--By Prof Ujjwal K Chowdhury
Understanding Natural Disasters:
Covering seven nations, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, South Asia is a region sensitive to disasters. The region has exhausted its land reserves, and is farming soils that are unsuitable for cultivation. Some 35% of productive land is affected by land degradation. South Asia has a population that is vulnerable to risks in terms of sudden fluctuations in markets and natural shocks arising from weather. This region is also marked by high disparities in income, health and education.
South Asia’s geography makes it particularly susceptible to natural disasters. According to the recently published World Risk Report 2012, countries like Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan exhibit a high level of vulnerability as demonstrated by their lack of coping capacities and adaptive capacities. In evaluating 173 countries for purposes of creating this year’s World Risk Index, the report gave the following countries its global risk index ranking: Bangladesh (6th most risk-prone country of the world), Pakistan (66), India (71) and Nepal (99). There is a high level of variation within South Asia itself, but these rankings should not be misinterpreted to undermine the risk faced by these countries— particularly the poor—in the face of natural disaster.
Since 2004-2005, the region became a neighborhood of disasters. Besides recurring flood and drought, it also had to cope with the December 2004 tsunami. There was the October 2005 earthquake in the Himalayan range that killed of 75,000. Pakistan was ravaged by an earthquake in 2008, and floods in 2010. And recently Uttarakhand of India and parts of Nepal have experienced devastating floods due to cloudbursts.
Recent Natural Disasters in India:
In June 2013, the North Indian states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, some regions of Western Nepal and their adjoining areas experienced heavy rainfall that triggered devastating floods and landslides. Parts of Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, and some parts of Western Tibet also experienced heavy rainfall. By early July, more than 1,000 people have died with more than 6000 missing. Damage to bridges and roads left over 70,000 pilgrims and tourists trapped in various places, many of whom were rescued. As of 30 June 2013, about 300 - 400 people are said to be still stranded. Although Uttarakhand Assembly Speaker, based on various ground reports said that the death toll could cross 10,000, the official death toll in Uttarakhand (by 29 June 2013) was 842, and around 6000 missing.
Unprecedented destruction by the rainfall witnessed in Uttarakhand state was attributed, by environmentalists, to unscientific developmental activities undertaken in recent decades and this contributed to high level of loss of property and lives. Roads constructed in haphazard style, new resorts and hotels built on fragile river banks and more than 70 back to back hydro electric projects coming up across the river system of the state lead to a “disaster waiting to happen” as termed by certain environmentalists. As per environmental experts, the tunnels built and blasts undertaken for 70 hydro electric projects contributed to ecological imbalance in the state, with flow of river water restricted and the unscientific real estate activity contributed to higher number of landslides and more flood
Ecologists point out that the huge expansion of hydro-power projects and construction of roads to cope with the lakhs of tourists in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh has compounded the scale of the disaster.
The expansion of roads has proved a major destabilising factor combined as it is with plans to construct over 200 dams in this sensitive eco-zone. Data with the Uttarakhand state transport department bears this out.
The state has seen a 1000 per cent increase in vehicular traffic in the last eight years, with ecologists having forewarned about the correlation between tourism increase and the higher increase of landslides.
Learnings
Two main lessons can be drawn from the Mahakali (Nepal, June 2013, at least 100 dead and more than 12,000 displaced) and Uttarakhand flood disasters: The severity of the disaster could have been mitigated with a better end-to-end information system and proper infrastructure planning would have reduced the damage.
Accordingly, we need to:
A) Put in place institutional mechanisms that that can use technological advances in forecasting. Although some warnings were disseminated by the India Meteorological Organization about the possibility of high to intense rainfall, this information was not transmitted to the people at risk. There is a need to strengthen disaster management and preparedness mechanisms, which requires awareness and sensitization at various levels to ensure that early warning information is conveyed to end users well in advance.
B) Set up more hydrometeorological stations on transboundary rivers. There is no river-level hydrological monitoring station on the Mahakali river for flood forecasting and early warning. It is recommended that a river monitoring station for early warning be set up jointly by Nepal and India to provide people with some lead-time and improve flood forecasting and management in the basin.
C) “Carefully plan infrastructure in the mountains.” The Hindu newspaper put it succinctly when it said that damage could have been contained through proper policies, especially regarding infrastructure development. Many mountain roads are contributing a huge sediment load to our rivers and inviting landslides. Many of the settlements are located along flood plains and have developed over the years, encroaching the river banks and increasing the vulnerability to floods.
Natural Disasters and Nepal:
Because of hazards and calamities such as landslides, avalanche, floods, flash floods, glacial lake outbursts etc., thousands of people are affected every year in Nepal. More than 1,000 people die annually in Nepal because of natural hazards, with almost 300 deaths due to floods and landslides alone. Heavy flooding in the past years has affected hundreds of families in eastern Nepal. Saptari is one of the most floodprone districts in the south eastern Terai region where heavy rains in 2007 affected over 50,000 households, displaced nearly 8,300 and destroyed over 3,500 houses. The 2007 South Asian floods killed eighty-four people in Nepal while 9,700 families were displaced. 28 of the country’s 75 districts were affected.
A survey done by ICIMOD and UNEP highlights that 26 lakes in Nepal are categorized as dangerous due to the threat of glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs). As highlighted by IPCC (2001), glacial melt is expected to increase under changed climate. According to some studies, almost 20 per cent of the present glaciated area above 5000 m altitude is likely to be snow and glacier free with an increase of air temperature by 1ºC. Similarly, a 3-4ºC temperature rise would result in the loss of 58 to 70 per cent of snow and glaciated areas with threat of GLOFs.
Nepal is situated in the seismically active Himalayan mountain belt dominated by the northward movement of the Indian tectonic plate towards and below the Eurasian tectonic plate. The role of earthquakes is essentially to catch up with the rate of convergence of these plates. Every year, more than a thousand earthquakes of various magnitudes ranging from 2 to 5 on the Richter scale occur in the country. Nepal has a long record of destructive earthquakes that extends back to 1255 AD. According to historical evidence, Nepal has experienced nine major earthquakes over the last 700 years. Recurring earthquakes during the 20th century claimed more than 23,000 lives.
How can South Asian countries fortify themselves in the face of inevitable natural disasters? Where Bangladesh seems to be taking steps to improve its resilience, countries like Nepal and Pakistan are struggling for solutions. Nepal may have ranked towards the middle of the World Risk Index at 99th out of the 173, but the country with a population of around 30 million people faces similar natural threats as Bangladesh. According to data compiled by the Disaster Preparedness Network Nepal (DPNN), 22,278 people in Nepal have lost their lives due to natural disasters since 1982. DPNN data also illustrates the natural disasters behind these fatalities – they are attributed to avalanches, earthquakes, floods and landslides, fire, pandemics, stampedes, and windstorm, hailstones and lightning. Although the demographics behind this figure has not been published, it would be a fair assumption based on the experience of other South Asian countries that those people with less stable homes – the urban poor – make up a significant fraction of the fatalities. DPNN Chairman Dr. Meen Bahadur Poudel notes that these fatalities are due to increase in the future.
There are basic steps that can be taken in Kathmandu – and wider Nepal – to boost its resilience, such as enforcing building codes and executing emergency drills for the public. The National Society for Earthquake Technology, established in Nepal in 1988, has launched a program to make school buildings more earthquake-resistant. As a nationwide initiative, Nepal’s Home Ministry has identified 83 areas in the Kathmandu Valley where infrastructure and food storage facilities will be built in the event of emergency. But more must be done to both prepare citizens for natural disasters and to update infrastructure to meet the region’s seismic challenges.
Natural Disasters and Bangladesh:
As per the Global Risk Index, Bangladesh has been declared the second most disaster-risk country in Asia—only after the Philippines—and sixth in the world after countries like Vanuatu, Tonga and Guatemala. Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons due to its exposure to seismic activity. The growing effects of climate change are also projected to exacerbate the country’s exposure. In response, the Government of Bangladesh has taken steps this year to set up a national program for disaster risk reduction. In a June 2011 interview, Mohammad Abdul Qayyum, National Director of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Program, noted that state structural measures (i.e., building embankment, sea walls and anti-cyclone shelters), as well as non-structural measures (i.e., increasing individual and community preparedness, introducing community-managed early warning systems) are being put into place to reduce the potential impacts from natural disaster.
Recent Natural Disasters in Pakistan:
In the year 2010, Pakistan was hit by worst floods in its history rendering 20 million people homeless and bringing one-fifth of the country under water. The floods, that left a trail of miseries that the affected population continues to battle even three years later, was a wakeup call for policy-makers, development experts, civil society and the general public that had not deemed climate change as well as the existing skewed development and resource distribution order as an important concern impacting the future of the country. The 2010 and later 2011 floods (in Sindh) exposed the extremely grim conditions that marked the daily lives of a large section of the population that had compromised access to basic amenities of life such as health, education, and shelter, and fundamental human rights, including decent livelihoods.
