PUNYA SAGAR MARAHATTA

We have been talking since long, but action is yet to start. Earthquake came, hit and went. It is like an alarm clock for the Nepali society since the historic days. Some of those alarms were able to wake us up, some of them we ignored. So, what difference does it make if we ignore them? Is it something we are ignoring, or we are forced to ignore? Is it our ignorance or resilience? Or even incompetence? Charles Darwin defined ignorance as factor of begetting confidence. However, does our contemporary society have confidence in fighting against natural disasters like earthquakes?

The issue is not about ignoring, it is more linked to our incompetence. We are trying to avoid the fact that our disaster risk management strategies are superficial, foreign knowledge-based and cosmetic. Our competencies lie on our traditional knowledge base, which we gave up considering it to be one of the major hurdles for us to become modern, developed and as competent as the West. However, our values, systems and knowledge could not be wiped off. Hence, our modernity is hybrid, underdeveloped, and in no way closer to the West.

We are not ignoring, rather are terrified from the impending disasters just because we are incompetent to face them. There was a time when natural resources were considered to be things to be looted, according to the theorists. They understood that communities in the developing and/or underdeveloped world were looting the natural resources as much as they could. It was never true, and the theorists corrected their perception when they realized after multiple studies that the traditional knowledge base was existent in ancient societies which tamed communities to optimise the use of natural resources; because those resources were linked with the livelihood of the people.

Rivers were precious for the livelihood in the Indian subcontinent, and, hence, were worshipped as Hindu Goddess Ganga. We can find many `Bandeuta` (the forest god) in rural Nepal, not only to protect the users but to protect and optimise the use of fuel and fodder. Many such traditions can be noted which have been linked to the livelihood of the people, and for the optimisation of the natural resources available.

Interestingly, the societies in earlier times practiced the ideas for optimizing the use of resources. It was a community-based participatory practice. Is it not a model for us to revive for our development and disaster risk management initiatives? Cannot it be possible to link disaster risk management activities with the livelihood of the people?The success stories of community-based water resources or forest management have direct link with recurrent need and livelihood of the people. Community-based disaster risk management cannot be an exception. Disaster risk management is the flip side of development. Hence, if natural resources management is a tool for development, the same is disaster risk management as well.

We are consistently telling people to come up with concrete buildings, to build resilience against earthquake. We know or must know that properly engineered concrete buildings are not feasible financially to most of the people at the community level. This is the fact. Hence, people are constructing their own graves in the form of buildings. Weak and ill-designed concrete structures are more vulnerable than the traditional ones to respond to earthquakes. Awareness at the community level is not the challenge, rather challenges are the resources to build resilience.

Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) approach could be a reliable vehicle to identify and use the resources at the community level. At present, the flow of resource for CBDRM is ‘trickling down’, and it is not community owned, identified and governed, therefore, it isn’t providing any significant advancement in resilient buildings. Resource flow has to be ‘horizontal’, and approach should be participatory. The top-down resource flow for CBDRM is never participatory, and most of the time mandatory. This top-down resource flow forces community people to think the particular project as a problem-solving act of the donor. There is less or no ownership. On the contrary, if the people are guided to resource identification, generation and mobilization for resilient building, they can develop their own resources. Such resources have horizontal flow, are more participatory, demand-driven and governed by the community. Such community activities are directly linked to the livelihood of the people, and provide a sense of ownership. Hence, it is hence pertinent to empower people to participate for resource generation from their recurrent activities. This approach is sustainable too. Earthquake disaster, as of now, is somehow understood by the community as the issue of some I/NGOs, academia and the government. This is just because the resource source, till date, lies there.

Marahatta is Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Urban Planning, IoE, TU.

punyasagarmarahatta@yahoo.com

source:Marahatta,Punya(2011),"For earthquake-resilient buildings,Time for action‚ not words", The Himalayan Times,9 Nov 2011