Download Chapter 1_31_10_08

Chapter 1
Introduction
It is now a globally accepted paradigm that the nature of vulnerability and the magnitude
of risk are intimately connected to the poverty because the poor have been the most
vulnerable and their level of risk to the natural hazards is relatively high. It is also
presumed that the poverty can contribute towards enhancing the disaster risk with lesser
capability to recover fast and recoup to the damages inflicted on them. Significant social
and economic consequences of major recent natural hazards in different parts of the
world have reiterated the need to place hazard concerns higher on the global poverty
agenda. Thus understanding the nature and magnitude of poverty and its relation with
disaster risk at different levels can be useful information for the disaster managers.
The profiling of the disaster risk and poverty linkages can enhance the understanding of
disasters and the nature of human development. This can also pave the way for
production of information from the local and regional levels to track the disaster impacts
for mainstreaming a disaster information system.
Disaster has become now an annual feature in India, natural and not natural. The calamity
becomes a tragedy when it strikes the poor region, which has the least capability to cope
with it financially and human resource wise, coupled with poor governance. Floods and
droughts have become annual features with a huge loss of life and property, damage to
ecology, and adversely affecting development interventions. The evidence presented will
make the case for hazard risk reduction as a key instrument to reduce poverty and for
poverty reduction strategies in turn, to contribute to reducing people’s susceptibility to
hazard events.
1.1 Disasters-The Indian Scenario
Many regions in India are highly vulnerable to natural and other disasters on account of
geological conditions. About 60 per cent of the landmass is susceptible to earthquakes
and over 8% is prone to floods. Of the nearly 7500 kilometers long coastline,
approximately 5700 kilometers is prone to cyclones. 68 per cent area is susceptible to
drought. All this entails huge economic losses and causes developmental setbacks.
Disasters are no longer limited to natural catastrophes. Man-made emergencies often
cause bigger disasters in terms of fatalities and economic losses. With urbanization and
concentration of population in metropolitan cities, more and more people are becoming
vulnerable to locational disasters. So, the development process needs to be sensitive
towards disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. Disaster management has
therefore emerged as a high priority for the country. Going beyond the historical focus on
relief and rehabilitation after the event, there is a need to look ahead and plan for disaster
preparedness and mitigation in order to ensure that periodic shocks to our development
1
efforts are minimized.
India supports one-sixth of the world’s population on just 2 per cent of its landmass. It
suffers heavily from natural disasters of every shade and description that hits the poorest
of the poor and which is why the considerations of disaster safety deserves prime
attention.
A High Powered Committee ( HPC) of the Government of India, in its report submitted
to the Government of India in October 2001, outlined the huge scope for Disaster
Management by listing some three dozen different types of disasters India must prepare
for. These were placed in five categories, namely, water and climate related disasters,
geological disasters, chemical, industrial and nuclear disasters, accidents and biological
disasters (See technical notes). Of these, earthquakes, floods, cyclones and landslides
rank among the most feared disasters in India, and the fear is naturally heightened in the
areas affected by multiple hazards.
India is prone to many types of disasters. The ones that have large impacts are:
1
Tsunami
2
Earthquake
3
Cyclone
4
Floods
5
Droughts
6
Landslides
7
Forest Fires
Table 1.1: Key Vulnerabilities India Exposed to Annually/ Periodically Across
Various Regions
1
2
3
4
5
6
*
Disaster
Tsunami*
Vulnerable States/ Regions
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Pondicherry and Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
Earthquake
Across the country with moderate – high intensity (over
65% of the areas of India is vulnerable to earthquake)
Cyclones
Coastal areas – particularly in East coast & Gujarat
Floods
Indo-Gangetic plains and Brahamaputra basin (approx
comprises 40 million hectares prone to floods)
Droughts
Across the country (approx 68% of cropped area affected)
Forest Fires
Himalayan Forests
Landslides
Sub-Himalayan region & western Ghats in particular
Tsunami has been only one time event. It struck in 2004.
Tsunami
Tsunami has been one time disaster in the recent memory. It affected the southern parts
of eastern coast of India, the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry and Union
Territory of Andaman and Nicobar. The impact of this disaster was: 12,405 people dead,
3.5 million houses damaged and 18 million people affected1.
2
Earthquakes
India has witnessed some of the most devastating earthquakes during the last century: in
Kangra (1905), Bihar-Nepal (1934) and in Assam (1950). In the recent past, major
earthquakes have been in in Uttarkashi (1991), Latur (1993), Jabalpur (1997), Chamoli
(1999) and in Bhuj (2001). The Bhuj earthquake, 6.9 on the Richer scale, affected the
entire state, resulting in 13,805 death, damaging 1.8 million houses and affecting 12
million people2. In Ahmedabad City 150 multi-storey buildings crumbled3. (Annexure
1.1 gives the regionwise frequency of earthquake occurrence).
Map 1.1: Earthquake prone Region, India
3
Map 1.2: Wind and Cyclone Hazard Map, India
Cyclones
Cyclones in India generally strike the East Coast; some of the Arabian Sea Cyclones
strike the west coast of India as well mainly the Gujarat and North Maharashtra coast.
Out of the storms that develop in the Bay of Bengal, over 58 percent approach or cross
the east coast in October and November. India has a very long coastline of 8041 km,
large parts of which are vulnerable to cyclone. Information on some of the major
cyclones in recent years is given in Annexure 1.2.