The story of Pakistan is a near cautionary tale for the rest of South Asia of what happens when institutions and systems are not in place to alleviate emergencies. Pakistan’s plight since 2010 is well-documented. This year, at least 5.5 million people have been affected by flooding in the country: in late August, floods killed over 300 people and have damaged 1.2 million houses. Last year’s floods affected 21 million people – both in rural and urban areas – and it is estimated that 800,000 families are still homeless in the wake of 2010’s floods.
The State Role & the Samaritan’s Dilemma
While developing countries bear the brunt of disasters, ironically these are also the countries which have made fewer efforts to adapt their physical environments to mitigate the impact of such disasters and to insure themselves against disaster risks, partly because of the disincentive known as the “Samaritan’s dilemma” (i.e. nations may under-invest in protective measures since they expect foreign donors to help when such disasters strike).
The Samaritan’s dilemma, on the other hand, may arise from households and firms under-investing in insurance and undertaking adaptive measures on the presumption that governments would come to their rescue; governments may also under-invest in the hope that foreign donors would bail them out; and rich countries may find it difficult to scale down their ex post assistance in the absence of significant ex ante protective measures by governments in developing countries.
New financial instruments (e.g. catastrophic bonds, swaps, and weather derivatives) have been devised to deal with disaster risk but with little impact.
Tackling Natural Disasters: Risk Mitigation
Risk mitigation through adaptation of physical environment includes land use planning (e.g. avoiding construction on seismic fault lines, vulnerable coastal regions, and ensuring that buildings are resistant to hurricanes and earthquakes); prevention of soil erosion; building of dams for flood control, and seawalls to break storm surges. Governments could also promote farming practices so that farmers can cope better with climatic variations-drought resistant crops-and adapt to longer-term changes.
Adverse selection is a problem in disaster insurance but less than in other insurance markets, as many disasters can be predicted more accurately, as also the value of property at stake. In developing countries, however, specific problems arise from the thinness of insurance markets and ill-defined property rights.
Two other problems are arguably more serious. One is the difficulty of risk spreading and the second is linked to the Samaritan’s dilemma. While risk-spreading in developing countries in general should not be difficult — since the losses they face are a small fraction of global resources — it often is because of the segmented and shallow insurance markets.
Donor Concerns & Issues in Disaster Mitigation:
Some observations regarding donor concerns and a more coordinated disaster prevention and mitigation strategy are made below.
• A major strategic concern is mainstreaming of disaster prevention and mitigation among multilateral development agencies and governments. This rests on the presumption that the response to disasters has been reactive and tactical, and not strategic in the sense that the emergencies caused by natural hazards (e.g. floods, earthquakes) are not periodic but on-going in the context of highly vulnerable countries.
• Recovery from a disaster and poverty reduction go hand in hand. Choices made during the initial phase could influence the outcomes in terms of poverty favourably or unfavourably over time.
SAARC Framework on Disaster Management:
It is also important to point out that a regional response to natural disasters, whether in the shape of the SAARC Framework on Disaster Management or other bilateral and trilateral institutional arrangements that states may think of, is extremely important.
In May 2011, the Secretary General of SAARC presented a draft SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters to the Inter-governmental meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He pointed out quoting global statistics, that over the past forty years, South Asia faced as many as 1,333 disasters that killed 980,000 people, affected 2.4 billion lives and damaged assets worth US$105 billion. This loss is by far the highest among the recorded disasters in various geographical regions.
The SAARC Disaster Management Centre (SDMC) was set up in October 2006 at the premises of National Institute of Disaster Management in New Delhi. The Centre has the mandate to serve eight Member Countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
In a recent development, Seventeenth Summit of SAARC was held in Addu city of Maldives on 10-11 November 2011. In Addu declaration, member countries expressed their consciousness of the environmental degradation and particular vulnerabilities of the region to the threat of climate change. The declaration also welcomed the signing of the SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters.
Prior to this in May 2011 an inter-governmental meeting on draft SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters held in Colombo, Sri Lanka reached a broad consensus on the Agreement. This agreement was adopted in Seventeenth SAARC Summit held in Maldives in November 2011. The draft agreement based on the principle of respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of all member states aims to put in place an effective mechanism for rapid response to disasters to achieve substantial reduction in loss of lives and loss of social, economic and environmental assets in times of a disaster.
In a more promising development, the Abu Dhabi Dialogue Group comprising seven states sharing the rivers rising in the Greater Himalayas is expected to meet this year to adopt a joint initiative to minimize the impact of melting of glaciers. The group comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal was set up in 2006 in Abu Dhabi. It would strive to achieve within ten years a cooperative and knowledge based partnership for managing fairly and developing the Himalayan River Systems to bring prosperity, peace and social harmony and environmental sustainability from the source to the sea.
