Disaster risk reduction in the Hindu Kush – Himalayan Region
1. Disasters in North-Western
Pakistan: challenges,
responses and limitations
4th IDRC 26-30 August 2012
DAVOS, Switzerland
Inam ur Rahim
and Daniel Maselli
http://www.fresh.org.pk
2. Disasters during the last 7 years
in Northern Pakistan
Earth Quake 2005 (Hazara, AJK and Malakand)
Loss of life 90,000
Affected people 6 million and demolished infrastructure
Insurgency 2007-till date (Malakand and Fata)
Loss of life 26,000
2.8 million displaced in Malakand
2.6 millions displaced in FATA
Floods 2010 (Malakand, Hazara)
Loss of life 1800,
loss of irrigated land in the mountain areas 35000 ha,
damage to infrastructure (bridges, roads, schools etc)
4. Response of the state
Still struggling with disaster management
National Disaster Management Act 2010
Institutions created for disaster management
NDMA, PDMA
ERRA. PERRA, CERRA
PaRRSA
All involved in rehabilitation and reconstruction
large overheads
Ministry of Disaster and risk management created
bureaucratic motive
Policy and vision for DRR still not in sight
(Construction/ taming of rivers/counter-insurgency)
5. Response of civil society
Limited to rescue and relief
In-cash and in-kind local contributions for
rescue/relief during earth quake
72% of the IDPs were accommodated by
relatives and friends in plain areas obligatory
under local tribal codes
90% of the flood affected families rescued by Tal
(a mutual support system of the neighborhood)
and clan members with in the village
6. Mechanism for regulating
assistance
All the external assistance was channeled
through provincial authorities
Criteria of NICs of the family heads laid down for
registration and provision of assistance
Top-down approach for rehabilitation and re-
construction
The role of military dominated in rehabilitations
and reconstruction
Assistance is provided on the basis of
geography rather than vulnerability
7. Socio-ecological distribution of
the disasters
Tenure Disputes among
State, landowners
and tenants
Landlords
Small landowners
(remittances based)
Landless tenants
(subsistence crop/L based)
Small landowners
(Service/trade based)
Landless tenants
(livestock/C based)
Landless tenants (commercial crop based)
8. Limitations-1
Large number of affected people ignored and
unaffected rewarded
Complicated registration mechanism for affected
communities increased the suffering of affected
The non-availability of NIC made many affected
women headed households without assistance
Restrictions on INGOs made many reluctant to
invest (NoC to be obtained)
Non-involvement of traditional institutions in relief
and rehabilitation prohibited proper channelization of
assistance
9. Limitations-2
Lacking coordination among assistance
providers during relief
Lacking transparency and lack of effective
monitoring system
Political biases in relief assistance distribution
Competition among GO and local NGO to
disburse assistance/relief
Week local institutions private benefits
over rides public benefits
Limited capacity of local institutions in DRR
10. Suggestions for improvement
Assist on vulnerability basis rather than location
Reduce the hindrances in access to assistance
Ensure non-discrimination in assistance
Incorporate traditional welfare mechanism in DRR
Involve political institutions to monitor expenditure
Waved off restrictions on international donors (NoC)
Incorporate DRR in development agenda
Build DRR capacity at various levels
Invest in local traditional institutions
(strengthening and capacity building)