Tuesday, 15 October 2013

The impact of disasters on development and vulnerabilities caused by development


     

          The effects can be complex and for this reason an evaluation must be done to reveal what will not be available and looking at the effect chain to see what are the short-term needs. The effect again to me being the various possibilities and realities that may be affected by the disaster.(I am yet to research if there is a are using the effect to mean something else since it’s my own train of thought) Among the poor this is very clear. For example it takes a lot to convince them to contribute towards the reduction of a risk unless it is clear what the benefits are, they are also at a disadvantage when it comes to education. They get fewer opportunities to succeed because they cannot afford the tuition. Education builds better societies and it makes communities aware of opportunities. So without it as a means of development it translates to more vulnerable communities. There is also the notion that many among the poor are women, young children and the elderly. Making them unable to confront the vulnerabilities they have. Urban development has also come with the need to have cheap housing that will cater to the needs of the poor and with this their homes lack access and basic amenities like security and water. The coastal region also has an example of development that can increase vulnerability. Resorts and hotels are often built in low laying beach areas exposed to the risk of tsunami. They also lies a risk therein of marine life being threatened. In land we notice deforestation causing landslides and in Kenya it has threatened water catchment areas that resulted in relocation of people by the government and tree planting being initiated. Ecologists can attest to the threat that comes with over feeding of the land due to livestock development that increases the chances of desertification. The development has also been in industry with plants being located near rivers, and residential areas not taking into account the health effects this poses. In Kenya for example the biggest dumping site is near a slum and the effects have been felt with people falling sick from the fumes and the leaks into the river due to the harmful emissions ubiquitous.

           The light is not always dark because development programs can also mitigate vulnerability. Structural mitigation has measures that reduce economic loss and social impact of hazardous agents and includes construction of dams, terraces, man-made forests, earthquake stable structures etc. Following structural mitigation is non-structural mitigation that covers policies and practices. With this mitigation the net can be thrown farther to include education, environment awareness and community empowerment strategies. It is important that I emphasize the importance of incorporation of mitigation into policies and the fact that to fully be effective they must be part of development. The much praised Thika Road is well constructed but not looking into the hazard areas was a huge mistake since there is flooding in a section of it. This means the contractor failed to have a fail-safe in case of flooding yet it’s in a section near a stream that would be getting more water than usual due to the development. The placing of mitigation ensures preparation is done or avoidance altogether. It helps build networks for response among international organizations and the government that are key in disaster preparedness. A good relationship was seen between the security forces and the International Red Cross during the Kenya West Gate tragedy giving technical assistance and evacuation. So what are the options we have to incorporate mitigation into day to day development programs? Well here are some ways you can protect assets and communities.


epcb.blogspot.com



1. Strengthening urban utility systems and industrial support
infrastructures. This especially important to lifeline systems like power, transport and water. Their efficiency can be bolstered and they
can be made more resistant to hazards. 2. Opportunities in construction of hazard resistant buildings. For example raised homes in flood prone areas and buildings that can handle the shock of earthquakes. 3. Improved administration and strengthening the resource base of public institutions. This will have a general positive impact on mitigation, preparedness emergency responses and the quality of recovery. 4. Mitigation through Agricultural and Forestry programs. The examples are in reforestation programs, change in cropping methodology to ameliorate soil erosion problems and effects of floods or drought. We also have the obvious use of pest resistant crops. According to USAID the opportunities for incorporation of mitigation programs come with a price of investing already scarce resources.

 The organization states that A .The operations must be directed at restoring assets or productivity in a long- term development perspective and not towards relief. B. The prospective economic returns should be high for sustainability and other reasons. C. The event that triggered the emergency should have a low chance of recurring soon. D. The urgency of response should be clear. E. Emergency lending is limited to cases where effective action can be felt in two to three years, and finally F. There should be some prospect for future reduction in the hazard.


Benson Mutahi Githaiga
Disaster Management Enthusiast

References


Emergency Management: the American Experience,1900-2010. ed. Claire B.Rubin  





No comments:

Post a Comment