Before disaster strikes
By Moeed Yusuf
Monday, 16 Aug, 2010
PAKISTAN has been inflicted with the worst floods in its history. This is the second major natural disaster to have hit the country in less than five years, the 2005 earthquake being the first.
After every such catastrophe, the national debate tends to focus exclusively on evaluating the government’s efforts at relief, and subsequently rehabilitation and reconstruction. The episode itself and the devastation caused by it are considered unfortunate, but uncontrollable by man.
This presumption is questionable and may explain why we end up with such colossal damage each time a major disaster occurs.
Natural disasters are indeed ‘natural’. However, the devastation they cause is not. The excessive damage from natural disasters is common across the developing world — 95 per cent of disaster-related deaths occur in developing countries and losses incurred are 20 times higher on average than in developed countries.
Social scientists argue that this is more than just a coincidence; the “disaster-development linkage” thesis, now accepted by virtually all quarters, argues that the devastation caused by disasters can be traced to the kind of development practices employed by a country. Unsustainable development practices leave both infrastructure as well as the local communities more vulnerable to disasters.
In Pakistan’s case, the virtually exclusive focus of the national debate on post-disaster efforts has led to the neglect of the more fundamental issue, i.e. the need for sustainable development practices as a means of limiting disaster-related losses. Even policy measures aimed at long-term improvements are concerned with management of the losses, not their ex ante mitigation — Musharraf’s silver bullet solution to what ensued after the 2005 earthquake was the establishment of the National Disaster Management Authority which again reflected the emphasis on post-disaster efforts. The result: Pakistanis were just as vulnerable to the next big disaster.
It is hardly surprising then that Pakistan’s development-disaster policy linkage is exceptionally poor. Outright neglect is obvious at various tiers. Even on paper, development visions have failed to integrate disaster mitigation. Only three national five-year development plans since 1947 talk of disasters and that too as indirect concerns.
Recent visionary documents have paid somewhat more attention — Environmental Impact Assessments for instance were mandated for large development projects by the Shaukat Aziz government — but even here the mention is more a function of the need to satisfy donors than any sincere desire to make a clean break from the past.
Literature on the subject argues that one of the most effective tools to ensure sustainability in development practices, one that may reflect sincerity on the part of the authorities, is to conduct ex ante ‘integrated assessment’. Integrated assessments allow policymakers to assess the economic, social and environmental concerns of a policy through a single-assessment tool, thus identifying the potential risks (including those that exacerbate the likelihood of disasters) attached with any initiative. In Pakistan, even the mention of the integrated approach remains absent for the most part.
Mindsets remain entrenched as well. Sustainability-inducing provisions are considered nuisances that come in the way of swift, profitable development. The government’s own functionaries regularly circumvent the protocols in lucrative investments.
Investment contracts are often secretive in nature and the deals tend to leave sustainability out of the picture; community concerns play second fiddle to the desire to maximise investment potential. The oil and gas sector for example is notorious for under-the-table contract negotiations — oil concession licences rarely ever surface for public scrutiny and when they do, they are inevitably found wanting on the sustainability count.
Next, even when the will exists, the institutional capability to effectively implement and monitor the policies is lacking. Agencies tasked to ensure environmental protection are low on the priority list and thus lack the requisite expertise and resources to ensure compliance. Further, environmental screening of development projects is still not strictly enforced and monitored. All this enhances vulnerability in disaster-prone areas.
Perhaps nowhere is the failure more obvious and consequential than in the forest sector. There is virtual consensus among global experts that hill and riverine forest cover directly contributes to reduced losses from natural disasters like earthquake and flooding.
Pakistani authorities are reminded of this fact after every disaster. Severe criticism was launched against forest-sector management as far back as the 1992 floods in Punjab (and more recently after the 2005 earthquake). Various policies including a complete ban on timber extraction in the north-west was employed. Yet, powerful timber mafias, pervasive corruption and, most importantly, the lack of any market-based incentives to shift from timber use to other contemporary construction alternatives led to precisely the opposite outcome.
Pakistan’s timber forest cover has experienced an unprecedented decline. Overall, less than five per cent of the country’s area is now forested and the current degradation rate will leave the country forest-less by 2025. Vulnerability to disasters will thus continue to rise.
By all accounts, natural disasters will likely be a fairly common occurrence in Pakistan in the coming years and decades. Long-term sustainability of development is therefore an absolute imperative.
Sustainability concerns must be internalised in national project planning. Moreover, stringent but practically implementable rules and regulations to ensure sustainable development practices must be developed. A key measure in this regard would be to mandate ex-ante integrated assessments of all national development policies.
The demand side of unsustainable development is also critical. Perverse incentives that prompt unsustainable use of resources ought to be replaced by meaningful incentive structures. These must be able to act as a buffer against market failures and thus allow Pakistani citizens to play a constructive role in preservation rather than forcing them to become predators of the environment.
