A year after cyclone Aila, the inhabitants of Sunderbans continue to live precariously.

According to newspaper reports, nearly three hundered thousand families were affected in South 24 Parganas district in the wake of Aila. District authorities said only about half the claimants have received the compensation amount so far. (http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/26/stories/2010052660100900.htm).

For the lucky few who received compensation, the amount was so meager that only temporary houses could be re-built. Those close to the now damaged embankments were washed away by heavy tidal waves, less than a year after they were re-built. The promised 600 crores central assistance for building 900 kms of damaged embankments is yet to arrive.

For many, the compensation has been used to buy basic provisions. With a failed crop and soil that continues to be affected by salinity, food production has been severely compromised. Degraded fields mean less work as agricultural labour.

While this is certainly a matter of concern, what is more appalling is the institutional apathy. Even in the wake of the First anniversary of Cyclone Aila, there was still no Disaster Management System or even an Early Warning System in place, instituted by the Government.

Aila was certainly a big blow, but life and livelihoods in Sunderbans have always been precarious. Tidal waves ravage villages every year. Roads and embankments are washed away every year. Crop failures of various degrees happen every year. Aila, being so devastating and sudden made it to the headlines. Civil Society Organizations working in the areas know that shocks and disasters are cyclic, whether or not they are newsworthy.

Quite a few NGOs are working it the area. Some of them have repaired water sources like tube wells post disaster. Some are engaged in providing disaster resistant water supply sources. Others are supporting alternative livelihood activities. However, the magnitude of the problem is such that it cannot be addressed by NGOs. According to their own estimates, all NGOs taken together impact approximately five hundred thousand people, of the estimated 45 hundred thousand who live in the Sunderbans.

The urgency of action cannot be over-stated. There are some recent efforts by NGOs working in the area and by academic institutions like Jadavpur University to study, document and recommend strategies and action plan for the development of this area. One can only hope that the effort is able to preserve the delicate man-nature balance in this fragile ecosystem.

How can the Sunderban areas be more resilient to natural disasters?

• Gender norms foster more “risk taking” among men and “risk avoidance” among women, with implications for preparedness and safety in disasters

• Women volunteer more for local preparedness programs and are more likely than men to take part in community organizations addressing local environmental or technological hazards
• Women’s networks provide them with more information and warnings.

• Emergency warnings from local disaster managers are more likely to be found credible by women than by men, and women are more likely to act upon them

• Women offer more sustained emotional support to disaster victims, e.g. as volunteers and within the family and assist in long-term recovery, e.g. as crisis workers

• Men more often than women hold leadership roles in established economic and political organizations responding to disaster and are highly visible in “first responder” roles

Adapted from Alice Fothergill, 1996. Gender, risk, and disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

Disaster risk is often perceived as a function of people’s relative exposure to hazards. Similarly, people’s vulnerability to disaster is understood as the relative ability to anticipate, prepare for, survive, cope with and recover from the effects of disastrous events. While gender is being increasingly recognized as a determinant of vulnerability along with such determinants as social class, ethnicity, age, and physical abilities, strategizing gender for better management of disaster is still in a nascent form.

Emergency management which is usually dominated by men considers women only as victims. This undermines the usefulness of gender-based life experiences, skills, capacities and resources of women in disaster contexts.

Vulnerability of women to disaster is often a function of socio-cultural factors. They have limited control over or access to means of communication like radios and mobile phones. Government officials responsible for communicating about risk mainly target people in the formal labor force. Risk communication in general overlooks women’s social networks as a medium of communication. Despite such handicaps, women have emerged as efficient Disaster Managers bringing a set of core skills to the program.

There are many examples to demonstrate this. The Self-Employed Women’s Association [SEWA], provides disaster insurance to poor women through women’s banks as well as training in seismically-resistant construction. Local SEWA chapters helped governmental authorities direct relief supplies and provided resources to help women begin to earn again while still in tents following the 2001 Gujarat quake (http://www.sewa.org/insurance/main.asp). Swayam Shikshsan Prayog [SSP] helped rural women respond to a devastating 1993 earthquake in Latur. Despite their exclusion from repairing, planning, and designing their homes and communities, some 500 women’s groups united through mahila mandals for training and information about reconstruction. The government eventually negotiated a formal agreement with SSP to recognize the work of these women’s groups as community educators and monitors of housing reconstruction programs (http://www.sspindia.org).

NGO-led inclusive and gendered disaster management program provide the space for women to meaningfully participate in disaster management. Women disaster managers utilize their skills effectively as caregivers, community organizers, volunteers, informal neighborhood leaders. They also develop new skills through preparedness and reconstruction work and gain leadership skills through collective action. Women’s involvement in leadership positions before, during and after disasters not only makes the process of disaster mitigation more sensitive, it enhances the resilience to disasters in the long run.

Do the present disaster management practices adequately recognize the role of the women and create space for their engagement? Write in about your experiences.

Disasters arising as a consequence of natural phenomenon or induced by civil conflicts and wars create multiple crises. In addition to loss of life and property, disasters leave livelihoods and local economies in a state of jeopardy. Natural, financial, physical, social and human assets are eroded, markets are disrupted, and these can lead to the virtual collapse of the local economic and social environment. While immediate response to humanitarian crisis is often forthcoming, long term planning for restoration of the local economy to support livelihood as a part of disaster preparedness is often short-sighted.

Can a livelihood-centered approach to disaster preparedness and management make the efforts more relevant and responsive to the needs of poor?

During and after disasters, the local economy absorbs labour force for short and medium term reconstruction work. This, though essential, needs to be balanced with activities directly aimed at long-term economic recovery that, in some cases, can include livelihood diversification. Absence of this combined with weak institutional capacity to support livelihoods on a long-term and sustainable basis can aggravate economic problems post disaster. This hinders the capacity of the affected to recover and rebuild their assets. It also leads to prolonged dependency on relief aid with people leading suboptimal social and economic lives.

It is thus critical to place livelihood resilience as a core component of any disaster preparedness program undertaken by government and/ civil society organizations. The programs need to focus on recovery and or diversification of employment opportunities, restoring local food production, re-establishing economic and trade networks and revitalizing local markets by reviving demand for local services and products. For this to happen, it is important to have a robust livelihood assessment system in place, as a part of disaster preparedness. A system that works in coordination with other aspects of disaster management systems and practices and is linked to livelihood recovery interventions in case disaster strikes.

In this context, governments and NGOs can significantly improve the quality of the disaster management program by engaging in livelihood planning with a view to putting in place appropriate measures prior to the occurrence of a disaster. This can include a broad systematic approach of generating livelihood baselines to assess the employment profile. This can also help to indicate future economic possibilities by brining to fore existing skills and knowledge that can be strengthened and or diversified to enhance economic resilience of the community. While this can be a part of disaster preparedness, specially designed tools that are developed and updated by agencies like FAO and ILO need to be integrated as a part of post disaster assessment procedure. This includes such assessment exercises as Immediate Livelihood Impact Appraisal (undertaken immediately after the disaster); and Livelihood Assessment (undertaken within three months after the disaster).

A sustainable recovery process depends on reviving and expanding private economic activity and employment and securing diverse livelihood opportunities for affected populations. The challenge is to reduce this time frame and improve the underlying quality of the recovery process. Are we prepared for the rigour?

Do the current disaster preparedness measure adequately address the livelihood issues?