Our much celebrated geo-strategic position on the planet, combined with some other factors, makes Pakistan the seventh country most vulnerable to climate change. The intensity, magnitude and frequency of natural disasters are evident and are also on the rise with each passing year.
Humanitarian or rescue and relief activities is the first phase of post-disaster governance. It is usually performed well due to our better social capital (trust, economic, cultural and social norms and networks) and our embedded national valour in society at large. Past disasters demonstrate that our recovery efforts are limited to humanitarian activities only. The government, media, NGOs and civil society exhausted very early after the event and run out of steam quickly. After a few months, the whole disaster is out of sight and out of mind.
The real dilemma for disaster victims starts when the media frenzy humanitarian phase is over. The affected people, uncertain about their future, want to return to the pre-event state as soon as possible. This also suites the government. All government agencies and relief organisations focus on early restoration and largely ignore the long-term recovery phase.
It is, of course, much easier to care for immediate relief needs and repair damaged infrastructure than to ‘repair’ shattered, traumatised and vulnerable communities. The early restoration shows that the state is doing something and it helps the government regain the lost trust of people. It is an easy, simple, short and quick fix. However, early restoration is never the solution regardless of what the affected community and authorities desire.
Rebuilding lives is a much more complicated process than rebuilding structures. It involves social, economic, political, cultural, and physical processes that are often very diverse and complex. Despite the frequency of disasters in Pakistan, attention of emergency services rarely extends to long-term recovery commitments. The often neglected, complex, longer and more costly work of long-term disaster recovery is seldom accorded the same degree of supporting assistance from government and donors.
Failed recovery not only extends the trauma of affected but also exacerbates existing socio-economic trajectories and vulnerabilities present in the community, which may result in secondary crisis, if not disasters with equal or graver effects.
Thatta in Sindh is a class example. The city of Thatta has been affected by floods and continuous sea intrusion time and again, but the floods of 2010-11 were the worst in which 95 percent of the city’s inhabitants were evacuated to safe places. But what happened next? Is there any comprehensive long-term recovery strategy adopted? Sadly the answer is no. The consequence, again, in 2015, as reported in daily Dawn, was that over 100,000 fled Thatta areas to escape flooding. The affected areas become more vulnerable to future disasters due to no recovery and contribute to disasters becoming endemic. Recurrent disasters increase vulnerability and create chronic conditions of risk, as it derails development gains and results in widespread losses.
Another example is the new phenomena of heat waves, especially in big cities. Although the 2015 heat wave caught Karachiites off guard and resulted in 1,200 deaths and 50,000 cases of heat illness in a single week. The people who died were at the margins of the society, living mostly in low income settlements of the city. Next year, Karachi authorities responded by alerting hospitals, establishing a few emergency camps and mostly digging mass graves. All were reactionary relief measures.
It will be naive to think that this heat wave is the last and that no such event will happen again. According to multiple research reports, heat waves will be a new normal in Pakistan and have the adverse potential to contribute on already strained economy, health and socio cultural factors. Karachi heat wave management plan focuses only on response and coordination efforts in the event of heat wave. This reactive nature of plans seriously lacks long-term pre-emptive strategies to reduce the occurrence of heat waves in the first place.
Architect Yasmeen Lari said, “If you can’t beat them, green them.” The best remedy is to reduce the occurrence of heat waves in cities. It is very much possible to lower the temperature by three to four degree Celsius in the next 15 to 20 years with effective long-term strategies. The city of Melbourne initiated a programme to counter what is known as the ‘urban heat island’ by targeting to reduce the central city’s average temperature by four degree Celsius (seven degree Fahrenheit) by 2030. Although we neither have Melbourne’s resources nor her skills and capacity but much of the efforts do not require many resources. It is more of the combination of measures, ranging from simple -planting more trees - to more technical, like collecting and storing rainwater.
Disasters are mainly a reflection of people’s vulnerabilities. These events are not accidental, unpredictable and random episodes but rather a by-product of national and local decisions, ignorance and apathy from authorities. It is very correctly said, “We are the authors of our own disasters.”
We need to reconsider the idea of post-disaster recovery as not “business as usual” or “a new normal”, but to seize the opportunity to correct the wrongs committed in years of ignorance. Einstein is reported to have said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Disaster recovery is an often overlooked and misunderstood aspect of the disaster governance lifecycle. It is a window of opportunity to Build Back Better: to use the opportunity of a disaster recovery to leave societies improved in all possible aspects, not just restored. It is a matter of common sense. After all, who would want to build back worse, or simply reinstate conditions of inequality, poverty, and vulnerability if the chance for something better is at hand? The long-term disaster recovery process is the opportunity to build it better by not only restoring to pre-event status but also, very importantly, eliminating the underlying risks and vulnerabilities that caused the natural hazard to turn into a disaster in the first place.