------------
Engineering failures
By Mushtaq Gaadi
Monday, 16 Aug, 2010
THE devastating floods in Pakistan have once again ignited public debate on the necessity of new water reservoirs in the country. The proponents of Kalabagh Dam, including some prominent politicians, TV anchorpersons, and Punjab water engineers, hold that if Kalabagh dam had been built, we would not be facing the present disaster wreaked upon millions of people in the Indus Valley.
According to them, the Kalabagh dam or any other water engineering project should not be politicised because these issues are essentially ‘technical’. Decisions on such vital issues should be left to the wisdom of engineers and technical experts.
Implicit in this argument are three underlying assumptions, all three of which are incorrect. First, it is assumed that ‘technical’ engineering interventions in natural (water) systems have nothing to do with politics. Second, that the control of river flows through engineering structures is the best possible way to control flooding. Third, that the knowledge of the engineering community is conclusive and beyond any critical scrutiny. Nonetheless, mounting evidence and experiences throughout the world suggest that these assumptions are not only reductionist but also in fact part of the problem of river basin management.
A closer analysis of the present flood and flood-related events experienced at/around Taunsa barrage furnishes us with some counter-intuitive, and indeed, scandalous evidence: the very structures meant to control flooding have partially caused and definitely exacerbated the flood problem itself.
The flood trauma started with the breach of the eastern marginal embankment in the upstream of Taunsa barrage. The breach caused the Indus to outflank the barrage and the river carved out a new channel to the left of its original course. Very shortly, floodwater flowing down this new channel found its way into the extensive network of irrigation canals on the left side. Consequently, masses of roiling, churning floodwater are now rushing through and inundating relatively higher ground which was rarely inundated by the Indus. Nature is responsible, yes. But we must not overlook the role that engineering structures have played in transforming the present floods into an enormous disaster unparalleled in the history of this region.
Taunsa barrage is one of the most vulnerable diversion structures built across the Indus River. Therefore, it was recently rehabilitated and modernised with the help of a World Bank loan of $144m. The project was approved and implemented on an emergency basis so that the barrage could be kept functional. All that money has been washed right away. The Bank is now involved in similar costly rehabilitation works at Jinnah barrage, the latter also failing to withstand these recent floods. Jinnah barrage’s staff was compelled to blow up the embankments on the right bank resulting in widespread inundation and heavy damages to the under-construction hydropower project also stationed there. The Bank has plans to undertake similar rehabilitation projects at other barrages in Punjab.
When the rehabilitation of Taunsa barrage was being planned in early 2004, local civil society objected to the dominant engineering perspective and asked the Bank and the irrigation department to pay more attention to mitigating the barrage-induced alterations in river hydrology and problem of sediment deposition, a phenomenon which has made the flood protective structures susceptible to regular failure. In this regard, a memorandum was submitted to the then country director of the World Bank. The memorandum asked both the Bank and the provincial government to appoint an independent review commission to ascertain the nature and scope of rehabilitation works at Taunsa barrage. However, the country director turned down the demand in a separate press conference.
The main problem with Taunsa barrage is the rising riverbed owing to huge sediment deposition in the upstream areas. Before the construction of dams and barrages, the Indus used to transport about 250 megatons (Mt) of sediment annually, mostly silt and clay, to the Arabian Sea. This helped in the development and nurturing of freshwater mangroves prior to the phase of dam construction. By 1974-75, this had fallen to about 100 Mt per annum and it is believed the present rates are negligible. Taunsa barrage traps huge sediments left over fromthe upstream storage and diversion structures. Moreover, the pond area is additionally fed annually with large amounts of silt eroded from the highly degraded catchment areas of the Suleiman Range. These heavy silt loads are transported through western tributaries (hill-torrents) of the Indus River.
The obstruction of great volumes of water together with the suspension of a large amount of sediment has complicated the flooding problem at Taunsa barrage. The riverbed levels are now higher than they have ever been. The construction of a series of protective levees and dykes has also contributed to raising the riverbed and the sedimentation of upstream areas. These changes forced the river into developing an oblique flow line and establishing a more tortuous course. Consequently, it now spends its vigour on eroding the vulnerable banks. Moreover, the rising riverbed levels have rendered protective levees and river training works ineffective. Under the rehabilitation project, the crust level of the barrage was raised by one foot so that silt entry into the right bank canal could be controlled. The protective embankments were also to be raised correspondingly but criminal negligence in this regard resulted in no such measures being undertaken. Similarly, local accounts and media reports suggest that the barrage staff has failed to properly operate the newly installed motorised hoisting system.
According to these reports, 10 gates were not fully opened which, if true, turned out to be the main cause of the flood disaster. The truth of these reports must be ascertained, but if they hold, then an official inquiry must be held into the incident and people held accountable.The nature of the debate on the Kalabagh dam in the aftermath of the flood disaster is depressingly flawed. Not only is this debate politically divisive for an already fragile federation, it also covers up the story of how engineering failures have contributed to this disaster. Reconstruction without the benefits of an honest analysis would be tantamount to recreating this same situation, or even worse, in the future.
