Disaster can impact conflict dynamics, while post-disaster response can be a source of new political and resource conflict. But on a positive note, disasters not only bring devastation; they can also bring opportunities for physical, social and infrastructure transformations. Such opportunities, however, can be lost if disaster response and recovery fail to take into account broader social, economic, political and security implications of disaster aid. If not handled well, the risk of aid doing more harm than good is high if recovery efforts take place in socially, politically and religiously divided society like Nepal.Making post-disaster intervention conflict sensitive should, therefore, be a priority for both state and non-state agencies delivering aid and relief materials. Deadly disaster is often followed by overwhelming humanitarian response. However, as we have recently seen, many organizations rushed to distribute relief materials without basic knowledge of disaster-hit sites. I was informed that many foreign individuals and groups were stranded in Kathmandu due to lack of contextual field knowledge. Relief material have been collected and distributed without assessing ground realities.
For more effective efforts, we need to ask a few questions before rushing to distribute relief materials. Such question could include: What is the potential scale of damage? What is the size of affected population? How do we know what victims really need? Who will we involve in delivering relief materials and aid? Do relief materials cater to the victims' needs? How is the security situation? What is ethnic, religious and caste configuration of affected areas? It could be difficult, but not impossible, to find answers to some of these questions. A good context analysis is the first step to avoid aid misuse.
Frustration and anger of victims still deprived of food, water and shelter are being reported, risking a potential "resource conflict" in disaster zones. At least three factors deserve attention in this regard. First, more relief materials are always bound to increase resource competition and aggravate public frustration, which can then lead to violence. Second, preferential treatment in selecting aid recipients is another potential source of conflict. People who did not lose their houses were able to get tarpaulin while the homeless were deprived of it. Inequitable and unfair distribution of relief materials caused tensions in Kathmandu as well as in outlying districts. Third, timing of response is crucial. The more the response is delayed, the higher the chances of tensions.
People in remote villages in Gorkha, Sindhupalchowk and Dhading districts, who did not receive aid until a week, blamed aid delivery system of bias and preferential treatment. Aid centralized in the capital combined with delayed responses in rural areas further alienated victims from the centralized state. If unaddressed, this sentiment could negatively impact state-building efforts.
At district level, rescue and relief is coordinated through the District Disaster Relief Committee (DDRC) chaired by Chief District Officer. Relief materials are disseminated from district to Village Development Committed (VDC) level and then to Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) for distribution. Agencies rushing to distribute relief should coordinate with focal persons in DDRC while at villages they should work with VDC and WCF. The institutional mechanism for delivery of aid is clearly in place, yet it is not free of politicization.
Lack of local elected representatives increases the risk of politicization of aid materials. I have been informed by volunteers returning from districts that local political leaders are competing for resources. Since patron-client relationship governs interaction between public and political parties in our country, political parties can easily misuse relief and aid materials. So the civil society has to put pressure on government for greater transparency and accountability.
Considering that long-term reconstruction and recovery can take years, the government may consider establishing an independent, autonomous disaster reconstruction commission comprised of experts from different fields. In addition to maintaining transparency, the commission can check politicization of aid.
Psychological damages are high in post-disaster communities. Victims are entitled to dignified, respectful and selfless help. Lack of recognition and respect of victims' dignity can lead to their disenchantment. Women, children and people from marginalized communities deserve some form of positive discrimination in receiving aid. There are also many examples of religious insensitivities hampering relief and rehabilitation works. Tensions erupted when both Muslims and Hindus were offered the same food rehabilitation shelters after the Koshi flood.
Post-disaster recovery and reconstruction call for big public investment and long-term prioritizing, matched with continuous support from the government, private sector and donors. Reconstruction can lose momentum because of a number of factors including limited external interest, ineffective long-term recovery strategies and politicization of aid. We must realise that poorly managed reconstruction efforts can greatly harm post-disaster communities. In post-quake Haiti, lack of conflict sensitivity in aid delivery was one of many factors that pushed the country into a vicious cycle of violence. The government and aid agencies must integrate conflict sensitive approach to their recovery and reconstruction work to avoid doing harm in the name of aid.
The author is a researcher who focuses on peace building, security and violence
Related story
Govt enforces new foreign aid policy for effective use of forei...
