Risk Wise

[

] 58

Building inherent resilience

Manu Gupta, Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society, India

he continued high loss of life due to disasters in areas where

disaster reduction practices have been introduced questions

the efficacy of current practice. The paradigm shift towards

community-based disaster management (CBDM) practice, though

rightly intentioned, has to be examined in the light of practical

experiences. Without questioning its purpose, that is, to build

community resilience, it is worth attempting to find an alternative

approach to CBDM. At the core of the proposed alternative

approach is the need to recognize and build on a community’s

own coping skills and practices that are rooted in traditional rela-

tionships with its immediate natural environment.

CBDM is now an accepted and widely practiced strategy in disaster

vulnerable regions. Essentially, it puts community at the forefront of

local disaster management efforts. External agencies then become

facilitators of the process. In developing countries such as in South

Asia, where disasters are recurrent and heavy in impact, such strate-

gies help communities prepare better to respond to disaster

situations.

In recent decades there has been a marked increase in losses due to

natural disasters. Changes in societal living patterns, technological

advancement and increasing pressure on the natural envi-

ronment have made human existence increasingly

unsustainable, often leading to disasters. At the same time,

there is an increasing amount of investment in disaster

reduction interventions. Have these interventions really

been effective? Have they really been successful in reduc-

ing the impact of disasters among vulnerable

communities? Each large-scale disaster exposes the inad-

equacies of interventions so far, and at the same time

questions their basic methodology and approach.

Effectiveness of CBDM

When words are put into action, there is often a wide

gap in the way CBDM is understood on the ground. An

overview of CBDM strategies implemented around the

world clearly suggests that while communities at risk

are put at the centre, the solutions are often imposed

from outside.

Moreover, as pointed out during a recent national

meeting of community representatives on disaster risk

reduction in India,

communities become vulnerable

because:

• An overemphasis on technology masks social, polit-

ical and economic issues that underline

vulnerabilities

• Many development policies and programmes create

or increase vulnerability

• Reconstruction and development policies sometimes

increase vulnerability which leaves disaster struck

communities worse off

• Community knowledge and solutions are getting

lost due to non-recognition.

Every individual is endowed with an inherent capacity

to overcome any extreme adversity in his life. The inher-

ent capacity, if properly recognized, honed and

sustained, can lead to fewer lives lost due to natural

disasters.

Several methods used in CBDM – that is,

Participatory Rapid Appraisal from group discussions,

such as disaster mapping – are aimed at identifying root

causes of vulnerability; but solutions do not always

appreciate the existing coping practices of the commu-

nities. Traditional systems are often discarded, as they

are considered ‘obsolete’ and therefore cannot be repli-

cated in the contemporary context.

It is important to define here the scope of the commu-

nity’s own coping capacity. While most communities are

The Barmer district of Rajasthan

The Barmer district experienced unprecedented floods in 2006

Source: Safer World Communications