-------------
Baloch killings
Monday, 16 Aug, 2010
HE killing of 16 Punjabi ‘settlers’ in Balochistan in two separate incidents on Saturday is a grim reminder that the low-level insurgency in the province is nowhere near an end. Several points need to be made here. First, why have the provincial government and the security forces failed to provide protection to inter-city buses travelling to and from Balochistan? Ten people lost their lives in a cold-blooded attack — passengers from Lahore were pulled off a Quetta-bound bus and sprayed with bullets — that was entirely preventable had there been some kind of security measures in place. To be sure, it is impossible to provide water-tight security anywhere, least of all in a place like Balochistan. However, the attack on the bus was neither unexpected nor unusual. Better security for the inter-city buses is a must and is not something beyond the capacity of the authorities.
Second, why is the moderate Baloch leadership silent about the violence against those perceived to be outsiders? The silence of mainstream, nationalist voices in Balochistan is only widening the space for the extremists to operate in. True, Baloch moderates themselves feel under threat from the militant extremists in the province, but that does not justify standing by silently as an ethnic purge of Balochistan is attempted through the use of violence and intimidation. There is among certain Baloch leaders a proud history of working inside the Pakistani federation, using peaceful means to correct historic wrongs that have been wrought on the province by ‘centrist’ forces in the state apparatus. Difficult as it may be to speak out openly against the Baloch insurgents today, moderate Baloch leaders need to speak out against the vortex of violence that is dragging the province into an uncertain, volatile future. Third, the noises made by the centre, especially the political government in Islamabad, that Balochistan’s problems will be addressed soon have begun to peter out. The Aghaz-i-Huqooq-i-Balochistan package, the NFC award, the 18th Amendment and various other fiscal measures have all been sensible measures and applauded as such, but they are at best solutions addressing the periphery of the problem in Balochistan today. Little to nothing has come of the central issue of missing persons, with the army insisting there are no missing persons, a position that independent observers and rights groups view with a great deal of scepticism. Moreover, the state does not appear to have a coherent strategy to engage the Baloch in political dialogue, especially the radical elements that have turned to violence. Further delay in addressing those central problems will only deepen the Baloch crisis.
----------------
Mosque furore
Monday, 16 Aug, 2010
FOR a brief few hours, US President Barack Obama stood on the right side of the startling national debate in America over private plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Centre in New York. After weeks of declining to enter the fray over what is ostensibly a local issue (authorities in New York have already approved plans for the mosque), Mr Obama appeared to speak out forcefully in favour of the mosque at an iftar dinner on Friday: “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the founders must endure.” Those were marvellous words, a clear expression of the only correct moral, legal and constitutional position that can be taken on the issue of the New York mosque-cum-community centre.
Within hours, however, in the face of ferocious Republican criticism, Mr Obama appears to have backtracked. On Saturday, the American president told reporters: “I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.” So what appears to have been a clarion defence of the New York mosque has been watered down to a professorial dilation on the rights Americans enjoy. Sadly, America’s politicians, especially Republicans, appear to have let down their country and all that it is supposed to stand for. The 9/11 attacks were executed by Al Qaeda, not Muslims at large. That Al Qaeda espouses a distorted view of Islam has nothing to do with ordinary, law-abiding Muslims practising their religion. These are obvious facts. Unfortunately, some American politicians appear to have calculated that Islamophobia is a potent vote-getter. But that is as dangerous as it is self-defeating. Al Qaeda and militant Islamists could probably not dream of a better propaganda opportunity: see, they will say, America really is against Islam. The furore over the mosque isn’t winning hearts and minds for America, it is poisoning them.
------------------
Looting of flood victims
Monday, 16 Aug, 2010
ATTACKS on food convoys, such as those seen in Muzaffargarh on Friday, obviously cannot be condoned but it is possible to understand why they take place. Desperate times sometimes result in desperate measures, and starving people who have been badly let down by the state can turn unruly if little or no relief is forthcoming. But that is entirely different from what is happening in parts of Sindh where bandits are reportedly looting flood affectees as they try to make it to safer ground. The meagre belongings of an already ravaged people have been snatched at gunpoint while livestock too has been stolen. The key difference here is that the bandits who are robbing the poor are doing so not so much out of desperation but because they are criminals by profession. Unlike the hungry who looted food on Friday, these armed robbers in district Sukkur are looking to profit from the misery of the poor.
Our moral compass clearly went askew at some point. Instead of lending a helping hand in a time of crisis, some of us instead turn into predators. Imagine this if you can. A family’s house has been inundated by floodwater and standing crops as well as farm animals have been washed away. The victims try to grab whatever they can before the dash for safety but are robbed on the way. This is not to say that such despicable acts of violence are the norm in Pakistani society. Far from it, for there are also reports of ordinary citizens who have gone the extra mile to help their neighbours and even complete strangers. But the state too must play its part. Flood victims must not only be housed, fed and given medical care, their protection from criminal elements should also be ensured.
-------------