If I say “poverty is a vicious circle”, it would be nothing new. It definitely is. I also do not need to highlight the strong link between poverty and disaster. They are linked intricately in a cause and effect relation.
From discussions I had with disaster-vulnerable communities, I concluded that poor people have no option but to reside in disaster-prone areas. Why? A strong reason could be the lack of capital. Disasters, when they occur, further aggravate the poverty of the people. Is “lack of capital” the only reason people inhabit risk zones? Let’s explore. [break]
thecelestialconvergence.bolgspot.com
Recently, I accompanied a field exercise to carry out Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in Tinchule VDC (name changed), Surkhet District. This exercise was part of a 10-day Disaster Management Training of Trainers. The cause of disasters is always a mystery to me. That is the reason why I choose to stay with the group supposed to discuss the cause and effect of disasters. I did the same this time.
PRA literature suggests that rapport building with respondents is important to make them participate in the discussion. Following the suggestions of PRA veterans, we began the discussion with an informal introduction of each other. We made sure the introduction package covered names, addresses, and livelihoods. Seven people took part in the discussion. We failed to follow the government rule of 33 percent participation of women. Nonetheless, to our contentment, there were two female participants. Not surprisingly, the livelihood of most respondents was agriculture. Also, remittance from Gulf countries had a great role to play in their day-to-day finances.
Later, we discussed historical disasters. They all agreed that landslide is the most dangerous hazard in their vicinity. Fortunately, there had been no human casualties until then. Nevertheless, landslides devastated arable lands almost annually.
Somebody in our group, a member of the exercise team, asked a fascinating question “Why do you live in such vulnerable area when there are plenty of comparatively safer places?” I appreciated his question, and of course, him as well. But it was obvious to me (based on reading and experiencing) that poverty left them with no option but to reside in comparatively dangerous area. But that turned out to be far from the truth. Let me share a couple insights I had during that amazing interaction.
Poverty results in settlement in risk zone, and occurrence of disaster worsens poverty. But, I learned that there are two other factors that compel people to reside in a risk zone: pushing circumstances and desire to increase capital.
Man Bahadur Gurung, one of the respondents, said he came to Tinchule in 2056 BS. What brought him there was not his poverty. He said he was affluent enough to feed his family back where he came from. He owned good land from which he harvested year round. What’s more, he was happy where he lived compared to where he is now. He, along with a few families, had been pushed to leave due to the conflict. Pushing circumstances are governed by social context. People have little or no control over such circumstances, and they take whatever option they find appropriate at the moment. Man Bahadur’s case represents many undiscovered pushing circumstances.
We also heard the case of Sudhakar Bogati (name changed as requested) that revealed another interesting fact. Sudhakar has four brothers in his family. He was not poor before he moved to Tinchule. Like Man Bahadur, he was able to grow food for his entire family round the year. But unlike Man Bahadur, the reason for his settlement in risk zone is “desire to increase capital.” We found several cases of people occupying government land and claiming them for individual registration. This was what attracted Sudhakar. He wanted to challenge the risk provided by the area, and settle down there. When we met them, he with his four bothers occupied significant amount of land in that area.
I will let the readers decide whether the cases of Man Bahadur and Sudhakar provide positive or negative messages. But in my opinion, all the dwellers of a particular community are not equally vulnerable.
From the cases I found at Tinchule, I understood that lack of capital is not the only reason for families to settle in risk zones. Here, I would like to cite the concept of Relative Vulnerability. There were other families in the community whose poverty forced them to settle there. They are surely more vulnerable than Man Bahadur and Sudhakar, who have other options of settlement. Those families should receive more support than Man Bahadur and Sudhakar.
When disaster management professionals aim to support vulnerable communities to build resilience, I suggest not using a blanket approach to assess vulnerability. Every family is differently vulnerable.
I agree that it is not easy, but I would recommend performing relative vulnerability assessment. If we are able to scrutinize the relative vulnerability of the community where we intend to execute disaster management activities, then the most vulnerable families will receive more support. I believe in equality, but this process would result in the equitable distribution of support among vulnerable families.
Related story
Tackling corruption to reduce climate vulnerability
