Mapping Vulnerability, Disasters, Development and People - Literature review Example

Titus Manickam Order No. 172027    03 June 2007 BOOK REVIEW Mapping Vulnerability, Disasters, Development and People, edited by Greg Bankoff, Georg Frerks, and Dorothea Hilhorst, published by Earthscan, UK and USA, ISBN: 978-1-85383-964-1 paperback, ISBN: 978-1-85383-963-4 hardback, available at all leading bookshops, or at www.earthscan.co.uk. What is vulnerability? Who is vulnerable? Why? And from what? What are natural disasters? Can we avert them? Are we supposed to resign ourselves to disasters simply because they are ‘acts of God’? The term vulnerability refers directly to risk, and a large number of authors use it to refer to vulnerable groups like the elderly, children or women. But then, the question arises – vulnerable to what? The answer may point to some hazard. This means that hazard and vulnerability are concomitant and lead to risk. Mapping Vulnerability is an awesome task. It is even more daunting when the vulnerability is seen in the backdrop of disasters, and linked with politics and cultures, the resourceful rich and the superstitious downtrodden, giving it a multidimensional effect. In eight chapters running into 130 pages, the authors deal with many aspects of large scale disasters pointing out that not all of them are ‘acts of God’. It is audacious to look at Chernobyl and Bhopal and point a finger at the Almighty. So also man-made market-driven technologies which create wonders on the one hand and leave huge piles of radio-active obsolescence difficult to manage, on the other. Global warming is one single disastrous act of man which is already wrecking ecological balance in alarming proportions. The study of disasters and the concept of vulnerability can contribute to clarifying the question of environmental versus socially defined limits. Hazards have always been part and parcel of the world’s reality, and populations inhabiting hazard-prone areas adapted strategies to deal with extreme events, using their own capabilities, skills, talents, knowledge and technologies. Learned from their ancestors and their own experiences, these adaptation strategies are made part of their traditions and culture. (Blolong, 1996, p15). When hazards strike, people have always been ready to cope and did not rely much on support and assistance from outsiders, such as government. In this perspective, local people have no concept of ‘vulnerability’. Theorizing vulnerability in a global world, among other things, is bound to test the political and economical scales. Besides, Wilches-Chaux (1989) identified eleven different forms of vulnerability including natural, physical, economic, social, political, technical, ideological, cultural, educational, ecological and institutional vulnerability (pp20-41). However, political and economical vulnerabilities hog the frontlines for the simple reason all relief routes have to pass through these. In this situation, the wealthy, through excessive consumption of market-accessed resources such as secure land and water, withdraw large quantities of resources from use by the general population. The majority poor, through their desperate and sometimes inappropriate use or overuse of the few resources available to them both degrade their environment and place themselves in harms way, largely through the lack of reasonable alternatives available for their daily survival. The book deals with the historical geography of disasters, squarely taking on the western society versus nature conflict where the focus on man versus nature is the sharpest. Apart from industrialization, the role of the Christian church merits attention since man created as a part of nature is increasingly seeking to dominate it. Also, Christian abolition of pagan animism altered human environment relations from mutuality to treatment of nature as a utility during the 17th and 18th centuries. (Redmond, 1999,p21). Further, scientific and philosophical discourses began to see humans as ontologically distinct from nature. (pg4, line9). Following the separation of humans and nature, human rationality is not subject to the limitations of nature because the exercise of our rationality over nature has both subjugated nature and emancipated humans. Thus, humans are ‘capable of manipulating, domesticating, remolding, reconstructing and harvesting nature. (Murphy,1994, p5). The subjugation of disorderly nature to human rationality is epitomized in the regimentation imposed on forests by German forestry in the 18th century. The clearing of species of low commercial value, the weeding and orderly files of trees all led to the reduction in diversity of insect, mammal and bird populations, rendering the forest more vulnerable to storms, fire and pests. (Scott, 1998, p20). Nonetheless, in both the market and command economy, the enthusiastic application of human rationality, motivated by individual or collective production-oriented goals, is the primary means by which nature will be dominated and humans emancipated. Much of the current criticism of ecological degradation is based on the conception that society must learn to care for and safeguard nature. Other critical perspectives construe the human world as out of step with some supposed natural order, with solutions lying in bringing the human world back to harmony with the natural order. In many ways, any theoretical inquiry into the nature of vulnerability and disasters inevitably involves the tangle of ontological and epistemological questions that deal with the nature of cultural versus material realities. Some scholars in disaster research suggest that disasters are entirely socio-cultural constructions. That is, the impact of a hazard is not necessary for disaster to take place. All that is necessary is the public perception that either a hazard threat exists or an impact has taken place for the disaster to have occurred. (Quarantelli, 1985, p48). In addition, we have also created new forms of disaster agents. Technology. From the middle of the 20th century, many of these new technologies ranging from toxic chemicals to nuclear power plants threaten communities with biologically derived hazards, creating new forms of injuries. The deadly effect of the Chernobyl and Bhopal disasters apart, the vulnerability of natural disasters such as hurricanes Hugo, Gilbert, David, Andrew and Mitch, the earthquakes of Northridge, Mexico City, Gujarat and Columbia, as well as the droughts of Ethiopia, Senegal and Sudan as also many medium-sized disasters afflict the disadvantaged around the world on a daily basis. There is an air of despondency over the issue of vulnerability in which it becomes difficult to pinpoint any single economy or society. Both the capitalist and the socialists have distressing environmental record in their approach to economic problem as a consequence of natural disasters. In such a situation, the questions that needs to be resolved are – How do we recognize the elements of globalization that are, in fact, new? What processes of globalization intensify or create vulnerabilities? To what degree does globalization create or exacerbate systematic as opposed to specific local vulnerabilities? What features of globalization contribute to the reduction of vulnerability? The term ‘natural disaster’ is frequently used to refer to the occurrence of severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods and landslides. Unfortunately, this interpretation holds the belief that there is nothing to be done when faced with these disasters since they are natural phenomena an, as such, unavoidable. Further, such interpretation also leads to disasters being considered events of destiny, bad luck or divine retribution. Reconstruction and Restoration The works of Whitman in Boston and of Fournier d’Albe in Europe during the 1970s provided new elements for estimating the damages and losses due to earthquakes. The emphasis was laid on the notion that damage was not only due to the severity of the natural phenomenon, but also to the vulnerability of the exposed elements. Vulnerability is obtained from identifying the social pressures and relations from a global to a local level. At the global level they are called the ‘root cause’, such as social, political and economical structures. At the local level, they are called ‘unsafe conditions’ such as social fragility, potential harm or poverty. In such conditions, prevention/mitigation should be conceived as ‘releasing’ the pressure of what is global over what is local. Risk reduction signifies intervention at each level, viz. conditions of insecurity, the dynamic pressures and the root causes. (Wisner, 1993; Cannon, 1994; Blaikie et all, 1994). What risk reduction involves is management and control. Frustrating uncertainties as to where a calamity can come from, ultimately leads to the point where it is better to be prepared with a line of action should it occur. This despite the fact that engineering science can make certain predictions about risk, such predictions will unavoidably be partial or incomplete. As a result, the emphasis should be placed on managing or handling security. (Blockley, 1992). Local people view disasters as part of ‘normal life’ and develop coping strategies to adjust to a fast-changing environment. However, in the context of globalization these coping strategies do not appear effective any longer. In Southeast Asia, construction of hydropower dams, mining operations, land conversion for plantations and other development programmes, assume more of ‘development aggression’ role. They often involve displacement, military activity and violation of human rights. This trend highlights the political vulnerability of local people since they can hardly influence or block decision on laws, policies and programmes that harm them. Originally the equation used to be: Disaster = Hazard × Vulnerability (D = H × V) This has now been expanded into an equation that adds ‘capacity’ to the equation. This is expressed as a key element to reduce disaster risk where capacities are strong, or where they are absent, to increase the threat of a disaster: Disaster = Hazard × Vulnerability (D = H × V) Capacity C The organization of vulnerable people to tackle their own vulnerability is a step in the right direction because this arrangement enables the poor to create community bonding through which to perform needed services, especially during emergencies; to exercise and experience social values that are important in developing an economic enterprise and system; to develop a social entity that is effective in enlisting the support of elements from the wider society for transactions that may require such assistance; and to own a social entity that the poor can directly influence for other purposes related to vulnerability reduction, thus minimizing the problem of encountering serious resistance to such changes. Furthermore, these organizations are able to act as value initiators and sustainers for the purposes of cooperation, trust and concern for others. Chapter 6 particularly reveals how ‘knowledge-based’ interventions can simplify complex situations and strengthen existing assumptions and myths about the ‘powerlessness’ of the affected people. The study shows the homogenizing assumptions about culture, history and capacity in technocratic approaches to risk assessment and management. However, this should be combined with an understanding of local contexts and contending perspectives. The authors in this book have made a serious albeit desperate attempt at making an all-out effort to unravel the origins of vulnerability and disasters. Repeated pleas are made, directly or indirectly, to vulnerable victims at the local level to utilize whatever resource possible at mitigating the impact of the disaster. The global community at large are shown as the bird’s eye viewers who are there to call the shots if their need is warranted. In the words of the authors, there still remain many open questions and more work is needed in order to travel safely through the landscape of vulnerability. Further applied research is recommended in different domains of knowledge and understanding. Studies are also invited on how policy and commercial interests frame different discourses and responses. There is the need to make international comparisons between different approaches in an attempt to identify best practices and lessons learned. Finally, it is hoped that this volume comprises a set of helpful signposts to guide and inform those committed to vulnerability reduction. Read More