BBB recovery is a systematic process rather than a collection of discrete, individual, unplanned and unconnected reconstruction activities. A well-conceived and integrated recovery programme is not only the opportunity to rectify the sinful urban planning decisions through a physical transformation but also the basis for establishing collective cultural and psychological mind-set changes by introducing structural and non-structural reforms. Local and national environments immediately after the event are usually conducive to such drastic changes in the affected area. The costs of undertaking disaster risk reduction measures by means of any urban rectification during post-disaster recovery are far lower than normal times. Missing such golden opportunities will definitely have heavy consequences.
The recovery development decisions made after disasters shape cities - in good or bad ways - for years to come. Thinking ahead improves the ability of the community to survive, adapt, and recover. The Indian state of Gujarat, after the 2001 earthquake, adopted the highly-praised owner-driven strategy for reconstruction of houses. This not only promoted the livelihood perceptive immediately but also helped in developing local capacity for communities to incorporate specific earthquake and cyclone-resistant design techniques in rebuilding their own homes for future as well. It also effectively addressed the pre-existing socio-economic issues: segregation of minorities, women’s employment, toilet facilities in new houses etc. More than these, through holistic planning, land use zoning addressed congestion and aesthetics. Building code regulations now include higher standards for seismic and cyclone safety, which reduces future vulnerability.
Successful disaster recovery can only be defined in terms that are able to provide improved, more resilient and less vulnerable conditions of future disaster risks for people, their livelihoods, and a community’s collective social, cultural assets and infrastructure. A successful recovery will not only reduce the impact of future disasters but also reduce the time the community takes to recover or to reach “a new normal.”
The only way out from here is to have better planned long-term recovery. A new report from the U.S National Institute of Building Sciences finds that for every dollar spent aimed at improving disaster resilience, society saves six dollars in future losses. The investment in terms of time and resources for disaster reduction during long-term recovery contribute to people’s future well-being and safety and can also accelerate the national development goals. It is time we see disasters beyond rescue and early restoration activities and put our energies into maximising opportunities present in post-disaster long-term recovery.
Humanitarian or rescue and relief activities is the first phase of post-disaster governance. It is usually performed well due to our better social capital (trust, economic, cultural and social norms and networks) and our embedded national valour in society at large. Past disasters demonstrate that our recovery efforts are limited to humanitarian activities only. The government, media, NGOs and civil society exhausted very early after the event and run out of steam quickly. After a few months, the whole disaster is out of sight and out of mind.
The real dilemma for disaster victims starts when the media frenzy humanitarian phase is over. The affected people, uncertain about their future, want to return to the pre-event state as soon as possible. This also suites the government. All government agencies and relief organisations focus on early restoration and largely ignore the long-term recovery phase.
It is, of course, much easier to care for immediate relief needs and repair damaged infrastructure than to ‘repair’ shattered, traumatised and vulnerable communities. The early restoration shows that the state is doing something and it helps the government regain the lost trust of people. It is an easy, simple, short and quick fix. However, early restoration is never the solution regardless of what the affected community and authorities desire.
Rebuilding lives is a much more complicated process than rebuilding structures. It involves social, economic, political, cultural, and physical processes that are often very diverse and complex. Despite the frequency of disasters in Pakistan, attention of emergency services rarely extends to long-term recovery commitments. The often neglected, complex, longer and more costly work of long-term disaster recovery is seldom accorded the same degree of supporting assistance from government and donors.
Despite the frequency of disasters in Pakistan, attention of emergency services rarely extends to long-term recovery commitments
Failed recovery not only extends the trauma of affected but also exacerbates existing socio-economic trajectories and vulnerabilities present in the community, which may result in secondary crisis, if not disasters with equal or graver effects.
Thatta in Sindh is a class example. The city of Thatta has been affected by floods and continuous sea intrusion time and again, but the floods of 2010-11 were the worst in which 95 percent of the city’s inhabitants were evacuated to safe places. But what happened next? Is there any comprehensive long-term recovery strategy adopted? Sadly the answer is no. The consequence, again, in 2015, as reported in daily Dawn, was that over 100,000 fled Thatta areas to escape flooding. The affected areas become more vulnerable to future disasters due to no recovery and contribute to disasters becoming endemic. Recurrent disasters increase vulnerability and create chronic conditions of risk, as it derails development gains and results in widespread losses.
