1.
ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY
Healthy, productive and protective environments, social systems and economies are
the basis of sustainable development and human welfare.
The environment is the source of all our raw materials and absorbs the pollution
from our activities. In turn, while going about our daily business (social and
economic) we use the environment and convert its resources and natural services into
those that directly support us.
The problem is that all of these systems can be damaged, overloaded, or prevented
from meeting our needs. By our own choices we can, to a large extent, determine our
own quality of life, the condition of our lands and opportunities for future
generations.
Vulnerability is a new way of looking at an age-old problem.
Instead of focusing just on what has been going wrong in the past and the effects
of hazards, vulnerability gives us the opportunity to focus on getting things right
for the future.
As a future-focused approach, vulnerability is a way of using strengths and
strategically improving weaknesses.
According to ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction):
“ Around the world, a growing share of the devastation triggered by 'natural' disasters
stems from ecologically destructive practices and from putting ourselves in harm's
way. Many ecosystems have been frayed (show the effects disasters) to the point
where they are no longer able to withstand natural disturbances.”
Although the inherent links between disaster reduction and environmental
management are recognized, little research and policy work has been undertaken
on the subject. The concept of using environmental tools for disaster reduction has
not yet been widely applied by many practitioners.
Vulnerability refers to the tendency of something to be damaged. The opposite of
this is resilience, or the ability to resist/ recover from damage.
When we talk about vulnerability, we are automatically also talking about
resilience because the two are opposite sides of a single coin.
The idea of vulnerability/resilience applies equally well to physical entities (people,
ecosystems, coastlines) and to abstract concepts (social systems, economic
systems, countries). The factors that cause the damage are known as hazards, each
of which will be associated with some level of risk, or likelihood of occurring.
Focus on vulnerability
The vulnerability of our environmental, social and economic systems is made up of
more than just the risk of disasters and good or bad management. It is not just
about climate change, or globalization, or trade agreements.
It must also include an understanding of how well any system (environmental,
social and economic) can cope with any hazards that may come its way and that
might harm it.
It would be impossible to work towards
good quality of life and growth for countries
under a sustainable development model if
no account were made of the damage that
can occur from internal and outside
influences.
As Fig.1 illustrates, a number of
environmental drivers influence disaster
risks, including climate change, loss of
natural defenses and overall environmental
degradation. But the environmental
impacts of disasters, viz., release of
hazardous materials, debris, damage to
natural resources create longer-term new
and recurring vulnerabilities themselves.
Therefore, for development to be
sustainable, we clearly need to learn how
to manage our vulnerabilities. We need to
be able to understand and/or manage
hazards, natural resilience and acquired
resilience.
This understanding for the first time opens
up opportunities for improving our overall
vulnerability because it forces examine the Fig.1 Environmental drivers and impact of disasters.
problem from all angles, instead of just
focusing on the risk of disasters.
Vulnerability management is emerging as a critical part of any sustainable
development strategy.
The interesting thing about vulnerability is that it can be examined at different levels
for different issues. That is, it can be used to look at a single issue, or to assess a
complex entity such as a country.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY AND
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
Application of management tools such as environmental evaluation and risk
assessment can make a major contribution to a reduction of risks and mitigation of
the impacts.
An important aspect is the involvement of a broader range of partners in such a
process, and to fully engage the resources and interests of the private sector in
prevention and mitigation.
Business leadership of 'prevention' actions in civil society and industry needs to
occur as a complement to government policies and institutional arrangements. Such
an approach relies on industry codes and standards as a supplement to regulations,
thus achieving enhanced reduction of civil society's vulnerability to potential
disasters.
There is a need
1. to highlight the role that comprehensive environmental management can play
in reducing the risk of disasters, and to mitigate the consequences if they should
nevertheless occur, both on human lives and on the broader ecology.
2. to explore the link between environmental systems and disasters, and also the
synergies between man-made and natural disasters.
3. to examine the need for a multi-stakeholder partnership that links local
governments, private sector entities, and civil society organizations in order to facilitate
more effective disaster prevention and mitigation.
4. to compare successful partnership models between corporations, communities
and the government, examining the way entities prepare for disasters themselves, as well
as the need to be part of a larger partnership that strengthens local communities' ability to
prevent, mitigate and recover from disasters.
Much work needs to be done in facilitating a sustained dialogue between different
decision makers in the fields of disaster management and environment at global, regional
and national levels.
This will help in raising greater awareness of the interface between disaster risk
and environmental change, and identifying gaps in the understanding of critical
hazards and risks at the local level. This will have to lead to new approaches in
managing risks, and the environment, at the same time.
The focus should be on assessing global environmental conditions in order to
identify potential environmental problems and new ways to address the complex
effects of environmental change on sustainable development requiring particular
attention to be paid to the broad causes and effects of disasters.
This will require the strengthening of capacities of developing countries and
countries in economic transition to deal with environmental emergencies. Global
meetings and initiatives, including the ISDR itself, have solidly endorsed the issue of
emerge prevention, preparedness, assessment. mitigation and response, and
strengthened the need to transfer knowhow on environmental emergencies.
The increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters and those caused by
human activities may well be changing the global environment.
All of these threats to the environment have been apparent in recent disasters.
Current response to disasters need to be based on the premise that disasters
affect the environment when they have direct or indirect effects on ecology and
human settlements that last far beyond the scope of immediate humanitarian
response.
Changing ecological conditions can provoke emergencies by placing concurrent
stresses on the environment.
Mitigating the effects of disasters are primary components in global efforts to
ensure environmental security.
It is clear that further coordination and cooperation on environmental matters
depends on the global community's ability to set an environmental agenda for
disaster management, and in particular, to pay attention to the environmental
conditions that lead to disasters, and to natural resource management for
disaster prevention and reduction.
There is a clear need to reinforce the importance of environmental concerns in the
entire disaster management cycle of prevention, preparedness, assessment,
mitigation and response and to integrate environmental concerns into planning
for relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development.
This will also require the enhancement of capacities to undertake short- and
medium-term activities in disaster management based on long-term
environmental considerations.
Disasters , Poverty and Development
Research and practice support the theory that there exists a strong correlation
between disasters and poverty. It is well documented that those developing
countries repeatedly subject to disasters experience stagnant or even negative rates
of development over time (Figure 1).
Fig.1 Impact of disasters on development.
Hurricane Mitch, which destroyed as much as 70% of the infrastructure in Honduras and
Nicaragua, is a prime example, having been blamed with reversing the rates of development
in these and other Central American countries by at least a decade (and as much as 20 and
30 years in some areas).
The same effect also has been witnessed in many of the areas affected by the 2004
tsunami and earthquake events in Southeast Asia and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
For countries with developing economies, the financial setbacks these events inflict can
be ruinous, in contrast to their industrialized counterparts where a robust economy absorbs
such impacts.
In 2001, for example, earthquakes occurred both in El Salvador and in the United States
(Seattle), each causing approximately $2 billion in damages. While this amount had little or
no noticeable impact on the U.S. economy, the financial consequences in El Salvador
amounted to 15% of that country’s GDP.
The aftermath of a disaster exacerbates the debilitating causes of poverty in developing
countries. Each disaster is unique in its consequences, so there is no single formula that can
be used to characterize precisely how these problems will play out.
The following list, however, provides a general overview of the many ways in which
disasters harm poor countries beyond the initial death, injury, and destruction:
• National and international development efforts are stunted, erased, or even reversed.
• Sizable portions of GDP often must be diverted from development projects, social programs, or
debt repayment to manage the disaster consequences and begin recovery efforts.
• Vital infrastructure is damaged or destroyed—including roads, bridges, airports, sea ports,
communications systems, power generation and distribution facilities, and water and sewage
plants—requiring years to rebuild.
• Schools are damaged or destroyed, leaving students without an adequate source of education for
months or even years.
• Hospitals and clinics are damaged or destroyed, resulting in an increase in vulnerability to
disease of the affected population.
• Formal and informal businesses are destroyed, resulting in surges in unemployment and
decreased economic stability and strength.
• Reconstruction efforts result in shortages of materials and labor, which in turn drive up
construction costs, inflate salaries, and draw workers away from other sectors where they are
needed.
• Residents are forced or impelled to leave the affected zone, often never to return, extracting
institutional knowledge, cultural and social identity, and economic viability from areas that
cannot afford to spare such resources.
• Desperation and poverty lead to a rapid upsurge in crime and insecurity.
• A general feeling of hopelessness afflicts the affected population, leading to increased rates of
depression and a lack of motivation to regain independence from outside assistance.
TSUNAMI SETS BACK DEVELOPMENT 20YEARS IN MALDIVES
Within minutes of the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, much of the economic and social progress in the
Maldives was washed away.
According to government officials, the tsunami caused a 20-year setback in the development of this small country, an
island nation off the coast of India, which only 6 days before the disaster had been removed from the UN’s list of least-
developed countries. In particular, the tsunami and its resulting floodwaters dealt a serious blow to the tourism sector,
the country’s main source of income.
