Disasters, be they earthquakes, floods, tsunamis or terror attacks, are continuously weakening human efforts to save precious lives and assets. Probably owing to this, the world is preparing for the post-Hyogo Framework for Action for Disaster Risk Reduction (2000 to 2015). The Hyogo Framework for Action, currently, has five action priorities. In 2015, the world leaders are expected to meet in Senai, Japan, to possibly agree on a roadmap of priorities to reduce the risk of disasters and consequent losses. If we were to provide our feedback on the revision of the Hyogo Framework for Action and to identify an area for future action, it would undoubtedly be local action. Despite having national legislation and an institution, namely the National Disaster Management Act 2010 and National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), the task of building resilient communities remains unfulfilled. Although disasters affect large areas, the effects are severe at the local level.
Before we discuss the challenges of building community resilience at the local level, it is important to look at two of the development policy and governance issues, which need to be emphasised and addressed in the post-Hyogo Framework for Action. One of the key issues is that of poverty. When people suffer from abject poverty, how can they be expected to prepare for the future at the expense of meeting their day-to-day basic needs? Therefore, the future Framework of Action must look into addressing the endemic causes of global poverty and (gender) inequality. Whether it be the case of Walmart owning 30 percent of the wealth of US citizens or one third of Pakistanis facing poverty, the structural inequalities must be addressed by improving governance to reduce disaster risk. The world just does not need mere economic growth, it needs to address the gap between the rich and the poor for a more sustainable and equitable world to live in. The second issue is of involvement of the people at risk. The future Framework of Action must adopt a human rights-based approach where institutional arrangements are in place to build policies in tune with the concerns and experiences of the people at risk.
Related to the foregoing, along with the state and the market, civil society (termed also the ‘third system’) was called the hope of the UN decade for disaster risk reduction in the 1990s. In simple terms, this third system means the ordinary people of an area who raise their concerns in an organised manner to seek solutions to local issues. The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-15 — to which Pakistan is a signatory — seeks to achieve the goal of reduction in disaster losses by placing communities centre-stage. Although disasters affect large areas, the effects are severe at the local level. An indicator of the best form of effective local disaster governance is to empower communities to formulate their plans to safeguard themselves from potential hazards before they turn into disasters. In addition, umbrella support has to be provided by national, regional and local governments in terms of a legal and operational framework.
In addition to building capacities of communities, we need to strengthen local disaster governance by empowering local governments to design and implement legal regimes to reduce urban disaster risk. It is worth mentioning that the Geological Survey of Pakistan has prepared seismic risk zone maps and Karachi, Quetta and Islamabad are located in the vicinity of active geological fault lines. In the case of Quetta, we seem to have forgotten the 1935 earthquake, which occurred during the British Raj in India. The earthquake struck the people of Quetta on the morning of May 31, 1935, destroying the whole city and claiming 30,000 lives. No investigations were made as to why 30,000 lives were lost under the weight of poorly constructed buildings and to take steps for mitigating losses from future earthquakes. Nevertheless, in view of the commonplace substandard construction in these cities, even an earthquake of lesser intensity might turn the ‘rubble in waiting’ into rubble. We should also not forget that the 2010 Haiti earthquake of 7.0 magnitude affected 3.2 million people and killed 230,000 living in poorly constructed buildings.
Neither developing nor developed countries have the option of relocating big earthquake-threatened cities like Istanbul, Karachi, Kathmandu, Lima or Wellington. However, we can certainly learn how to live with risk and thus reduce losses. In the case of Pakistan, we need to think about disasters holistically. As a part of structural measures, the country needs to design and update seismic building codes and then ensure strict compliance on new and old buildings. Keeping in view the deaths of 20,000 children in the 2005 earthquake, particular attention should be given to ensure seismic safety of critical community infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and mosques. Public awareness campaigns should be launched in partnership with civil society to prepare people mentally and physically. Of course, this has to be done at the local level by district authorities. Therefore, an immediate need is to overhaul the civil defence department, primarily responsible for search and rescue at the provincial level. So the government needs to get down to the local level and build the local capacities of not only the government but of the people. Even if this is done, it would be up to the citizens to be self-reliant at least for the first 72 hours in the aftermath of a big city quake — a lesson learnt from the 2008 Sichuan province earthquake in China, which has the biggest civil defence capability in the world.
Dr Ejaz Hussain is a political scientist and works as assistant professor at Iqra University, Islamabad. He tweets @ejazbhatty. Dr Abdur Rehman Cheema, an expert in disaster management, is assistant professor at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad. He tweets @ARehmanCheema