4
Box
Independent India’s 15 most devastating floods
Year
2005
2000
1998
1997
1995
1994
1993
1989
1988
1987
1982
1980
1978
1971
1961
States/ region affected
Maharashtra (Mumbai, Raigad)
West Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Arunachal
Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala, Meghalays, Punjab,
Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan,
Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
Bihar, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West
Bengal, Maharashtra
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, Gujarat
Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Assam
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat
Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh,
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi
Assam, Bihar, West Bengal
Northeast
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, Haryana
North, Northeast
North India
North India
Deaths
1,000
2,174
1,811
1,422
1,479
2,001
827
1,591
1,850
1,200
932
1,600
3,800
1,023
2,000
Source: DNA, August 29, 2008.
Floods
Floods are result of the fact that in India, 75 per cent of the total annual rainfall is
received during four months of monsoon (June- September) causing almost all the rivers
carry heavy discharge during this period. The flood hazard is compounded by the
problems of sediment deposition, drainage congestion and synchronization of river floods
with sea tides in the coastal plains. The area vulnerable to floods is 40 million hectares
and the average area affected by floods annually is about 8 million hectares. The average
annual total damage to crops, houses, public utilities during the period 1953- 1995 was
about Rs.9720 million4 (See Annexure 1.3).
5
Map 1.3: Flood Hazard Map, India
6
Box
Major Natural Disasters in India and Their Impacts
Major Natural Disaster By No of People Affected
Disaster
Date
Total Affected
Flood
3/7/2007
18,700,000
Flood
24/07/2005
20,000,055
Flood
20/06/2004
33,000,000
Drought
7/1/2002
300,000,000
Flood
21/06/2002
42,000,000
Flood
18/09/2000
24,600,000
Flood
2/8/2000
22,000,000
Drought
4/1/2000
50,000,000
Storm
28/10/1999
12,628,312
Flood
9/1/1999
22,120,000
Flood
8/1/1998
29,227,200
Flood
9/1/1997
29,259,000
Flood
1/9/1995
32,704,000
Flood
8/7/1993
128,000,000
Drought
5/1/1987
300,000,000
Flood
8/1/1982
33,500,000
Drought
6/1/1982
100,000,000
Flood
8/1/1980
30,000,023
Flood
7/1/1975
34,000,000
Drought
1972
200,000,000
Drought
1965
100,000,000
Source: "EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Databas2 (from www.em-dat.net - Université
Catholique de Louvain - Brussels – Belgium.
Major Natural Disaster By No of People Killed
Disaster
Date
Killed
Flood
3/7/2007
1,103
Earthquake (seismic activity)
8/10/2005
1,309
Flood
24/07/2005
1,200
Earthquake (seismic activity)
26/12/2004
16,389
Flood
20/06/2004
900
Extreme temperature
14/05/2003
1,210
Extreme temperature
10/5/2002
1,030
Extreme temperature
12/1/2002
900
Earthquake (seismic activity)
26/01/2001
20,005
Storm
28/10/1999
9,843
Flood
8/1/1998
1,811
Storm
9/6/1998
2,871
Extreme temperature
26/05/1998
2,541
Earthquake (seismic activity)
29/09/1993
9,748
Earthquake (seismic activity)
20/10/1991
1,500
Flood
5/1/1994
2,001
Flood
28/07/1989
1,591
Epidemic
5/1/1984
3,290
Epidemic
11/1/1988
3,000
Source: Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.em-dat.net - Université
Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium"
Droughts
Drought is a temporary reduction in water or moisture availability significantly below the
normal or expected amount for a specific period. This condition occurs either due to
7
inadequacy of rainfall, or lack or irrigation facilities, under-exploitation or deficient
availability for meeting the normal crop requirements in the context of the agro-climatic
conditions prevailing in any particular area. This has been scientifically computed as
Moisture index (M I). There is a drought in Jaisalmer (Average rainfall 200 mm) if
rainfall is not sufficient to grow grass an paltry coarse-grains, whereas in Bolangir or
Koraput (Orissa-rainfall above 1000 mm) there is a drought if there is not enough rainfall
for bringing the paddy crop to maturity5.
68 per cent or roughly 2/3 of the country's arable area is at one time or the other
susceptible to drought. Most of the major states have both drought as well as high rainfall
areas. The drought of 1987, caused by the failure of the southwest monsoon over large
parts of India, was one of worst in the century. Droughts can be mitigated through
Employment Generation, b) Provision of drinking water, c) Fodder availability, d) Supply
of essential commodities and e) Drought Proofing6.
Forest Fires
The most common hazard in forests is forests fire. Forests fires are as old as the forests
themselves. They pose a threat not only to the forest wealth but also to the entire regime
to fauna and flora seriously disturbing the bio-diversity and the ecology and environment
of a region. During summer, when there is no rain for months, the forests become littered
with dry senescent leaves and twinges, which could burst into flames ignited by the
slightest spark. The Himalayan forests, particularly, Garhwal Himalayas have been
burning regularly during the last few summers, with colossal loss of vegetation cover of
that region7.
Of the 35 states and union territories, as many as 27 are disaster prone. And if the
perceived threats due to other disasters such as chemical and terrorist attacks are added,
every square inch of India is vulnerable, calling for immediate attention and sustained
effort.
