Cyclone Mitigation, Resource Allocation and Post‐disaster Reconstruction in South India: Lessons from Two Decades of Research

Abstract

This paper opens with a history of development and disaster-prevention strategies in a cyclone-prone area of the east coast of India and traces the evolution in the area of British and Indian governments' programmes and policy over a century. Research over the last 20 years has shown, however, that the programmes and policies have failed to balance economic growth with safety. Resources intended for the benefit of all have been diverted by alliances of powerful people to a small minority, and recent developments have reduced the physical protection of the area. The result is that increasing numbers of people are vulnerable to the effects of cyclones and floods. The findings suggest that the best way to reduce vulnerability is to improve the socio-economic standing of the most vulnerable and for this to happen these people must have an assured income based on assets that will enable them to acquire social and economic credit-worthiness within the local economy. This paper presents evidence that suggests that non-governmental organisation (NGO)-supported co-operatives are the best way to achieve this through self-help and self-employment schemes. It also suggests that NGOs should be encouraged to take up environmentally and ecologically beneficial activities involving the poorest groups in the communities, in this way combining sustained self-employment with environmental protection.

Re-conceptualising “Building Back Better” to improve post-disaster recovery

“…Economic recovery and livelihood regeneration can be achieved through initiatives such as cash-for-work programmes (paying locals to become involved in reconstruction work) (Haigh et al, 2009); skills-training programmes (James Lee Witt Associates, 2005); owner-building schemes (Bredenoord and van Lindert, 2010, Johnson et al, 2006, Lyons, 2009; providing job opportunities and sustainable livelihood options (Monday, 2002, Twigg, 2007; and arranging financial help and grants for small businesses and microenterprise schemes (Asian Development Bank et al, 2005, GoSL, 2005b. Red Cross (2010), Batteate (2006) and Winchester (2000) stated that successful livelihood recovery programmes utilize grass-roots schemes and attempt to understand the requirements of the community The above information shows that BBB-based community recovery incorporates two major factors: considering the psycho-social aspects of recovery; and considering the local economy and re-establishment of livelihoods. These two factors form the basis of two more BBB Principles under the category Community Recovery: Principle 3 Social Recovery which entails supporting psycho-social recovery and Principle 4 Economic Recovery which looks at improving the economic climate of the impacted community.…”

Recovering from a disaster

“…Up to quite recently there has been a strong tendency to separate disaster management operations from conventional development work. In the last decade or so, a new consensus has developed among multilateral organi sations, national governments and NGOs clearly expressing the importance to see risk reduction and sustainable development as part of the same process (Lewis, 1999;Winchester, 2000;IFRC, 2001;UNISDR, 2005). There is today a rather clear vision that, for instance, poverty eradication policies can go far towards disaster risk reduction because they raise people's capacity for reco very.…”

Capacity for Managing Disasters

“…Limited research conducted so far on the impacts of post-disaster reconstruction policy on vulnerability suggests that the pressure to quickly rebuild and focus on reducing structural vulnerability may actually increase the long-term vulnerability of the affected community (Winchester 2000 ;Ingram et al 2006 ). While studying the impacts of disaster prevention strategies in a cyclone-prone area on the east coast of India, the author concluded that the policies to reduce risk in the long term had failed as post-disaster reconstruction benefi ts were diverted by an alliance of powerful people and recent development reduced the physical protection of the area (Winchester 2000 ).…”