Another example is the new phenomena of heat waves, especially in big cities. Although the 2015 heat wave caught Karachiites off guard and resulted in 1,200 deaths and 50,000 cases of heat illness in a single week. The people who died were at the margins of the society, living mostly in low income settlements of the city. Next year, Karachi authorities responded by alerting hospitals, establishing a few emergency camps and mostly digging mass graves. All were reactionary relief measures.
It will be naive to think that this heat wave is the last and that no such event will happen again. According to multiple research reports, heat waves will be a new normal in Pakistan and have the adverse potential to contribute on already strained economy, health and socio cultural factors. Karachi heat wave management plan focuses only on response and coordination efforts in the event of heat wave. This reactive nature of plans seriously lacks long-term pre-emptive strategies to reduce the occurrence of heat waves in the first place.
Architect Yasmeen Lari said, “If you can’t beat them, green them.” The best remedy is to reduce the occurrence of heat waves in cities. It is very much possible to lower the temperature by three to four degree Celsius in the next 15 to 20 years with effective long-term strategies. The city of Melbourne initiated a programme to counter what is known as the ‘urban heat island’ by targeting to reduce the central city’s average temperature by four degree Celsius (seven degree Fahrenheit) by 2030. Although we neither have Melbourne’s resources nor her skills and capacity but much of the efforts do not require many resources. It is more of the combination of measures, ranging from simple -planting more trees - to more technical, like collecting and storing rainwater.
Disasters are mainly a reflection of people’s vulnerabilities. These events are not accidental, unpredictable and random episodes but rather a by-product of national and local decisions, ignorance and apathy from authorities. It is very correctly said, “We are the authors of our own disasters.”
We need to reconsider the idea of post-disaster recovery as not “business as usual” or “a new normal”, but to seize the opportunity to correct the wrongs committed in years of ignorance. Einstein is reported to have said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Disaster recovery is an often overlooked and misunderstood aspect of the disaster governance lifecycle. It is a window of opportunity to Build Back Better: to use the opportunity of a disaster recovery to leave societies improved in all possible aspects, not just restored. It is a matter of common sense. After all, who would want to build back worse, or simply reinstate conditions of inequality, poverty, and vulnerability if the chance for something better is at hand? The long-term disaster recovery process is the opportunity to build it better by not only restoring to pre-event status but also, very importantly, eliminating the underlying risks and vulnerabilities that caused the natural hazard to turn into a disaster in the first place.
BBB recovery is a systematic process rather than a collection of discrete, individual, unplanned and unconnected reconstruction activities. A well-conceived and integrated recovery programme is not only the opportunity to rectify the sinful urban planning decisions through a physical transformation but also the basis for establishing collective cultural and psychological mind-set changes by introducing structural and non-structural reforms. Local and national environments immediately after the event are usually conducive to such drastic changes in the affected area. The costs of undertaking disaster risk reduction measures by means of any urban rectification during post-disaster recovery are far lower than normal times. Missing such golden opportunities will definitely have heavy consequences.
The recovery development decisions made after disasters shape cities - in good or bad ways - for years to come. Thinking ahead improves the ability of the community to survive, adapt, and recover. The Indian state of Gujarat, after the 2001 earthquake, adopted the highly-praised owner-driven strategy for reconstruction of houses. This not only promoted the livelihood perceptive immediately but also helped in developing local capacity for communities to incorporate specific earthquake and cyclone-resistant design techniques in rebuilding their own homes for future as well. It also effectively addressed the pre-existing socio-economic issues: segregation of minorities, women’s employment, toilet facilities in new houses etc. More than these, through holistic planning, land use zoning addressed congestion and aesthetics. Building code regulations now include higher standards for seismic and cyclone safety, which reduces future vulnerability.
Successful disaster recovery can only be defined in terms that are able to provide improved, more resilient and less vulnerable conditions of future disaster risks for people, their livelihoods, and a community’s collective social, cultural assets and infrastructure. A successful recovery will not only reduce the impact of future disasters but also reduce the time the community takes to recover or to reach “a new normal.”
The only way out from here is to have better planned long-term recovery. A new report from the U.S National Institute of Building Sciences finds that for every dollar spent aimed at improving disaster resilience, society saves six dollars in future losses. The investment in terms of time and resources for disaster reduction during long-term recovery contribute to people’s future well-being and safety and can also accelerate the national development goals. It is time we see disasters beyond rescue and early restoration activities and put our energies into maximising opportunities present in post-disaster long-term recovery.