After the floods
Dr. A Q Khan
The monsoon rains of the summer of 2010 were extraordinarily heavy in Pakistan and lasted for three months. This resulted in severe floods affecting the country from north to south. The violent floods of 1988, in which the roads to Kahuta were cut off and the water level in the Soan River had almost reached the Kak bridge, pale in comparison to the floods of 2010.
In August, the United Nations stated that the number of people affected by these massive floods could exceed the combined total of the victims of three recent mega-disasters – the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, the October 2005 earthquake in Kashmir and the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Whenever a calamity hits, the practice all over the world is for governments, foreign agencies and NGOs to prepare reports on the actual or anticipated damage to the economy and the loss of human lives and property. Such assessments are usually off the mark. In the case of many governments, there is usually a large discrepancy between the assessments, with government agencies exaggerating losses in an effort to receive large amounts of foreign assistance, while the foreign agencies and NGOs underestimate the damage due to restricted access to the affected areas. The main focus of these reports is on estimates of the damage caused and the costs of long-term rehabilitation.
Two important reports on flood damages and need assessment have been made public.
1. The document titled “Pakistan Floods 2010-Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment,” which was produced by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the government of Pakistan.
2. The document, “Civil Society’s Rapid Appraisal of Flood Damage and Need Assessment Process Being Led by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank,” is a consolidated report brought out by the Rural Development Policy Institute, the Pakistan Debt Cancellation Campaign and Oxfam.
While the second report is a document of about 10 papers, the first one covers about 184 pages. Significant contributions were made by one UN official and financial and technical support was extended by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Many other organisations gave invaluable inputs, as did Pakistan’s federal, provincial and district governments, including the planning and development departments, the provincial disaster management agencies, the FATA Secretariat and the Azad Jammu and the Kashmir planning and development department.
According to press reports, the United Nations prepared an additional report titled “the Pakistan Floods Emergency Response Plan.” The two reports were coordinated for proper assessment.
If we look back to the announcements made after the 2005 earthquake, we note that first there was no mention of casualties. Then came reports of a few hundred, then a few thousand and within a week the numbers rose to scores of thousands. Incidentally, despite massive foreign assistance and contributions by domestic philanthropists, a very large number of victims are still living in tents without a proper roof over their heads, have no electricity or running water and are now facing heavy rains and severe cold. No money has filtered down to many of them.
There was a large variable in damage and rehabilitation assessment and estimates after the 2005 earthquake, ranging from $1 billion to $7 billion. The estimates or assessment of the damages caused by the recent floods also vary greatly – from $8 billion to $20 billion, or even more. The estimates of about $10 billion made by the World Bank and the and Asian Development Bank seem on the lower side due to original costs having been used, rather than the inflated rates prevailing today. They are in a position to provide the required funds and they had the various agencies and organisations in place to do the job through their workers and volunteers and to obtain the most reliable data.
The Pakistani government lacks foresight and the ability to foresee a disaster and plans for urgent response. Everything is done on an ad hoc and day-to-day basis. There are many so-called experts and intellectuals who excel in preparing feasibility reports with lots of suggestions. My own experience is that such thick reports, which contain a lot of data, are hardly ever studied by the government officials responsible and end up in cupboards and ultimately disposed of.
Here I would like to give my own views on the various assessments. In Pakistan army units and local land/revenue officials are always available on the spot. They are in the best position to assess the local damages and needs after a calamity, and to do so quickly and accurately.
I believe that the report prepared by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, though nearer to the mark, still lacks true estimates. This is evident from the report titled “Civil Society’s Rapid Appraisal of Flood Damage and Need Assessment Process.” The information for this report was collected from flood-affected people, local officials and civil society organisations from affected districts in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. Unfortunately, this report does not give any information about Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
The most astonishing fact that emerges from this report is the fact that the majority of the community groups interviewed expressed ignorance about any assessment conducted in their area by government and official agencies to ascertain damage and needs. This casts serious doubts on the authenticity and validity of the comprehensive report prepared by the World Bank/Asian Development Bank. Its estimates of $8-10 billion were considered too low. On the other hand, the estimates of the ministry of finance of about $30 billion were considered too high. If we make an educated guess, the estimate would be in the range of about $20 billion. It was definitely a setback for the government, which had projected the damages at $43 billion.
Extensive research has been done, and information published, on flood damages and rehabilitation expenditures by journalists, NGOs and researchers. Researcher and columnist Dr Farrukh Saleem has written extensively on this subject. His analysis and estimates are usually reliable.
|