Pakistan Earthquake 2005

1
Pakistan Earthquake 2005

• An Assessment of Impoverishment Risks
• By
• Dr.Sajjad Akhtar
• Center for Poverty Reduction and Social Policy
  Development
• April 19, 2008

2
A Conceptual FrameworkImpoverishment Risk and
Reconstruction (IRR) Model.

• Cernea (1997) addressed the issue of livelihood
  through Impoverishment Risk and Reconstruction
  (IRR) Model in the context of infrastructure
  development policy induced population
  displacement causing livelihood destruction
• Based on his extensive empirical research into
  the changes brought about by forced displacement
  he constructed a general risk pattern based on
  identification of eight common processes
  identified as risks leading to impoverishment.

3

• These impoverishment risks are
• landlessness,
• joblessness,
• homelessness,
• marginalisation,
• food insecurity,
• increased morbidity,
• loss of access to common property resources,
• community disarticulation

4

• The model provides with a framework to understand
  how their inter-linkages and their mutual
  influence in various situations lead to
  impoverishment or livelihood reconstruction.
• Finally the model suggests risk reversal
  strategies as prerequisite for reconstructing and
  improving the livelihoods of those displaced by
  assigning central role for institutions.

5

• The model has policy implications and suggests
  controlling general socio-economic risks to
  displaced people by integrated strategy and
  adequate financial resources.
• The model negates top to bottom approach for
  reconstruction and argues that the desired
  outcomes require a participatory approach with
  convergence of action by policy makers and
  displaced. However, any contribution by the
  community or individual depends over their
  control of assets (capital, human, financial,
  physical and social).

6
Impoverishment Risk Reduction with Sustainable
livelihood

• McDowell (2002) developed a new methodological
  framework by borrowing dynamic impoverishment
  concept from Cerneas model and blending it with
  Sustainable livelihood approach with application
  for the natural disaster displaced population.
• He draws some close parallels between experience
  of disaster affected and development affected
  displaced population such as externally imposed
  vulnerability and limited possibilities of
  resettlement in the affected areas.

7

• He argues that identification of risk inherent in
  Cerneas approach complements the Sustainable
  Livelihood model as the latter does not address
  the causes of poverty and takes it as given with
  research directed at how poor household overcome
  impoverishment or otherwise.

8
Earth Quake
Economic Risks
Social Risks
Health Risks
Landlessness Food insecurity
Malnutrition Morbidity Mortality
Community disarticulation
Loss of Human Capital
Injuries/Disabilities
Homelessness and loss to common property
Impoverishment (Marginalisation)
Joblessness and loss of current earning
Loss of human capital e.g. physical loss, deaths
is also directly linked to the current earnings.
9
Landlessness and Food Insecurity

• Theoretical Link Generally, landlessness and
  food security inter-connectively impact
  livelihood as land being a primary source of
  production system and commercial activities.
• Landlessness in context of policy induced
  displacement is also serious issue due to
  expropriation of land although the displaced get
  compensation in cash or kind (alternate land)
  whereas in earthquake affected areas landlessness
  may take different forms
• the land may altogether disappear partly due to
  land slides or due to shifting of
  mountains/hills

10

• the land as well as standing crops and orchard
  are damaged due to land erosion or disruption of
  terraces
• pseudo landlessness (uncultivability) may result
  due to river changing course, permanent damage to
  canals and natural spillways.
• Alternatively new parcels of land may open up for
  cultivation precisely due to the reasons the old
  lands are made uncultivable. In (a) and (c) it
  is a permanent loss while in the latter case, it
  is a short to medium term loss unless the land
  titles are redefined and/ or land is cultivated.
  Landlessness has direct bearing on the food
  security of people dependent on land as a source
  for their survival.

11
Survey of Households

• 476 households were surveyed
• 159 in Balakot (largely rural),317 households in
  both rural and urban areas of Muzaffarabad and
  Bagh
• The survey collected pre-quake data based on two
  months recall period along with post quake data
  in the last week of November 2005 on the
  socio-economic and demographic characteristics of
  households members affected by the earthquake
• Information on family loss, losses of house,
  business,agriculture land standing crops, and
  cattle and poultry were also collected

12
Table 2 Level and Type of destruction of
livelihood losses due to the Earthquake
13
Homelessness and Loss of Access to Common Property

• Theoretical Link Homelessness happens to be one
  of the major risks for the displaced people both
  in case of development related displacement as
  well as disaster affected displacement.
• The losses in two situations can not directly be
  compared due to the catastrophic situation in the
  latter case where in addition to the loss of
  housing structure, displaced are deprived of
  their household belongings.

14

• Associated to housing loss is the risk of access
  to common property used commonly by (mostly poor)
  people such as forests and grazing land around
  these houses, terraces used for common
  cultivation, fruits and other edible forest
  products.
• Cernae (1997) argues that these losses are not
  compensated by the governments reconstruction
  schemes and may turn out to be permanent loss.
  Similarly, loss of housing and shelter, a
  transitory phase for some displaced groups may
  turn out to be a chronic condition for others
  depending on the resettlement policies.

15
Table 1 Housing damages in AJK and NWFP
16
Joblessness and Loss of Current Earnings

• Theoretical Link Joblessness, viewed as loss of
  wage employment and earnings is another risk
  identified in the post-disaster situation faced
  by displaced people. Different a priori
  explanations vis-à-vis the likely direct/
  indirect impact of the earthquake on joblessness
  can be offered through various possible
  transmission mechanisms, which may be categorized
  as temporary as well as permanent impacts
• The loss of productive assets (agriculture land,
  livestock/fruit orchids/service sector) as well
  as prolonged absence from the job for various
  reasons may result in both temporary and
  permanent job losses. For instance, many people
  from mountain areas migrate to other cities of
  the country or even abroad for employment. Since
  most of these jobs are without any job
  guarantees, their returning back to the home town
  during post-disaster period and prolonged absence
  from the workplace may result in loss of jobs.
  Similarly, heavy toll of injuries both minor and
  major may result in prolonged absence of the
  injured from work and may lead to loss of jobs.

17

• It may be argued that joblessness is an indirect
  outcome of other impoverishment risks such as
  landlessness, access to common property and
  health risks and results in lowering of living
  standards and therefore marginalisation.
• Some likely positive externalities with regard to
  employment may also result from the migration of
  displaced people to other cities or from
  temporary job creation activities in the
  earthquake affected areas such as reconstruction
  projects.

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Table 3 Household Income and Expenditure
Before and After Earthquake
21
Table A3.19 Poverty Head Count
(At Rs. 897/- Per-capita Consumption
Expenditure)
22
Marginalisation and social disarticulation

• Theoretical Link Marginalisation risk is
  identified with loss of economic power and social
  status and loss of confidence in self and society
  with a sense of injustice at individual level
  whereas destabilization of community life and
  existing structure leads to social
  disarticulation (Cernea, 1997).
• Marginalisation and social disarticulation, two
  interconnected ones, are the ultimate outcome of
  various economic and social risks including
  landlessness, homelessness, joblessness and food
  insecurity which signify loss of economic power
  and standard of living faced by the displaced
  population for a long time.

23

• Cernea argues that these social and psychological
  dimensions are overlooked by the planners as well
  as theoretical approaches.
• Cernea model assigns particular importance to
  reconstruction of group structures both formal
  and informal at community level as well as
  overcoming individual/family marginalization as
  part of reconstruction. This is more so because
  for many displaced people marginalization would
  be temporary as post-reconstruction and
  rehabilitation of the economic activity will
  restore their socio-economic status but for
  others this loss of living standards could either
  be a prolonged or in some cases permanent.
• Vulnerable groups are particularly exposed to
  long-term marginalization and subsequent
  disarticulation if the reconstruction process is
  marred with inequality and social injustice.

24
Poor Health

• Theoretical Link Risks of poor health in the
  disaster-related displacement is different in
  nature from that of policy induced displacement
  the transmission mechanism in the latter case
  generally is that the reduced nutrition levels or
  prolonged exposure to severe weather conditions
  in poor housing lead to higher disease levels and
  may result in increased death rate.
• Moreover, contagious diseases among displaced
  population due to lack of sewerage and sanitation
  may increase the disease level. On the other
  hand, in case of disaster, the emergency
  situation caused by physical damages, such as
  deaths and injuries, intensifies health issues at
  a larger scale.

25
Table 5 Mean Value of Aid Received by the
household (Rs.)
26
Table 4 Household Responses on Aid Receiving