflects as a certain level of “disaster fatigue.” This argument was made with regard to the Ethiopian famines. After a while, the shock element wears out, we get used to the images of emaciated children in the evening news and do not react with a sense of urgency anymore. Similar apathy develops within countries as well as people get accustomed to the consequences.

Economic and political factors contribute to overall pattern of response. Professor Amatyar Sen, the Nobel Laureate, has pointed out that no democratic country has suffered from famine. He cites to India as an example. According to Sen, democracy is the primary reason why the province of Kerala in India has not had a famine, despite the general poverty in the area. He argues that in democracies, governments are forced to prioritize resource allocation in such a way as to avoid famine. Otherwise, the cost of not investing in redressing famine would be too high because the government would be voted out. He also points out that democracy demands accountability which in turn tends to lead to better resource allocation.

Professor Sen’s thesis has been attacked on many grounds. However, the central point of his thesis – that famine is avoidable – is quite defensible. Available evidence indicates that with little resource commitment, countries should be able to avoid famine or at the very least to significantly reduce its potential impact. In a closed political system, on the other hand, there is little pressure on government to properly allocate resources towards famine. In other words, poor governance accounts for ineffective disaster management. This argument was made in relation to the famine in Ethiopia both under Mengistu and recently during the period of war with Eritrea a year or so ago. Relief organizations strongly argued that the Meles government diverted significant resources to the war effort instead of investing in famine relief. One can make this argument about many other aspects of disasters.

Political conditions are also the direct cause of many disasters. Many conflicts are caused by political problems, including the denial of political rights, persecution, and discrimination against minorities and group repression. Conflict leads to population displacement and refugees, clearly one of the major source of disasters in Africa.

Economic factors add to the ineffectiveness of disaster management. In many cases, the plight of victims of disaster is not very different from the conditions of local population or ordinary circumstances for most people. Burundian refugees in Eastern parts of Tanzania fair better in some respects than Tanzanians in the local areas. The outcome of this is that refugees begin to take on dimensions of normalcy and are viewed as nothing extraordinary. Another dimension of the economic factor is cash strapped countries simply lack the resources to effectively manage disasters.

Disasters will continue to be a nagging problem for many African countries. Emerging disasters such as AIDS and other health epidemics, industrial accidents, arms trafficking and terrorism are likely to stress national resources even further and, therefore, increase the vulnerability of communities and individuals. AIDS, for example, has exposed the weakness of health infrastructures and, coupled with poverty, has wrought a devastating impact with far reaching economic and social consequences.

III. Changing Attitudes and Emerging Practice

Over the last few years, there have been noticeable changes in disaster management in Africa. An increasing number of countries are seriously examining their disaster response efforts. South Africa did so as part of its overall critical examination of various aspects of government and institutions in the post apartheid period. A critical review of the country’s disaster profile and response infrastructure led to a new strategy and an accompanying set of policy reform recommendations (1996 White Paper). Uganda has also done a fairly thorough review of the policies, plans and institutional arrangements for disaster arrangement. The impact of the South African, Uganda and other efforts is perhaps too early to measure. However, they represent a very clear departure from the established attitudes and responses.

At the regional level, as well, some of the national momentum has generated critical examination and a search for collective response mechanisms. The member countries of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) have since 1996 been debating the desirability of a regional response mechanisms. In Eastern Africa, eleven countries have started a series of negotiations to consider options for regional disaster management mechanisms. The efforts at SADC and in Eastern Africa represent the increasing recognition of the regional dimension of disasters and of the desirability of common efforts.

The rethinking within SADC is the direct result of the aftermath of the Cyclone Eline flood in Mozambique. It was obvious that, after the first floods two years ago, the region cannot continue with business as usual in the face of such catastrophe. The powerful images of children and families hanging on tree limbs and flooded homes and farms begged for action. Neighboring countries were embarrassed by their inability to assist. In East Africa, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania has resulted in action as well, so has the outbreak of the Ebola virus epidemic in Uganda.

Although there is little direct evidence, political reforms in the region also seem to be a factor. Governments are being challenged more and are, therefore, becoming relatively more responsive to the plight of citizens. At the same time, there is increased advocacy for disasters by civil society and other community groups that have become more outspoken as a result of political openings..

Declining international support for disaster relief in Africa is another contributing factor. There is a popular perception that African disasters receive relatively less support from the international community. The overall level of support is also declining – for all disasters. This is an interesting paradox that interest in regional solution is increasing when international support is waning. The situation is forcing Africans to start thinking hard about self-help. On the flip side, the international community is very much behind the efforts to develop regional capability and strategies. The SADC effort has strong backing from UNDP and USAID. In Eastern Africa, the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) is the driving force behind the regional efforts.

IV. Emerging Lessons and Principles

As interest and awareness increase and countries move towards greater disaster planning, investment and co-operation, several important lessons are emerging from their experiences. These include 1) the importance of raising public the awareness of public officials as well as of the public about the nature and impact of disasters, 2) revising attitudes and approaches towards disasters, 3) the economic and development dimensions of disasters and 4) the regional and international aspects of disaster planning and management.

