202
Y. Shukla and B. Mall
were affected in the area. In the year 2008, some 170 people died and more than 2.5
million were affected with 165,000 people getting displaced (Singh 2009).
17.1.1 Nuances of Vulnerability
The lessons from previous interventions on early warning in the region have shown
that there are some specific factors that contribute to the increased vulnerability and
risk at the frontlines. These have been documented during the course of action by
Christian Aid and its partners. Some of them are as follows.
Weak physical and natural resources: Weak physical and natural assets define
communities vulnerable to flood. There are instances where retaining walls break,
overgrazed lands subsides and dangerous mudslides, bridges collapse and crops wash
away. Often communities with the weakest physical assets are the same communities
that are located closest to the source of disaster—on the banks of river, for example.
Since primarily poor live in such places with no means of ensuring any protection,
these places often get exposed to the numerous disasters.
Degraded natural environment: Degraded lands are more susceptible to damage, during natural events. Healthy, biodiverse forests or river banks/coasts with
vegetation can absorb water to some extent. Land abundant grasses and vegetation
also soak up excess water. Overgrazing and deforestation have led to destructive
landslides, and crops unprotected by bunds and other conservation measures wash
away.
Inadequate access to support structures: Communities located in the most fragile environments are the same communities that lack the social and political assets
needed to attract important government resources—better roads, strong bridges,
sturdy tanks and shelters, or relief supplies. Poor access to government and nongovernment support impedes a community’s ability to withstand disaster.
Lack of disaster preparedness: Communities in flood-prone areas already have
coping strategies to address flood, but they are often insufficient in the face of major
flood. Good planning (and ensuing implementation) is, for vulnerable people, the
best defence against disaster. This is especially true for marginalized communities
living in vulnerable locations—sick, handicapped or elderly people, small children,
expectant mothers and resource-poor families who have been pushed to dangerous
ground or who lack the means to escape or survive.
Inadequate mechanism for timely information flow: Most of the communities
within flood-prone areas are devoid of any form or reliable information which can
be used to prepare for upcoming disasters. Often they come to know about floods
when it strikes their habitat and they are affected by it, by then it is too late to
respond. It is not that there is lack of information about the onset of disaster. However,
the issue is of its dissemination to communities vulnerable to it. Based on field
assessment, there is clear evidence of information sharing between authorities on
Nepal (Department of Hydro-Meteorology) and India (irrigation department); most
of these information remain within the administrative setup and seldom reaches the
Y. Shukla and B. Mall
were affected in the area. In the year 2008, some 170 people died and more than 2.5
million were affected with 165,000 people getting displaced (Singh 2009).
17.1.1 Nuances of Vulnerability
The lessons from previous interventions on early warning in the region have shown
that there are some specific factors that contribute to the increased vulnerability and
risk at the frontlines. These have been documented during the course of action by
Christian Aid and its partners. Some of them are as follows.
Weak physical and natural resources: Weak physical and natural assets define
communities vulnerable to flood. There are instances where retaining walls break,
overgrazed lands subsides and dangerous mudslides, bridges collapse and crops wash
away. Often communities with the weakest physical assets are the same communities
that are located closest to the source of disaster—on the banks of river, for example.
Since primarily poor live in such places with no means of ensuring any protection,
these places often get exposed to the numerous disasters.
Degraded natural environment: Degraded lands are more susceptible to damage, during natural events. Healthy, biodiverse forests or river banks/coasts with
vegetation can absorb water to some extent. Land abundant grasses and vegetation
also soak up excess water. Overgrazing and deforestation have led to destructive
landslides, and crops unprotected by bunds and other conservation measures wash
away.
Inadequate access to support structures: Communities located in the most fragile environments are the same communities that lack the social and political assets
needed to attract important government resources—better roads, strong bridges,
sturdy tanks and shelters, or relief supplies. Poor access to government and nongovernment support impedes a community’s ability to withstand disaster.
Lack of disaster preparedness: Communities in flood-prone areas already have
coping strategies to address flood, but they are often insufficient in the face of major
flood. Good planning (and ensuing implementation) is, for vulnerable people, the
best defence against disaster. This is especially true for marginalized communities
living in vulnerable locations—sick, handicapped or elderly people, small children,
expectant mothers and resource-poor families who have been pushed to dangerous
ground or who lack the means to escape or survive.
Inadequate mechanism for timely information flow: Most of the communities
within flood-prone areas are devoid of any form or reliable information which can
be used to prepare for upcoming disasters. Often they come to know about floods
when it strikes their habitat and they are affected by it, by then it is too late to
respond. It is not that there is lack of information about the onset of disaster. However,
the issue is of its dissemination to communities vulnerable to it. Based on field
assessment, there is clear evidence of information sharing between authorities on
Nepal (Department of Hydro-Meteorology) and India (irrigation department); most
of these information remain within the administrative setup and seldom reaches the