Landslides8
Landslides are simply defined as the mass movement of rock, debris or earth down a
slope and have come to include a broad range of motions whereby falling, sliding and
flowing under the influence of gravity dislodges earth material. They often take place in
conjunction with earthquakes, floods and volcanoes. At times, prolonged rainfall causing
heavy block the flow or river for quite some time. The formation of river blocks can
cause havoc to the settlements downstream on it's bursting.
In the hilly terrain of India including the Himalayas, landslides have been a major and
widely spread natural disaster the often strike life and property and occupy a position of
major concern. The worst landslide in the recent years was on August 11 & 17, 1998 at
Malpa Uttarkhand (UP) where nearly 380 people were killed when massive landslides
washed away the entire village. This included 60 pilgrims going to Lake Mansarovar in
Tibet. Consequently various land reform measures have been initiated as mitigation
8
measures.
The two regions most vulnerable to landslides are the Himalayas and the Western Ghats.
The Himalayas mountain belt comprise of tectonically unstable younger geological
formations subjected to severe seismic activity. The Western Ghats and Nilgiris are
geologically stable but have uplifted plateau margins influenced by neo- tectonic activity.
Compared to Western Ghats & Nilgiris region, the slides in the Himalayas region are
huge and massive and in most cases the overburden along with the underlying lithology is
displaced during sliding particularly due to the seismic factor.
Multi-Hazard Risk Areas
There are many regions in India which are multi-hazard risk prone. Annexure 1.4 gives
the list of districts that are multi-hazard prone. 172 districts in the state are prone to
Earthquake and floods together; 6 districts are prone to cyclonic winds and floods, 46
districts are prone to earthquake, cyclonic winds and flood and 17 districts are prone to
earthquake and cyclonic winds. These hazard prone districts are located in 17 states and
union territories of the country. Hence, a large part of the country is multi-hazard prone.
1.2 National Poverty Profile
Poverty is not simply a matter of inadequate income but also a matter of low literacy,
short life expectation and lack of basic needs such as drinking water.9 According to the
Planning Commission of India, 27.5 per cent of the population (301.72 million people)10
live in absolute poverty, defined by their inability to consume a basket of goods that
includes minimum defined calorie consumption11. Poverty, defined as set of deprivations
would put the figure of those deprived far above the 301 million people, a figure that is
largely unacceptably. In 1993-94, 35.97 per cent population (320.37 million people) were
living below the poverty line and hence, just 18.65 million people have come out of
poverty in the decade of 1993-94 to 2004-05, when India has witnessed a high GDP
growth. There is now a consensus in India that the GDP growth in India has not been
accompanied by more rapid poverty reduction. Not just that, rapid economic growth rate
has led to increase in inequality across the states in India and within the states in India.
Table 1.2: Various Dimensions of Poverty, India
Rural
Urban
HCR
PG
SPG
Gini
HCR
PG
SPG
1987-88
39.0
9.3
3.2
29.9
38.7
10.2
3.8
1993-94
37.2
8.5
2.8
28.6
32.6
8.0
2.9
2004-05
28.7
5.8
1.8
30.5
25.9
6.2
2.0
HCR = Head Count Ratio; PG = Poverty Gap Index; SPG Squared Poverty Gap Index
Source: Himanshu (2007: 498).
Gini
35.0
34.4
37.6
The overall inequality increase in India in the rural and urban areas can be seen from the
increased value of Gini co-efficient of consumption expenditure after the onset of
9
reforms. In 1993-94, the Gini co-efficient of rural consumption went up to 30.5 from 28.6
in 1993-94 (Table 1.1) and that of the urban consumption from 34.4 to 37.6 in the same
year. Important fact to note is reduction in the values of Gini co-efficients in the 1987-88
to 1993-94 period, in both the rural and urban areas. While the inequality has increased,
the absolute poverty incidence, depth of poverty (represented by Poverty Gap index) and
severity of poverty (represented by Squared Poverty Gap index) have gone down in the
rural and urban areas consistently from 1987-88. In fact, the decline in depth and severity
of poverty is higher in the 1993-94 to 2004-05 period in the rural areas and in the 198788 to 1993-94 period in the urban areas.
The failure in poverty reduction inspite of rapid economic growth since 1993-94 could be
attributed to the poor performance of agricultural growth; agricultural production barely
kept pace with population growth during the period, the annual growth of per capita
output being negative. Agricultural production per rural person, agricultural wages and
rising food prices were found to be the major factors underlying the year to year
variations in the percentage of rural poor. In this decade, agriculture sector crises is
reflected in large number of incidences of farmers’ suicides across the states in India, in
particular in those in the south and west that have benefited much more than those in the
east and north.
Incidence and Changes in Rural Poverty in States
1993-94
80
2004-05
Change in poverty(% points)
60
Head Count Ratio
40
20
-20
-40
States
Figure 1.1: Incidence and Changes in Rural Poverty, States
10
IND
AP
Ker
Kar
TN
Raj
Mah
Guj
HP
Pun
Har
JK
MP
Asm
UP
Bih
Ors
WB
0
It is worth mentioning that the spatial map and social base of poverty have significantly
changed over time and poverty is increasingly concentrated in a few geographical
locations and among specific socially disadvantaged groups. Among the social groups,
poverty is chronic among the Scheduled Tribes (STs), with 47.2 per cent of them falling
below the poverty line in the rural India, followed by the Scheduled Castes (SCs) with
36.8 per cent falling below the poverty line in rural India. In only three of all the states,
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, incidence of poverty is higher among the SCs than
the STs. Haryana does not have ST population and hence incidence of poverty in ST
group in Haryana is 0.