1. Increased Knowledge and Awareness of Disasters

Lack of awareness is a significant obstacle to disaster management. Typically, public officials and the public at large viewed disasters as abnormal or extraordinary events that were divorced from normal life. More important, there was insufficient awareness of the element of control, responsibility and choice. For example, the fact that human activities contribute significantly to the occurrence of many disasters and, even where it is not the result of human activity, human activity exacerbates the magnitude of disasters. In regard to their management, disasters were seen in the context of emergency response - not as a part of a long-term development program. In reality, however, disasters and emergencies are fundamental reflections of normal life. They are consequences of a society’s economic structures, patterns of social interactions and relationships.

Awareness is the first step in designing preventive mechanisms and response strategies. The impact of disasters can be mitigated and disasters may even be avoided all together if there is advance knowledge. For example, the fact that increased urbanization and crowding puts stress on infrastructure and therefore raises the likelihood of disasters such as health epidemics and increase their potential harm is often ignored. There is also a responsibility dimension to awareness. Experience suggests that communities are more likely to take responsibility for their actions and to prevent disasters if they are made aware of the connection between their actions and likely harm. Likewise, they are more likely to do a lot more towards relief.

Disaster management strategies have therefore incorporated significant elements of education and public awareness -- of public officials, policy makers and then general public.

2. Changing Perspectives on Disaster Management

Disasters have traditionally been approached as extraordinary or abnormal events that happened very occasionally, and usually elsewhere. The creeping nature of African disasters perpetuated this perception. As a result, there was little planning. Some public officials even questioned the wisdom and efficiency of allocating scarce national resources to a remote eventuality and preferred, instead, to divert resources from other programmed areas in the “unlikely event” of a disaster. Ironically, international humanitarian assistance has further reinforced this attitude and shielded countries from confronting their misperceptions.

Global experience and scientific knowledge of disasters now confirm the opposite, that disasters are not isolated events. There are indications of well established patterns of vulnerability. Many African countries face the same disasters over and over -- drought in the horn of Africa, refugees in Uganda since the 1950s, and even the Mozambique floods are happening for the second time in three years, and this is unlikely to be the last of it. This reality is largely behind the shift in focus from disaster relief to management – which entails a better understanding of vulnerabilities, and emphasizing preparedness and mitigation, among other things. It is not adequate to simply prepare to respond to and recover from disasters: A more anticipatory strategy is required.

3. Emphasis on Planning

There is greater emphasis on planning for disaster management as a result of the increased awareness and the change in perceptions. A planning approach envisions disaster planning as an integral part of national economic planning. Thus, it requires better information and data about a country’s disaster profile, the impact of disasters on the country, vulnerable communities, etc. Information is essential to good planning

A planning approach underscores the complexity of disaster management. In addition to the need for more information, disaster planning involves many different sectors and organs of government (e.g. health, environment, water, security and the military, foreign affairs), communities, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders. This raises the significance of coordination to integrate the different dimensions, and the need to harmonize sectoral policies, strategies and programs.

4. The Economic Dimension of Disasters

The cause and effect relationship between disasters and social and economic development was typically ignored. Disasters were therefore not factored into the planning process. At best, development planners hoped that disasters would not occur and, if they did, they would be most effectively handled by relief from donor countries and relief organizations. The impact of previous disasters and the likelihood of potential disasters were not factored into development programs, nor was the potential effect of development programs to increase the likelihood of a disaster.

Countries are now learning otherwise. Disasters do in fact have significant economic and development dimensions. Not only are poorer communities more vulnerable to disasters, when they occur disasters set back many years of development efforts: Disasters destroy resources, infrastructure and lives and divert resources from other development needs and therefore perpetuate poverty. Development, in turn, can make a community more disaster prone if disaster vulnerabilities are not factored into development plans and programs. Industrial accidents, ecological destruction and even health epidemics are all potential disasters that can emerge if development projects are not well integrated into disaster vulnerabilities.

Often times it takes a real life experience to drive the point home as was the case when the Ebola virus struck Uganda earlier this year. The epidemic became an ally of disaster experts and vividly illustrated what they could not convincingly demonstrate to colleagues in the finance and planning ministry. Ministry of Finance officials apparently took the position that they could not justify investing in an eventuality. Despite the fact that it lasted less than two months, the localized epidemic had far reaching impact. Ugandans were stopped from traveling in many neighboring countries, Only three Ugandan officials were allowed to undertake this year’s Haji pilgrimage to Mecca, conferences were cancelled and tourists started leaving Uganda out of their itineraries. Ugandan officials are now more aware than ever about the linkage between disasters and economic development. It is yet to be seen if this will translate into significant investment in disaster prevention – at least preventing and mitigating epidemics. But, at the conceptual level the case been made. What Uganda has learned, and Mozambique is learning, must become a more routine aspect of disaster management.

