1. Disasters in North-Western
Pakistan: challenges,
responses and limitations
4th IDRC 26-30 August 2012
DAVOS, Switzerland
Inam ur Rahim
and Daniel Maselli
http://www.fresh.org.pk

2. Disasters during the last 7 years
in Northern Pakistan
 Earth Quake 2005 (Hazara, AJK and Malakand)
 Loss of life 90,000
 Affected people 6 million and demolished infrastructure
 Insurgency 2007-till date (Malakand and Fata)
 Loss of life 26,000
 2.8 million displaced in Malakand
 2.6 millions displaced in FATA
 Floods 2010 (Malakand, Hazara)
 Loss of life 1800,
 loss of irrigated land in the mountain areas 35000 ha,
 damage to infrastructure (bridges, roads, schools etc)

3. Map indicating affected areas
Flood affected
Earth quake affected
Insurgency affected

4. Response of the state
 Still struggling with disaster management
 National Disaster Management Act 2010
 Institutions created for disaster management
 NDMA, PDMA
 ERRA. PERRA, CERRA
 PaRRSA
 All involved in rehabilitation and reconstruction 
large overheads
 Ministry of Disaster and risk management created
 bureaucratic motive
 Policy and vision for DRR still not in sight
(Construction/ taming of rivers/counter-insurgency)

5. Response of civil society
 Limited to rescue and relief
 In-cash and in-kind local contributions for
rescue/relief during earth quake
 72% of the IDPs were accommodated by
relatives and friends in plain areas obligatory
under local tribal codes
 90% of the flood affected families rescued by Tal
(a mutual support system of the neighborhood)
and clan members with in the village

6. Mechanism for regulating
assistance
 All the external assistance was channeled
through provincial authorities
 Criteria of NICs of the family heads laid down for
registration and provision of assistance
 Top-down approach for rehabilitation and re-
construction
 The role of military dominated in rehabilitations
and reconstruction
 Assistance is provided on the basis of
geography rather than vulnerability

7. Socio-ecological distribution of
the disasters
Tenure Disputes among
State, landowners
and tenants
Landlords
Small landowners
(remittances based)
Landless tenants
(subsistence crop/L based)
Small landowners
(Service/trade based)
Landless tenants
(livestock/C based)
Landless tenants (commercial crop based)

8. Limitations-1
 Large number of affected people ignored and
unaffected rewarded
 Complicated registration mechanism for affected
communities increased the suffering of affected
 The non-availability of NIC made many affected
women headed households without assistance
 Restrictions on INGOs made many reluctant to
invest (NoC to be obtained)
 Non-involvement of traditional institutions in relief
and rehabilitation prohibited proper channelization of
assistance

9. Limitations-2
 Lacking coordination among assistance
providers during relief
 Lacking transparency and lack of effective
monitoring system
 Political biases in relief assistance distribution
 Competition among GO and local NGO to
disburse assistance/relief
 Week local institutions private benefits
over rides public benefits
 Limited capacity of local institutions in DRR

10. Suggestions for improvement
 Assist on vulnerability basis rather than location
 Reduce the hindrances in access to assistance
 Ensure non-discrimination in assistance
 Incorporate traditional welfare mechanism in DRR
 Involve political institutions to monitor expenditure
 Waved off restrictions on international donors (NoC)
 Incorporate DRR in development agenda
 Build DRR capacity at various levels
 Invest in local traditional institutions
(strengthening and capacity building)

11. THANKS
http://www.fresh.org.pk/