80
70
60
Percentages
50
40
30
20
10
IND
HP
Pun
Har
Raj
JK
Guj
AP
Asm
Kar
UP
TN
Mah
Ker
MP
Bih
Ors
WB
0
States
ST
SC
All
Figure 1.2: Rural HCR by Social Groups by States, 2004-0512
The regional differences in poverty reduction are found to be substantial (Figure 1.1).
The decline in state’s incidence of poverty has ranged between 3 to 26 percentage points
in rural areas during 1993-94 to 2004-05. Jammu and Kashmir has registered the largest
percentage decline in rural poverty followed by Assam. The slowest reduction in rural
poverty decline has been in Orissa (2.9 percentage points) and then in Gujarat (3.1
percentage points). To note is that rural poverty reduction has slowed down in Orissa at a
very high incidence of poverty. Figure 1.1 shows that the eastern states with Uttar
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh stand out as with high incidence of rural poverty, followed
by the western states, then southern states and then the northern states. Orissa, Bihar,
11
Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have higher incidence of rural
poverty in 2004-05. Some among them such as Bihar has and West Bengal have
registered high reduction in rural poverty in 1993-94 period and others slow.
The inter-state variations in the rural poverty reduction have been attributed to the
variations in their agricultural productivity improvement. In addition, initial endowments
of physical infrastructure and human resources did contribute to the inter-state variations
in the performance. States such as Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal, which had a
higher rural poverty ratio in the pre-reforms phase have seen substantial reduction in
poverty from 1973-74 to 2004-05. This is because Andhra Pradesh benefiting from green
revolution, and Kerala and West Bengal which from the implementation of land reforms.
The decline in rural poverty has not removed hunger in India states. The Hunger Index
prepared by the International Food Poverty Research Institute (IFPRI) in 2008 has a
special reporting on Indian states. This report states that although the incidence of
poverty has declined in India, hunger continues to mar the growth achievements. The
hunger is measured through an index comprising of three components: (i) prevalence of
calorie under-nourishment (calculated from the consumption data of 2004-05 National
Sample Survey), (ii) proportion of underweight children below age 5 (from the NFHS-III
data) and (iii) under five mortality rate (from NFHS-III survey). The key findings of this
report are13:







India’s Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2008 score is 23.7, which ranks it 66th out of 88
countries. This indicates continued poor performance at reducing hunger in India.
The India State Hunger Index (ISHI) 2008 was constructed in a similar fashion as
the
GHI 2008 to enable comparisons of states within India, and to compare Indian
states to GHI 2008 scores and ranks for other countries.
The ISHI 2008 score was estimated for 17 major states in India, covering more than
95 percent of the population of India.
ISHI 2008 scores for Indian states range from 13.6 for Punjab to 30.9 for Madhya
Pradesh, indicating substantial variability among states in India. Punjab is ranked
34th when compared to the GHI 2008 country rankings, while Madhya Pradesh is
ranked 82nd. All 17 states have ISHI scores that are well above the “low” and
“moderate” hunger categories. Twelve of the 17 states fall into the “alarming”
category, and one - Madhya Pradesh – into the “extremely alarming” category.
ISHI scores are closely aligned with poverty, but there is little association with state
level economic growth. High levels of hunger are seen even in states that are
performing well from an economic perspective.
Inclusive economic growth and targeted strategies to ensure food sufficiency,
reduce child mortality and improve child nutrition are urgent priorities for all states
in India.
12
1.2.1 Poverty, Growth and Human Development Since the Early 1990s
It is widely known that the Indian economy, as measured by its Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), has grown rapidly since 1980, and that the growth has been sustained during the
last decade and a half. The growth process has not been altogether uniform. Since the
acceleration of ‘reforms’ in 1991, involving essentially widespread deregulation,
privatization and opening up the Indian economy to relatively unrestricted imports of
goods and services as well as inflow and outflow of capital as finance, there have been
distinct episodes of rapid growth interspersed with periods of slower growth. Overall, the
GDP growth rate has been impressive at around 6 per cent between 1991 and 2007. More
recently, it has been in the neighbourhood of 8 per cent between 2004-05 and 2007-08.
Currently, the growth process faces some serious risks in view of the global financial and
economic crisis.
While the growth record is thus impressive, its composition and its implications in terms
of inclusion/exclusion have been matters of concern. The growth has occurred primarily
in the services sector, and to a lesser extent, in the secondary sector.14 But the agrarian
economy has seen serious setbacks. The large numbers of farmers’ suicides has been a
particularly spectacular and distressing manifestation, but the crisis is indeed many-sided,
with falling levels of investment, worsening terms of trade for agriculture, decline in
availability and rise in cost of institutional credit, sharp increases in input costs on
account of subsidy cuts to meet fiscal deficit targets, flood of cheap agricultural imports
from the end of the 1990s, and stagnation in area, yield and output of food grain between
1999-2000 and 2006-07.
The second area of serious concern is employment. The rate of growth of employment
between 1993-94 and 1999-2000 fell significantly below that for the period 1987-88 to
1993-94, for both urban and rural areas and for both males and females.15 Although it
recovered between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, the increase was mostly in the self-employed
category, and entailed rather low annual earnings. Over the longer term as well, the rate
of growth of employment between 1993-94 and 2004-05 was lower than that between
1983 and 1993-94. Rural real wage rates, which had shown a rise in the 1990s, have
stagnated or declined since 1999-2000. The increase in employment in the economy has
been almost entirely in the unorganized sector, and even when there has been an increase
in employment in the organized sector, it has been in the casual/contract categories.