5. The Regional Dimension of Disasters

Most African disasters tend to be region-wide in their causes as well as impact. Drought and famine threaten a long list of adjacent countries from Ethiopia, to Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Somalia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. The cause of the flood in Mozambique is far beyond Mozambique’s borders and the flood has impact in South Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana and as far North as Tanzania. Refugees typically flee conflict and persecution in one country and have impact in several neighboring countries. Typically, disasters also affect many countries at the same time because they arise from common phenomena.

The AIDS epidemic illustrate another aspect of the regional dimension of disasters that results from the increased movement of people across the continent. The East African AIDS corridor runs along a truck route from Mombasa in Kenya, through Uganda to Rwanda and as far afield as the DRC.

Effective disaster management therefore necessitates a regional outlook. Given the regional aspect of causes of disasters, one cannot undertake a meaningful disaster vulnerability study limited to a country’s territorial boundary. A regional study is likely to be more complete and accurate, and, therefore, more useful. Likewise, it is not feasible to effectively prevent a disaster whose causes are likely to be outside one’s boundary. It makes tremendous sense, therefore, to find ways to share risk instead of each country investing in every disaster, and to strive for effective mechanisms for regional cooperation and support.

6. Institutional Framework and Structures

Institutional issues are increasingly surfacing as countries strengthen their own disaster management capacity and promote cooperation within the region. While institutional structures are still evolving, some of the emerging issues revolve around:

· The recognition of the complexity of disaster management. By its nature, many sectors of government, non governmental organizations, local communities and the international community have legitimate and very important roles to play in disaster management. What sort of institutional structure can best serve this purpose?

· It is important to find ways to harmonize and coordinate the many actors in an efficient way. It is also essential to devise an integrated, multi-sectoral management approach that can link all the major players without diminishing their roles. How can this objective be achieved institutionally?

· Disaster management should be viewed as a facility and mechanism for promoting coordination and harmonization among the different sectors and organizations in order to more effectively achieve national objectives rather than as a separate structure which requires separate resources. Is it possible to achieve these goals without centralizing the institutional structure?

· A good management structure should strive to ensure wide and active participation and interaction in an appropriate operational environment, with an emphasis on coordination and facilitation. What models exist along these lines?

· The appropriate skills and expertise for planning and implementation need to be cultivated in any central structure, and functions and roles should be clearly delineated. This obviously requires deliberate investment in technical capacity building. Can this be done without taking away expertise from the sectors?

· The integration of disaster management with other national activities should be a consideration in designing a disaster management structure. Besides the challenge of convincing other government actors about the wisdom of this approach, how is it done?

Within this general framework, a country’s political structure and legal framework will determine the appropriate national institutional framework.

At the regional level, the institutional framework and infrastructure for regional collaboration and cooperation are still very embryonic. Discussions on institutional issues within SADC, among others, indicate that, despite the strong desire to establish mechanisms for regional cooperation in disaster management, there is clearly little consensus on institutional structures. Countries seem to prefer a cautious, gradual approach in establishing institutional mechanisms. Areas of concern include a) the desire to preserve national prerogatives and programs, b) fear that regional structures might divert funds, especially donor funds, meant for national support, c) interest in maintaining bi-lateral relations and programs, and d) reluctance to create a powerful organization that might overshadow national institutions.

Behind these concerns are uncertainties and ambivalence about multi-lateral cooperation.

SADC, for example, has developed a set of principles to address national apprehensions. These principles, many of which clearly serve as confidence building measures, include:

1. Regional solutions should not eclipse national management structures.

2. Multilateral relations should not supplant the bi-lateral relations of countries.

3. Member countries should retain the prerogative to trigger the actions of regional entities.

4. Operational institutional structures should be cautiously embraced.

5. Existing (tested) regional institutions and structures should, where possible, serve as the locus of regional disaster management infrastructure.

6. The mandate of such organizations over disaster management should be carefully defined.

Conclusion – Multilateral Cooperation Patterns and Trends

It is clearly premature to draw firm conclusions about prospects for multi-lateral cooperation and possible structures. The revival of interest in multi-lateral cooperation in Africa is still at the very early stages. However, there are some emerging patterns and considerations that appear likely to influence future developments. Among the primary ones are:

1. There is clearly still strong interest in multi-lateral cooperation.

2. Pragmatism, as opposed to the dominant romanticism of the 1960s is likely to be the driving force behind regional cooperation and will influence the emerging institutional structures.

3. A gradual, incremental approach to institutionalization seems more acceptable. The mandate of regional multilateral organizations is likely to be narrowly defined, at least at the beginning. Among other things, organizations will be designed around single issues.

4. The initial nucleus of founder members will possibly be composed of a small number of countries who share well defined, common interests. Disaster management cooperation is an example of common interest.

5. Different forms of institutional frameworks appear to emerge to take into account the apprehensions of member states about surrendering sovereignty and national prerogatives.

6. Bi-lateralism could potentially remain an issue given the desire to retain old alliances, and the tentative level of confidence in multilateral options.