Moving from disaster to development

In a meeting with the chief ministers on December 1, the prime minister expressed satisfaction that the rescue and relief phase of the floods had been completed successfully. It was now time to worry about reconstruction and rehabilitation. While the rescue and relief phase has somehow passed, reconstruction and rehabilitation require a lot more seriousness on the part of the government and civil society.

The floods that have wreaked havoc since July this year in one-fourth of the country do not have a parallel in the history of disasters in Pakistan. These unprecedented floods have displaced and affected the lives and livelihoods of the highest number of people ever — some 20 million by most accounts. Unfortunately, the response to this greatest disaster in the county’s history has been the poorest compared to all other disasters that we have faced. The relief and rescue efforts were a disaster themselves. Development — rehabilitation and reconstruction — presents a picture of chaos. The level of rural poverty has been much higher than that of urban poverty. As floods have largely affected rural areas, there is every likelihood that the next Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement survey will show a massive rise in rural poverty.  Other than distributing Rs100,000, the federal as well as the provincial governments do not seem to have a plan. Donors have focused on the cost of disaster and the move from disaster to development has been hampered by a lack of trust in the government. Civil society organisations can never have the capacity to deal with enormity of the task that lies ahead. It can certainly demonstrate best practice and catalyse effective participation of communities through social mobilisation.

Strangely enough, the discussion on resource mobilisation has preceded the formulation of a plan. A plan is not a wish list of projects and programmes. In fact, projects and programmes have to serve clear-cut objectives. There must be a strategy which lays out the road to achieve expected outcomes. The entire process has to involve those affected by the floods. What we are witnessing is an overambitious talk about doing in a year or two what we have not been able to do in the past six-and-a-half decades. All disasters do create opportunities for change. The Great Fire of London of 1666 led to the rebuilding of the city. The mass destruction following World War II provided continental Europe opportunities to modernise. Those seeing opportunities in our disaster should be reminded of the little Switzerland that was promised in Bisham or the new Balakot city dreamt by the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority. The penchant, for example, for model villages in our context will only create a few islands of envy for some time and opportunities for profit to fly-by-night consultants and contractors. It is no solution for rebuilding the 1.8 million houses destroyed or damaged by the flood. A doable plan will have to focus on rebuilding lives and livelihoods in a sustainable manner. If there is an opportunity, it lies in better floodplain management to mitigate the impact of the disaster.

Frankly, domestic resource mobilisation efforts have been slow and rather poor. Appeals for foreign assistance would have been much more credible had we immediately mounted local efforts. Provinces, under the Seventh National Finance Commission, have been allowed a massive rise of 58 per cent in resources and they looked towards the federal government for more resources. While the federal government had high hopes from international donors, it has taken five months in tabling legislation for flood tax. There is no knowing when the promised expenditure cuts will materialise. A real movement from disaster to development requires both the flood tax as well as expenditure cuts, supplemented by foreign assistance.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 3^rd, 2010.