Besides these macro economic parameters, there are other concerns as well. There has
been clear evidence of an increase in inequality of income and asset distributions across
social and economic categories over the reform period. There is also evidence of
increasing inter-state inequality.
As against these negative features, in the more recent period there have been new policy
initiatives such as the passing of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(NREGA) and the Tribal Forest Rights Act ( TFRA), judicial activism in respect of
school feeding programmes and the Integrated Child Services Scheme (ICDS), and the
passing of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which can be potentially powerful
13
weapons for addressing deprivation and the issue of long term vulnerability of the poor
against external shocks. Unfortunately, these initiatives have not been matched by
adequate allocations, and there are issues of weaknesses in the implementation
machinery, especially relating to governance and decentralization to elected local bodies.
1.3 Multiple Vulnerability o Disasters – Some Plausible Links in India
There exists a direct link between natural disasters and the situation of poverty. Hazards
like floods, cyclones and droughts are noted for aggravating poverty in two ways:
through destruction of food stocks and meagre assets of the poorer households; and,
through making employment opportunities scarce.
The rural as well as urban poor loose their employment during and in the immediate
period of the disaster. Nearly all the poor (those in the bottom half of the consumption
bracket) are either self-employed or wage employed, both the categories of workers
would loose income the day they do not work. This is true for the urban as well as rural
areas. They do not own much savings or assets to pull through when they do not work.
And hence, during the disasters if the relief does not reach in time, as it is likely to
happen in less accessible and less developed areas, they tend to face situation of hunger.
Because they own fewer assets to cover the expenditure needed during the disaster and
recovery phases they have to depend on borrowing principally from the money lenders, in
situation where the micro-finance institutions do not exists (and these do not in large
parts). Thus, once the relief efforts withdraw, they may have difficulty in getting back to
normal life, including buying food. Self-employed may loose their employment
implements and may therefore find it difficult to get back to normal work levels, resulting
in loss of income for some time to come. In case of institutional failure, governmental or
non-governmental, it is possible that the poverty increases or deepens.
Disasters such as cyclones, followed by floods, and floods destroy the crops and hence
local food security which is very important in states such as Orissa that are still primarily
agrarian states. Droughts also reduce local food security. In the contemporary context, the
Public Distribution System (PDS) is expected to serve the purpose of ensuring food
security in the times of disasters. The Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and
MidDay Meal Scheme are supposed to take care of the nutritional programmes for the
children and these could ensure food security in the times of disasters.
In context of India access to the PDS is for those with ration cards and food grains are
available to those with Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card. At the all-India level 81
per cent of rural households and 67 per cent of urban households held ration cards16. BPL
cards were held by 26.5 per cent of rural households and 10.5 per cent of urban
households. When it came to accessing PDS, just 24.4 per cent rural households and 13.1
per cent urban households consumed PDS rice and 11.0 per cent rural and 5.8 per cent
14
urban household consumed wheat (or wheat flour) from the PDS. The figures are very
low. In rural areas, 30 per cent households consumed their home grown rice and 40 per
cent consumed their home grown wheat. The rest would have purchased food grains from
the market, and if that is affected, people go without food. The dependence on the public
system is very low and hence, in Indian context great vulnerabilities arise with regards to
food security in times of disasters.
Poverty often leads to vulnerability to disasters, particularly to floods, riverbank erosion,
coastal cyclones and tidal surge. The poorer households usually settle on less desirable
high-risk peripheral land; and are unable to afford disaster proof housing. Consequently
they are compelled to evacuate in case of a disaster, and have lower access to social and
economic support needed for recovery.
In urban areas, the poor are invariably concentrated on the marginal lands, prone to
flooding in monsoons and in times of floods. They are on the riverbanks and have to be
evacuated every
The gender dimension of vulnerability suggests that risks and impacts of environmental
crises and natural disasters are experienced by women and men differently and are
mediated by their differential access to and control over resources and familial
relationships. Natural disasters also result in reaffirmation and re-genesis of traditional
gender patterns in communities as the need for care giving and daily household
maintenance in a difficult disaster situation expands their workload dramatically. Where
life-saving skills are concerned, women are at a disadvantage due to social confinement
and are more vulnerable to violence, personal injury, drowning, and health hazards.
Furthermore, break up of marriages and desertion of wives, children and the elderly often
increase during and after disasters following migration of men in search of employment.
Female headed households have less access to social, political and financial resources
and are more likely to experience a more difficult recovery process than similarly poor
male-headed households. Lastly, because of damage to local water sources, fuel and
fodder sources (depending on the type of disaster), the burden of women to collect these
basic necessities increase along with increased time spent on care-giving activities.
Age differentials play a critical role in creating greater vulnerability to disease,
discomfort and dependency during a disaster. Particularly the children and the elderly
suffer more and mortality rates are found to be much higher among the very young and
the very old. The malnourishment levels among children in India are quite high and
hence the impacts of disaster would be high on the children.
In context of India, the socially marginal groups, such as the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and
the Scheduled Castes (SCs) are more adversely affected than the other castes. To start
with, these groups have higher incidence of poverty, as shown in this chapter. The STs in
particular, tend to live in remote / less accessible regions (as they tend to live in the forest
areas), and reaching out to them in times of disasters is very low.