Nearly one-fourth of the 87 resorts in the Maldives were severely damaged and declared unable to operate.
Tourism directly accounts for one-third of the country’s economy, with the resorts alone providing between 25,000 and
30,000 jobs. When tourism-related tax and customs revenues are included, tourism contributes up to 70% of the
economy, with the sector expanding each year.
These earnings had helped to improve living standards in the Maldives, including increased school enrollment,
lower unemployment, and more students seeking higher education abroad.
The Maldivians hope to get their fair share of the international aid pledged to help tsunami affected countries. But most
of all they hope to see tourists returning, as this is key to getting their country’s socioeconomic development back on
track.
Schools, health clinics, jetties, power stations, and telephone lines were all badly damaged due to the tsunami, and
repairing them will put a strain on the state budget for years to come.
Social Vulnerability: Who Draws the Line? Where and Why?
Social Vulnerability is a term that is essential to the full understanding and efficient
management of risk in the twenty- first century; it is also an ambiguous and
difficult one.
It is essential because the social aspects of vulnerability are often overlooked by
planners who fixate on simple number of people or housing units or economic
assets physically exposed to a hazard.
The social relations among people and the world of perceptions and local
knowledge in their heads are vital elements in a partnership with outside experts
in protecting society from extreme natural events.
Also, ignorance of these social relations and mental processes can lead to top
down campaigns and risk reduction projects that are not accepted by local people.
The term social vulnerability is difficult because its definition depends on
dynamic situations in which people find themselves over the course of their lives,
from season to season, and as they move through space.
Social vulnerability is not a characteristic like eye color or blood type or mother language
that is fixed.
Thus assessment of social vulnerability is best accomplished in partnership with local
people, for their benefit, in an action research program under their control, and for a
specific purpose.
Social Vulnerability and its Hyphenated kin:
Development studies specialist Robert Chambers, introduced the term
‘vulnerability’ in the analysis of rural poverty.
It came as one of five elements that interlocked with each other, producing what
he termed ‘ratchet effect’ or ‘deprivation trap’ i.e., a condition of ‘integrated
rural poverty’ that is very difficult to extract oneself from.
The other elements were political powerlessness, physical weakness (ill health) ,
isolation and income poverty.
It is not vulnerability precisely a matter of ‘ecological , economic and politically
marginality’ or ‘eco-demographic marginality’.
This has to do with the degree to which one’s social status (culturally and socially
constructed in terms of roles, responsibilities, rights, expectations concerning
behavior) influence differential impact by extreme natural events and the chances
or recovery.
Thus, depending on the society and situation social characteristics such as gender,
age, occupation (in caste systems), marital status, race, ethnicity, religion may
have a bearing on potential loss, injury, life chances in the face of hazards and
the nature of one’s recovery trajectory
This lecture concerns itself, with social vulnerability as opposed to economic, political,
cultural and educational.
Aysan has listed a dozen combinations of adjectives and the noun ‘vulnerability’:
Lack of access to resources (material/economic vulnerability),
Disintegration of social patterns (social vulnerability),
Degradation of the environment and inability to protect it (ecological vulnerability),
Lack of strong national and local institutions (organizational vulnerability),
Lack of public awareness (attitudinal and motivational vulnerability),
Limited access to political power and representation (political vulnerability),
Certain beliefs and customs (cultural vulnerability),
Weak buildings or weak individuals(physical vulnerability).
Clearly some of these, such as ‘educational’ is only a partly a characteristic of a person or a
household unit (or larger residential group- village, neighborhood, as formal educational
attainment and literacy does not always correlate with differential loss and difficult
recovery.
In highly technological societies, or in situations where early warnings, and other
sources of information are widely available, there may be more of a relationship.
Where, such sources of information are not available, education may not be
critical.
In both cases, local knowledge and ‘street smarts’ may trump book-learning.
In addition, there is the problem of autocorrelation.
Social class, control of wealth and access to resources may well have a strong
determination of a number of these other characteristic and, then , they all
appear to be determinant of vulnerability.
Finally, the ‘social’ interacts strongly in its own right with the other sorts of
hyphenated vulnerability.
Hence, ‘social’ is often operationalized in notions of the socio- economic or
socio-political.
The term may not have any meaning beyond these specific forms.
Just to look , for example, at religion, is meaningless from a disaster risk
reduction (DRR) point of view unless religion at that point in time and space has
salience in terms of such a primary process as the economic division of labor,
access to resources, control of wealth, or access to political process.
It is important to see the interconnections among these manifestations of the
social vulnerability