A ripple in development? - Channel Research

Changes in vulnerability to risk are determined by changes in:
• Livelihoods (reduced vulnerability through better shelter and better
livelihoods); here our findings in the other chapters would indicate
the vulnerability has remained as high.
• The social fabric (for example the way in which people ‘look out for
each other’ and circulate any information that they have heard about
threats); this has improved in connection with the disaster in the
Maldives and in Indonesia.
• The role of the state civil society (for example, the new interest of
the state in reducing disaster risks even for places that undergo regular
flooding, or the rise of community based organisations);a more
empowered state, especially at the local level as in Indonesia, would
indicate lower vulnerability.
• Local capacity (for example, knowing who to call to get information
about river levels upstream); this evaluation would indicate that this
has remained weak.
Several officials from the disaster risk reduction institutions in each one
of the three countries commented on concerns about increased levels of
hazard driven by climate change. This includes the hazard posed by
sea-level rise, changes in rainfall patterns and intensity, and changes to
the pattern of tropical cyclones. Two types of processes that could be
seen as changing vulnerability are:
1. Planned disaster risk reduction interventions.
2. Other aspects of the relief and recovery operation.
The first type of process could be seen in the work on the tsunami warning
centres, and in the creation of Disaster Management Centres
throughout Sri Lanka. It could also be seen in the efforts to model Sri
Lanka’s rivers to avoid damaging flash floods, and to develop building
regulations suitable for landslide areas. One of the biggest planned
changes in vulnerability may be due to the relocation of people away
from the seashore where the main hazard may not be tsunamis but
cyclones and storm surges. 80
The second type of process sometimes decreased vulnerability, but
occasionally increased it. Examples of increased vulnerability occurred
where resettlement sites were ill chosen and people found themselves at
risk of flooding, or without services such as water that increased their
risk of illness, or so far from their former livelihoods that they were forced
to change, losing the benefits of some of the capacities that they held.
80
Many shelter projects had already begun before the buffer zone policy was reversed. While some
of those living on the sea-shore were doing so for livelihood reasons, others did so because of the
lack of other land for housing. The overall effect in Sri Lanka has been a net movement of population
away from the shore.
94