15
Disaster also damages infrastructure, both economic and social. It destroys also
communication networks. The disaster affected areas get cut-off physically as well as in
communications sense. Hence, rescue and relief efforts slow down. This is more the case
with rural areas than urban areas. Further, damage to economic infrastructure slows down
economic activities and damage to schools and health centres also affect adversely
education and health care. In case disasters are followed by epidemics, the casualties can
go up if health care infrastructure is severely damaged. Schools tend to be used as shelter
in times of cyclones and floods. Then, the education suffers.
Persistent droughts lead to population out-migrating as survival strategy. In that case the
children also move with their parents. They tend to miss on their education. Migration
from the drought-prone regions is temporary (seasonal) and the children do not get to
attend school either in their home place or in the place where they have migrated.
Education of children from drought prone regions poses a real challenge for the policy
makers.
In urban areas, the poor are living in the slum housing, in semi-permanent or temporary
type of structures. Of the 24.7 million housing shortage estimated in urban India, 97 per
cent is for the poor17. Some disasters such as earthquake and cyclone makes them
shelterless and then exposed to elements of nature. Shelterless, they are prone to
epidemic outbreaks.
There are differential impacts of extensive disaster on the poor and non-poor. Extensive
disaster such as epidemics or fire, adversely affect the poor more than non-poor.
Epidemics, which are preventable through public health programmes, strike the poor the
most, as these tend to outbreak from the areas inhabited by the poor. In cities, the areas
inhabited by the poor tend to have poor public health infrastructure and hence the
epidemic outbreaks are more from these areas than areas with good public infrastructure,
that tend to be inhabited by the non-poor. Fire destroys the temporary shelters of the poor
than the permanent structures, which are inhabited by the rich. Invariably, temporary
housing structures are inhabited by the poor.
Intensive disasters often affect every one, such as Tsunami and earthquake. In fact,
earthquake is called a great leveller; those living in permanent structures tend to loose
much more than those living in temporary structures. Because, the chances of survival are
much more in temporary structures than in permanent structures, as the experience of
Gujarat Earthquake of 2001 showed. Tsuname destroyed both, temporary as well as
permanent structures. But, cyclone, which is an intensive disaster, may adversely affect
the poor than the non-poor as surely the temporary structures of the former are blown
away in cyclones.
Lastly, in general, absence of any social security measures and institutions in place to
cover the risks such as disasters, those deprived of development benefits, suffer the most
in times of any disaster that increases the vulnerability of all affected.
16
All the above relationships are influenced by the community and regional deprivations.
1.4 Framework
Alejandro et at (2008)18 have proposed a two way relationship between disaster and
poverty. They have proposed two key hypotheses to tackle the central lines of research:
Hypothesis 1
Poverty is likely to correlate with (a) the exposure of households to natural hazards, (b)
their susceptibility to suffer loss from hazard events.
Part (a) stems from location factors as both rural and urban households are typically
being pushed due to land ownership and market factors to marginal hazard prone areas
(i.e., steep land or squatter settlements). Part (b) refers to housing materials of poorer
quality, infrastructure, and production activities which are typically unsafe or less
resilient to hazard impacts.
Hypothesis 2
Natural hazards are likely to (a) contribute to poverty by affecting human development
indicators and assets directly, as well as indirectly through affecting their attributes of
value and productivity; and (b) exacerbate the household’s inability to avoid or recover
from poverty due to their aggregate nature, in combination with the absence or
inadequate application of coping mechanisms.
Part (a) relates to the more visible impact of hazards on household members and assets
themselves. Physical assets can be used for income-generating activities to entitle
households to goods and services that facilitate achievement of different dimensions of
wellbeing, such as consumption. Their depletion in turn, can lead to short-term welfare
fluctuations and push people into sudden poverty. Human capital assets (i.e., nutrition
and health), which can also improve people’s ability to take advantage of incomegenerating opportunities, are important in their own right. Any effect on the bodies of
household members (death, sickness, injury), therefore, can also lead to poverty.
Part (b) alludes to the fact that natural hazards are often highly covariate rendering coinsurance mechanisms less effective, which combined with lower physical and human
capital endowments characteristic of poor households making them badly situated to
handle risk-related losses. It also suggests that existing policy responses and conditions at
a more aggregate level (district and sub-district level) may condition the extent to which
households can avoid falling into poverty. Inadequate safety nets, unsound growth
conditions alongside restricted access to credit and insurance markets and uneven
distribution patterns may lead to a less conducive environment for coping. This effect on
poverty could also be appreciated where the district and sub-district are the units of
17
analysis.
The proposed framework appraises the two way relationship between natural hazards and
poverty. For India Report, we remain with the framework, except that add in three
aspects peculiar to the situation of India.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Added human development attainment as a capability dimension in these two
way relationships (as suggested by Alexandro et al 2008) and also consider
lags in human development as representing multi-dimensional deprivation.
Added social group dimension to the deprivation framework, poverty; lack of
human development and political disempowerment restricted to certain
communities, broadly classified as Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled
Castes (SCs). The two way relationship gets strongly influenced by the social
group dimension than just income and asset aspect. In other words,
community level capabilities are as important as individual household
capabilities in dealing with the situation of disasters.
Macro capabilities of a region are as important as individual household
capabilities. The Alexandro et al (2008) paper focuses on household level
capabilities whereas, in India, the unevenness of development has resulted in
whole regions have low capabilities to deal with the situation of disaster.
