Flood compensation package to further inequalities, vulnerabilities
The writer is National Coordinator of Pattan Development Organisation and has served as head of FAFEN
Every disaster exposes vulnerabilities of individuals, communities, structures and systems almost proportionally to its scale. Some known and some not. Therefore, it is highly important to examine not only all the vulnerabilities but also root causes of each vulnerability, as it helps build resilience to future disasters. Some of them are relatively easy to end. For instance, we all know that the mud structure is more likely to collapse faster than pukka when inundated. We also know a person wearing a seatbelt or helmet is less likely to have head injuries than the one who doesn’t. So is a child who has taken polio drops is unlikely to have polio-related disability. And some vulnerabilities are extremely complex to address such as poverty, inequality and marginalisation. Hence, take ages. However, disasters provide many opportunities to sow the seeds to end them.
It doesn’t look apt to cite an example from my own organisation’s work. However, tales of best practices must be shared. In the wake of 1992 super floods, PATTAN with the collaboration of OXFAN and CONCERN International successfully implemented a large flood resistant housing project. Perhaps it was the first time that any organisation had facilitated flood affected riverine communities ever to build houses of equal size and quality and women got equal ownership of the units. For full story click https://www.worldcat.org/title/gendered-terrain-of-disaster-through-womens-eyes/oclc/37878632. The houses survived many future floods. It was one of the best examples of the Build-Back-Better (3Bs) concept form many dimensions. We managed to form children organisation (Naunehal Tanzeems), and women organisations. Some of the women later contested local elections and won, schools were built, and roads were laid in the area.
Though rulers don’t learn much from ‘best practices’ and from history as their behaviour is determined often by their narrow interests, human beings particularly civil society have great potential to learn and improve their well-being. The concept of 3Bs evolved from that collective realisation processes in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines the 3Bs as a “strategy aimed at reducing risks to the people of nations and communities in the wake of future disasters and shocks. It integrates DRR measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and the revitalization of livelihoods, economies, and the environment.” In 2015, it became an integral part of Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-30. Priority 4 of the SFDRR considers it a vital principle to create resilience to cope with future disasters.
Sadly, some disaster experts, found in our policymaking corridors, appear to look at this notion from a very narrow perspective. To them it applies just to physical structures such as roads, houses and bridges. They not only ignore Pakistan’s international commitments on ‘inclusive risk governance’ but also national policy guidelines on involvement of disaster-prone people in decision-making processes and 3Bs. Consider para 32 of the SFDRR 2015-30, “Empowering women and persons with disabilities to publicly lead and promote gender equitable and universally accessible response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction (3Rs) approaches is key. Disasters have demonstrated that the advance preparedness for 3Rs is critical to 3Bs, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into development measures, making nations and communities resilient to disasters.”
Scanning of reports and reconstruction plans for rehabilitation of flood-affected communities whether produced by international agencies or state institutions show utter disregard for the above-mentioned para. The present is the past. There appears no sign of intention to motivate communities for their participation at the time of designing, planning and implementation. For instance, Pakistan Flood Response Plan 2022 (Sep 22-Feb 23) is apparently a well prepared document, and donor agencies, INGOs, NGOs and state officials might have worked very hard to conduct damage and need assessments in extremely difficult situation, but careful reading of the document reveals intentional disregard for the concept of 3Bs and National Disaster Management Policy guidelines.
Based on our 30-year-long experience of working with disaster-prone communities, interaction with disaster management officials and policymakers, I have no hesitation to state the following: after each disaster the successive governments not only revived the old vulnerabilities but also added new ones. Instead of framing 3Rs policy in the light of SFDRR-3Bs, they are likely to Build-Back-Bad as they continue repeating the same mistakes in the wake of recent floods. For instance, people have been allowed to rebuild houses in the hazardous zones e.g. in the channels of hill torrents and active flood plains — a violation of River Acts. Vulnerability is being reconstructed.
While the flood ‘compensation package’ consists of billions of borrowed dollars and looks very attractive, most of its components are inherently flawed because they are often politically motivated, developed arbitrarily and in haste. Scanning the NDMA and PDMAs websites and wading through laws and policies documents don’t provide any criteria for setting rates for various components of the packages. No wonder package of each provincial government is different. For instance, for fully destroyed house, one province is giving Rs0.4 million and another is giving Rs0.5 million, while the amount for partially damaged house is half of the fully destroyed house. The amount offered for a mud house is far lesser than a pukka house. A person with critical injury will get Rs100,000 and one with minor injury Rs40,000.
The packages not only disregard the 3Bs concept but also likely to aggravate the situation. First, it is likely to encourage corruption. How on earth could one differentiate between a pukka and a mud house if they have already washed away? As it often happens in our country, if there is physical interaction between a citizen and an official, in this case between a potential recipient and the assessor, the likelihood of kickbacks is certain. Similarly, a family whose house is partially damaged is likely to destroy it completely or he will offer some share of the cash he receives to the assessor. Also look at the issue from another angle. Should the packages be implemented honestly, the end result will most likely be deepening of pre-flood inequalities. Families which had mud house before will continue living in a mud house. In other words, the state has not only reenforced socio-economic and housing inequalities but also lost an opportunity to end some poverty and vulnerabilities — a clear violation of the spirit of Articles 25 and 38 of the Constitution as well as SDGs and SFDRR. In short, the packages instead of building social cohesion and resilience are likely to produce the opposite — jealousies, fragmentation, litigations and corruption.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 22nd, 2022.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.