Procedural Vulnerability and Institutional Capacity Deficits in Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction: Insights from Wutai Rukai Experiences of Typhoon Morakot

Abstract

Post-disaster reconstruction relies on, and is shaped by, the good intentions of states, non-governmental organizations, and donors. These intentions, however, are inescapably framed by historical circumstances and cultural values. Consequently, post-disaster interventions can reinforce patterns of prejudice, injustice, and disadvantage that were entrenched in pre-disaster settings. Focusing on the experiences of Indigenous Rukai communities in southern Taiwan during recovery and reconstruction following Typhoon Morakot in 2009, this article explores the challenges faced in addressing Indigenous-specific concerns in post-disaster reconstruction and community development. We argue that institutional capacity (and capacity deficits) and the procedural vulnerability created in post-disaster responses are components of the risk landscape which require greater attention to diverse cultural values, protocols, and experiences in fostering resilient and inclusive disaster recovery approaches. In Taiwan, the particular complexities of Indigenous geographies, colonial and postcolonial circumstances, and contemporary political dynamics make developing approaches that are respectful of Indigenous cultural values, social aspirations, and political processes not only more difficult but also more important in shaping post-disaster community at multiple scales. Attentiveness to these values, aspirations, and processes generates opportunities for decreasing vulnerability to the extraordinary and the everyday disasters that communities confront.

Resettling, disconnecting or displacing? Attending to local sociality, culture and history in disaster settings

“…The impact of colonising (and ongoing deep colonising) processes on colonised peoples is often not recognised as an issue for consideration in managing disaster recovery (Hsu et al, 2015). Just like the physical forces that trigger disasters, the relationships, values, institutions and practices encompassed by sociocultural landscapes are already in motion and need to be considered as integral to disaster recovery.…”

“…Yet the attention on Indigenous communities' deficits detracts from state agencies' and major non-state actors' consistent 'capacity deficits' in their responses to opportunities to decolonise Howitt et al, 2014;Hsu et al, 2015). The social environment easily loses traction as a driver of risk and response.…”

“…However, the ability of technical experts and the institutions of disaster recovery to effectively engage with affected peoples was compromised by the ways that local culture, polities, histories and geographies were understood. The complexities of local sociality were often reduced to over-simplified, categorical ways of framing Indigenous people as vulnerable victims (Hsu et al, 2015). Along with undergoing the unnatural disaster of colonisation, which has inflicted socioeconomic and political marginalisation as well as forced relocations throughout history, Indigenous people and communities in Taiwan have been further confronted with a new risk landscape to navigate following the 2009 typhoon.…”

“…Pelling (2001) says of such approaches, 'Were the real target beneficiaries those vulnerable to hazard and disaster, or engineering and disaster management consultants and their employing institutions? When such procedural vulnerability (Veland et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2015) is not addressed or remains invisible, it essentially equates to continuing cultural domination through marginalisation of representation, aspirations and values of the people whomwith good intentionsthe experts, institutions and representatives of the dominant culture intend to assist. Yet an increasing focus in current disaster literature on vulnerability reduction or the political and socioeconomic roots of disaster (e.g.…”

Climate‐related displacement in the Asia Pacific: Justice, rights and culture

“…A focus on climate change can itself mask other potentially more significant sources of everyday risk that people confront, such as debt, land grabs, environmental degradation and the ongoing legacy of colonialism, as captured in the term procedural vulnerability (Veland et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2015). A focus on climate change can itself mask other potentially more significant sources of everyday risk that people confront, such as debt, land grabs, environmental degradation and the ongoing legacy of colonialism, as captured in the term procedural vulnerability (Veland et al, 2013;Hsu et al, 2015).…”