Thus, a household in a less developed region has lower capabilities to cope
with disaster than the more developed region. For example, epidemics may
result in deaths in one situation (where public health infrastructure is weak)
but may not result in deaths in other situation (where public health
infrastructure is available and efficiently functioning). This aspect has a very
strong public policy angle.
1.5 Methodology
The methodology for this report is quite different than what Alexandro et al suggest. This
emanates from the fact that household level panel data are not available to test the two
way hypotheses. Thus, development, poverty, other deprivations and capabilities have
been observed at the district level, wherever possible by rural urban separately. This is
the content of Chapter 2. The hazard risk and disaster impacts have been observed at the
district level in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 5 is an attempt to correlate the socio-economic
vulnerabilities and capabilities with the disaster impacts. Attempt is made to observe the
impacts of disaster by intensive/ extensive disasters, climatological/ non-climatological
disasters and by different explanatory variables such as levels of vulnerability represented
by Head Count Ratios (HCRs), rural vs urban, Human Development attainments
(represented by HDI) and incomes. These are correlated with each other through simple
pearson’s coefficient of correlation and scatter plots.
18
A Note on Data
This methodology has been followed primarily from the data availability in India. The
large scale household surveys are carried out by National Sample Surveys, canvassed
over whole of India, quinquennially. Every five years, information on consumption,
employment, education levels, housing conditions, land asset ownership, migration, etc.
are carried out. But, these do not form panel data, as the consumption expenditures are
shifting upwards, and household profiles are changing with the shift in consumption
expenditures. The sample selected for these surveys is based on the concept of
representativeness and not from the idea of generating panel data. Hence, even though
these surveys offer possibilities of building information on household level consumption
and asset situation, they do not offer possibilities of temporal monitoring of changes in
levels of living, asset structures, vulnerabilities, etc. of the same set of households. But,
these surveys give tremendous insight into one time point levels of living, asset
structures, vulnerabilities etc. Hence these data for two time points have been used.
The disaster impact data are from disInventor data set. This also has some limitations; the
events reported/ recorded and then the impacts reported/ recorded are related to the
compensation packages available and the efficiency of the state government machinery in
intervening in the relief and post-disaster recovery.
19
Annexure 1.1
Region-wise earthquake (M>5.0) occurrence in India (1897 - 1993)
Seismic Region
Kashmir &
Western
Himalayas
Central Himalayas
North East India
Indo-Gangetic
Basin and
Rajasthan
Cambay and Rann
of Kutch
Peninsualr India
Andaman &
Nicobar
5.0-5.9*
25
No. of Earthquakes of Magnitude
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
7
2
Return Period
8.0+
1
2.5-3 yrs.
68
200
14
28
128
6
4
15
-
1
4
-
1 yrs.
<4 months
5 yrs
4
4
1
1
20 yrs.
31
80
10
68
1
1
2.5-3 yrs.
<8 months
*
These are approximate numbers
Source: http://www.nidm.net/Earthquakes2_i.asp
Annexure 1.2
Some Important Cyclones in India
Location
Tamil Nadu
Bengal
Date
Dec, 1972
Sept, 1976
Andhra Coast
Nov, 1977
Tamil Nadu
May, 1979
Orissa
Andhra Coast
Sept, 1985
Nov, 1987
Orissa
June, 1989
Andhra coast
Tamil Nadu
May, 1990
Nov, 1991
Bengal
April, 1993
Bengal
Nov, 1994
Andhra Coast
Oct, 1996
Gujarat
Orissa
June, 1998
Oct, 1999
Damages
80 people and 150 cattle killed and communication disrupted.
10 people and 40,000 cattle lost life. Damage to property
including communication
8547 people and 40,000 cattle lost life. Communication
disrupted heavy loss to property.
700 people and 300,000 cattle lost life. Communication
disrupted
84 people and 2600 cattle lost life. Land of 4.0 hac damaged.
50 people and 25,800 cattle lost life, 8400 houses, roads and
other communication disrupted.
61 people and 27,000 cattle lost life, 145,000 houses,
communication disrupted.
928 human lives lost, 14000 houses damaged.
185 people and 540 cattle. Property including roads worth
300 Crores damaged.
Over 100 casualties, communication system including road
disrupted and damaged.
More than a thousand houses damaged in 26 villages
damage to lake and fisheries, disrupted all communication.
1057 casualties, 647,000 houses damaged road network
completely damaged.
1261 casualties, 2.57 Lakh houses damaged.
10,086 casualties, 21.6 Lakh houses damaged
Source : http://www.nidm.net/Cyclones1.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
20
Annexure 1.3
Average annual loss due to Floods19
S.No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Items
Area affected
Population affected
Human lives lost
Cattle lost
Houses damaged
Houses damaged
Crop area damaged
Crop damaged
Public Utilities damaged
Total losses
Loss
7.351 million hectare
40.967 million
1,793 number
85,599 number
1,452,904 number
3706.07million
3.725 million hectare
10951.32 million
11864.56 million
27062.43 million
Source: Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.
