Bijoy Patro/International Federation

Chapter 3 - summary
Harnessing local capacities in rural India

Between 1994 and 2003, disasters - both 'natural' and technological - claimed 68,671 Indian lives, affected an average of 68 million people every year, and cost US$1.9 billion annually in direct economic damage. This toll is worse than for the previous decade, so the task of supporting the resilience of Indian communities to disasters has never been more urgent.

Resilience means the capacity to mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from the impacts of disaster - in a way which leaves communities stronger than before. This chapter presents three case studies illustrating ways of enhancing community resilience.

Our first study, which focuses on Samiapalli village in the disaster-prone state of Orissa, reveals how prioritising risk reduction before disaster strikes pays dividends in the future. During the 1990s, with the help of a local NGO, villagers embarked on a long process of development, one element of which was to construct disaster-proof homes. When the supercyclone of October 1999 struck the village, these houses saved both lives and livelihoods, while tens of thousands of people in weaker homes perished around them.

Our second study highlights the plight of subsistence farmers in the drought-stricken, semi-arid Zaheerabad region of Andhra Pradesh. Since at least the mid-1990s, the area has been suffering an ongoing disaster of chronic food insecurity, driven by drought and the failure of pest-prone cash crops such as wheat, rice and cotton. An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 debt-ridden farmers have committed suicide in the past 6 years. However, inspired by a local development agency, some of the state's poorest and most marginalized communities have rediscovered traditional, drought-proof seeds and farming techniques in a bid for self-sufficiency. This initiative has now spread to 65 villages.

Our third study describes how, following the devastating earthquake of 2001, villagers from Patanka in Gujarat state rebuilt their homes stronger than before, with the help of a partnership of local and international aid organizations. Farmers, left unemployed by three years of intense drought, retrained as masons and helped build earthquake-resistant houses for every family in the village. Building on the success of this initiative, villagers were able to access government funds to create a new rainwater-harvesting system to improve both their health and crop yields.

While each case study is unique, some common obstacles, principles and success factors emerge. The role of aid organizations is that of catalyst for a community-led process of self-transformation from vulnerability to resilience. Some villagers proved hostile to change and had to be won over through a process of consensus-building. The ideas, resources and motivation to increase resilience to disaster are often there within the community, but lie hidden or unrecognized. The challenge for aid organizations is to create the right environment within which these local resources can flourish. That may mean helping improve the confidence and status of more marginalized groups. Or connecting villagers with the financial and technical resources needed to help realize their plans.

A balance had to be struck between building on existing knowledge and finding acceptance for the benefits of new ideas and practices. Low levels of literacy and lack of exposure to alternative practices made this harder. Many of the villagers with most initiative had already left their communities to seek a better life elsewhere.

Within every community there were conflicting perspectives - particularly around the tension between today's immediate needs (enough to eat, saving money) and longer-term issues of protection from risk (clean water, safer homes). Reaching consensus over joint community action often took many months. Having achieved agreement, meeting the rising expectations of villagers (and their neighbours) then became a major challenge.

Meanwhile, to have any impact, individual projects must be linked to wider processes of creating resilience and reducing risk. In this respect, successful, locally-led initiatives are more likely to be replicated elsewhere than top-down projects imposed and funded by external agencies.

But first of all, any organization arriving from 'outside' must recognise that their presence may destabilize the existing balance of power in the community. Including the powerful - so as not to alienate them - while boosting the capacities of those less powerful, is a delicate balancing act. So finding the right entry-point is essential - an approach which builds community-wide trust and meets the real needs of those at risk. Whatever that entry-point is - whether improving water and sanitation or building disaster-proof homes - long-term success seems to depend on including the entire village community in the process. This can be challenging, if the community is divided along ethnic or caste lines.

Similarly, the process of enhancing resilience cannot limit itself to one particular hazard. Each community we analyse is prone to a range of different natural hazards - as well as the chronic risks of disease, food insecurity and poverty. A multi-dimensional approach, which strengthens livelihoods and skills as much as it strengthens physical infrastructure, is essential.

For this reason, the only sustainable way to boost resilience is to integrate disaster risk reduction within the wider development process. Such an approach mirrors the outlook of vulnerable people, who are often more concerned about reducing chronic, long-term risks like poverty or ill health, than they are about mitigating one-off disasters. This approach also entails working in cooperation with local government wherever possible. Sometimes, initiatives started at a local level are so good that the government will pick them up and apply them elsewhere.

Ten principles are common to the success of the case studies we present:

1. Find the right entry point into the community;
2. Create community consensus;
3. Build on local skills and knowledge;
4. Empower women;
5. Facilitate rather than fund - external agencies as catalysts;
6. Provide tangible results to establish authority for future projects; 7. Strengthen local livelihoods;
8. Find ways of replicating resilience beyond single communities;
9. Software as important as hardware; and
10. Integrate risk reduction with development.

Above all, our case studies illustrate that success is based on a people-centred approach, building on existing knowledge and resourcefulness, and upgrading the skills and status of those at risk, so they can cope with and recover from the full range of hazards which confront them.

Principal contributors to this chapter and box were Mary Todd and Tom Palakudiyil.
Todd was formerly responsible for disaster mitigation and preparedness in Christian Aid’s emergencies team. She now works as an independent consultant on disaster risk reduction and management. Tom Palakudiyil is Christian Aid’s regional manager for south Asia, managing programmes in Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka.