Engaged Circle: 'Disaster Recovery is Directly Related to Democracy'
October 22,2007
Tehelka
Rehabilitation expert Mihir Bhatt trades notes with US Senator Hillman Frazier, who had a key part in the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts
Mihir Bhatt, director, All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, India’s leading action research organisation working in five states, met Mississippi State Senator Hillman Frazier, who played a key role in addressing the impact of Hurricane Katrina in the US, with a direct focus on citizens and budgets. Frazier discussed ways to improve Indo-US collaboration in reducing risks in communities.
MIHIR BHATT: You visited the 2001 earthquake and 2002 riot-affected families in Gujarat, the 2004 tsunami-affected families in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, and have met people doing exceptional work in South Asia at the Innovations in Emergencies Session of the South Asia Forum organised by the Ash Institute of Harvard University and the Rai Foundation in Delhi. Based on this, what would you see as most important for an Indo-US effort on making communities safer?
HILLMAN FRAZIER: Yes, I have been privileged to meet top policy makers. I have also met families affected by floods, riots, earthquakes and the tsunami, and seen their endless struggle and fulfilling efforts. Without doubt I can say that the direction of community-led disaster risk reduction and recovery taken by India is remarkable. So is the pace at which the communities are moving towards safety. And so are the range of measures taken by various authorities. A vibrant dialogue between Indian and US authorities led by the citizens would add value for both sides.
Shouldn’t this long over-due dialogue go beyond consultants, trainings, missions, and projects to fundamental ways of rethinking disasters? I would call it “Dialogue between Disasters and Democratic Opportunities” for both the citizens as well as for the governments. What do you see as the centre of such a dialogue?
Disaster recovery is directly related to the democratic structures, processes and the voice of the citizens in India and in the US. Where democratic processes are stronger, the disaster recovery is faster and fair and sustainable, whether it be for riot-affected victims in India or the cyclone-hit of Mississippi. I think such a dialogue must focus on building and regaining the trust of citizens in governance. Often, too often, relief and rehabilitation governance does not have the full trust of the victims who are also citizens. How to build this trust? How to respond to such trust when it is built? And what measures to take when such trust is broken? These are some key questions that such a dialogue should focus on. But where is this dialogue?
But citizens are a diverse group, especially in a disaster situation where some victims are more severely affected than others; where some victims have more say on who gets what, and where; and some victims recover faster and better. Almost always, this is due not to the inherent abilities of the victims but to the paths of recovery offered by the national authorities, civil society or even international multilateral or bilateral systems.
That is right. The victims as citizens are not treated equally by authorities. In fact, some victims are excluded from the recovery process, often by default and in some cases deliberately. We find this across India and the US. Almost always, the poor are excluded on the basis of gender, caste or colour, minority status, or occupation. Therefore, to regain this trust of victims as citizens in disaster governance, we must directly address the issue of exclusion in emergencies in this possible dialogue.
First, this exclusion is not accepted and recognised. The other day, I was at the firstever meeting on exclusion in emergencies in Delhi, attended by those committed to equality and equity-oriented disaster recovery. Almost everyone assumed that it was someone else who was doing the exclusion, and that we know how to repair or restore such exclusion. How can our proposed dialogue find ways to address exclusion?
Addressing exclusion is neither easy nor brief. This is a different and long process, both for India and for the US and that is the reason why we need to have a dialogue. May be one way to address this issue of exclusion is to focus on access, access to relief and compensation, to rehabilitation resources, and to decision making. The more democratic, open and accountable disaster response access is, the more inclusive recovery is likely to be.
But often the structures, social and economic, do not allow this access not only to what you listed above but to the very decisions that define response and recovery. For example, economic structures only allow the victim to make up losses or regain lost livelihood but do not allow him to find livelihoods that may not be lost should there be another disaster. And in India, the same communities are exposed to the same or similar disasters again and again. Look at the recent Bihar floods. Every other year the same communities are flooded, get relief and receive humanitarian aid. But how humanitarian is this aid that keeps communities facing flood risk?
I agree. The situation in the US is not very different. We have insurance coverage to address flood risk. But when it comes time to claim the cover, insurance companies find many ways, legal and technical, to avoid the payment. So even where risk is pooled and transferred, the poor do not have access to payment. As a result, they have diminishing trust in insurance programmes. There are many people who are renters but when they come to claim-processing they have no advantage. We are in the process of developing a uniform policy so such affected families can also be helped. Also sometimes the insurance commissioner favours insurance companies. We are under the process of easing the procedure and neutrality in this process.
Maybe we need to address both trust in the government as well as trust in the private sector in this proposed dialogue. The US has so much experience to offer in this area.
Certainly. Let me add in conclusion that such a dialogue is due and will make both India and the US more enlightened responders to disasters in their own countries and worldwide.