Annexure 1.4
Summary of Census 2001 Districts Having Substantial Multi-hazard Risk Areas
State
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Assam
3. Bihar
4. Jharkhand
5. Goa
6. Gujarat
Name of Districts having substantial multi-hazard prone area
E.Q. and Flood
Cyclonic wind and
E.Q., Cyclonic wind and
Flood
Flood
Adilabad,
Krishna, Nellore,
East-Godavari, Guntur,
Karim-Nagar,
Srikakulam,
Prakasam, West-Godavari
Khammam
Vishakhapatnam,
Vizianagram
All 19 districts listed
Cachar, Hailakandi,
in Table - 2 could
Karimganj
have M.S.K. IX or
more with flooding
(No storm surge)
All 32 Districts listed
in Table - 2
Sahibganj, Godda
Banaskantha,
Patan, Dangs,
Gandhinagar,
Mahesana,
Panchmahals,
Ahmedabad1, Kheda,
Bharuch1, Narmada1,
Surat1, Navsari1, Valsad1,
Anand1,
Vadodara
-
E.Q. and Cyclonic
wind
-
-
North-Goa
South-Goa
Amreli1, Rajkot,
Bhavnagar1,
Jamnagar1,
Porbandar1,
Junagad1, Kachch1
(1 Storm
(1 Storm
7. Haryana
All 18 Districts listed
in Table - 2
-
-
21
surge possible)
surge
possible)
-
8. Kerala
Alappuzha1, Idukki1,
Ernakulam1, Kannur1,
Kasaragod1, Kollam1,
Kottayam1, Thrissur1
Kozhikode1,
Malappuram1, Palakkad1,
Pathanamthitta1,
Thiruvananthapuram1
-
(1 Storm
Wayanad1
surge possible)
(1 Storm
9. Maharashtra
-
-
-
10. Orissa
-
Ganjam
11. Punjab
All 17 Districts listed
in Table - 2
All 61 Districts listed
in Table - 2
Hardwar, Nainital,
Udham-Singh-Nagar
Bankura, Birbhum
Bardhaman,
Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri,
Kooch- Bihar, Malda,
Murshidabad, WestDinajpur
North-East, South
172 Districts
-
Baleshwar1, Puri1,
Bhadrak1, Jajapur,
Kendrapara1,
Jagatsinhapur1,
Navagarh, Khordha.
Cuttack,
-
-
-
-
Calcutta, Hugli, Howra,
Mednipur, Nadia, North24-Parganas, South-24Parganas,
6 Districts
Yanam
46 Districts
12. Uttar Pradesh
13. Uttarnchal
14. West Bengal
15. Delhi
16. Pondicherry
17. Daman and Diu
India
22
surge
possible)
Mumbai, Thane,
Rayagad, Ratnagiri,
Sindhudurg
Dhenkanal
-
Diu
17 Districts
Notes
1
From the presentation ‘Changing Paradigm in Dealing with Disasters – Indian Experience’, by P.G.
Dhar-Chakrabarti, Executive Director of National Institute of Disaster Management on 21-02-2007
(source:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDISMGMT/Resources/3394561158594430052/2950719-1172608676692/chakrabarti.pdf accessed on October 29, 2008).
2
From the presentation ‘Changing Paradigm in Dealing with Disasters – Indian Experience’, by P.G.
Dhar-Chakrabarti, Executive Director of National Institute of Disaster Management on 21-02-2007
(source:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDISMGMT/Resources/3394561158594430052/2950719-1172608676692/chakrabarti.pdf accessed on October 29, 2008).
3
From http://www.nidm.net/Earthquakes.asp (accessed October 29, 2008).
4
From http://www.nidm.net/flood.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
5
From http://www.nidm.net/Drought.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
6
From http://www.nidm.net/Drought1.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
7
From http://www.nidm.net/Forest_Fires.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
8
This section from http://www.nidm.net/Landslides.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
9
Report of the XI Plan Working Group on Poverty Elimination Programmes (December 2006)
10
Press Information Bureau (2007): Poverty Estimates for 2004-05, Government of India, March.
11
2100 kcal per day per person for the urban areas and 2400 kcal per day per person for the rural areas.
12
Estimates by the Planning Commission, India, from the Planning Commission website.
13
Menon, Purnima, Anil Deolalikar and Anjor Bhaskar (2008): The India State Hunger Index:
Comparisons Of Hunger Across States, An Advance Copy for Discussion, IFPRI, India, October 14,
2008 (from the website accessed on October 16, 2008).
14
Chandrasekhar, C.P. and Jayati Ghosh ( 2005): The Market that Failed, LeftWord, New Delhi.
15
Chandrasekhar, C.P. and Jayati Ghosh ( 2005): The Market that Failed, LeftWord, New Delhi.
16
National Sample Survey Organisation (2007): Public Distribution System and Other Sources of
Household Consumption, 2004-05, Volume –I, NSS 61st Round (July 2004-June 2005), Report No.
510(61/1.0/3), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
17
From National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (NUHHP), 2007 of the Ministry of Housing &
Urban
Poverty
Alleviation,
Government
of
India,
New
Delhi.
Source:
http://mhupa.gov.in/policies/duepa/HousingPolicy2007.pdf
18
de la Fuente, Alejandro, Luis Felipe López-Calva and Aromar Revi (2008): Assessing the Relationship
between Natural Hazards and Poverty: A Conceptual and Methodological Proposal, Document
Prepared for ISDR-UNDP Disaster Risk-Poverty Regional Workshops in Bangkok, Thailand (22-24
April 2008) and Bogotá, Colombia (10-11 June, 2008).
19
From http://www.nidm.net/flood6.asp (accessed on October 29, 2008).
23