Floods are not natural; they are caused by humans

         Even though we have a deep grasp of nature, we haven't been able to coexist with it. For no other reason than they have been attempting to capture it, and all such actions are likely to end in disaster. Just think about this. If an earthquake occurs in a mountainous area where no one lives and there is no infrastructure, or if floodwaters inundate a desert where no one lives, there won't be any damage. The majority of disaster specialists concur that a disaster occurs when a hazard collides with vulnerability. Therefore, one may claim that losses are not only the result of the rain. Vulnerabilities have been produced by bad governance or a lack of governance. The vulnerability of human settlements was only made apparent by the rain.

 

The PATTAN organization conducted a survey following the 1997 floods to learn about flood-related losses in Sargodha and Muzaffargarh. Surprisingly, there was a negative correlation between losses and flooding intensity. Losses were three times higher in Sargodha than in Muzaffargarh, where the degree of water was far lower. Land usage and population density were the key determinants. In Muzaffargarh, river Jhelum crop cultivation along riverbanks was as low as 30%, compared to over 90% in Sargodha. Similar to Muzaffargarh, Sargodha's riverine zone had a higher population density. The water would be captured by building a canal parallel to the river Jhelum's left bank. Due to the majority of it being stuck in low-lying places, the floodwater, despite its enormous velocity, cannot return to the river. Subsequent disasters result from this in the form of diseases or epidemics. Even though we are aware of regions that are susceptible to drought and earthquakes, we have frequently failed to manage calamities.

 

The two exclusionary practices listed below appear to be the cause of Pakistan's frequent natural disasters: Two issues with development planning are 1, the exclusion of disaster-prone populations from decision-making and implementation, and 2, the lack of coherence. I'd also include the incapacity of civil society to hold negligent government officials and ruling parties accountable.

 

Views from the Frontline, global research that encompassed 52 nations, was just completed by the Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR). It was the biggest impartial assessment of local disaster risk reduction (DRR) ever conducted. It intended to improve the inclusion of at-risk individuals, civil society, and the government in the design and application of practices and policies to lower risks and boost resilience. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) both advocate an inclusive, "people-centered" approach to resilience-building, and these measures also developed a local baseline and local monitoring method to track progress in this direction.

 

In Pakistan, PATTAN conducted a study between 2019 and 2020 that involved interviews with more than 1,700 households, 150 NGOs, and 150 members of the local government in 15 districts throughout the nation. Flooding, followed by earthquakes, epidemics, droughts, pollution, and heavy rainfall, were ranked as Pakistan's six most destructive and common catastrophes by the respondents (who live in disaster-prone areas). It's interesting to note that many respondents also considered inequality and poverty as catastrophes. More than 90% of disaster-prone communities claimed that they had never been contacted or included in the planning, implementation, or evaluation of catastrophe risk by state institutions, which constitutes illegal negligence.

 

According to the study, the national average for the percentage of disabled people is lower in disaster-prone regions. Consider the fact that 37% of respondents stated they have family members with chronic illnesses, while 1 in 5 respondents claimed they have disabled family members. More than one-third of those affected by disasters were likely to claim that they significantly increased economic losses. A similar percentage of persons were likely to feel that full rehabilitation and recovery were not conceivable, and nearly half of the respondents thought that disaster-related losses had multiplied recently.

 

Only 16% of those surveyed said the government provided assistance following disasters, compared to 31% to 34% who said friends or family, NGOs, or religious organizations. NGOs and early social networks play important roles both during and after disasters. Therefore, it might be said that the state hasn't handled calamities well. Many of PATTAN's study's conclusions are supported by the recent surge of urban and rural flooding.

 

The study also aimed to evaluate the involvement and participation of vulnerable groups in risk assessment, planning, and implementation as well as their understanding of the environment and DRR policies and programmes. As many as 97% of respondents reported that they were unaware of DRR policy and strategies, in contrast to the National Disaster Management Authority's (NDMA) Act 2010 and plan. Most locals attributed poor implementation and disaster management to powerful and dishonest governmental authorities in their area.

 

Even though this year's rainfall is 400% higher than last year's, the scale of the disasters was the same. The state's laws and regulations regulating the participation of marginalized and disadvantaged women and men in disaster-risk planning and implementation have continued to be broken despite numerous disasters. Our catastrophe governance, which is terrible governance, is evident in the absence of empowered local governments, ineffective and corrupt local disaster management organizations, and lifeless national and provincial disaster management commissions.

 

There is no organized demand coming from any organized forum. As a result of their networks' reluctance to adopt a pro-people stance and hold government figures accountable, NGOs appear to have lost their moral fiber. Accountability has become a catchphrase with no real significance. What then should be done?

 

First, develop a catastrophic narrative focused on governance and vulnerability rather than blaming nature. Demand that "DRR and inclusive-risk-governance" be included in each political party's manifesto. Third, integrate the NDMA Act with local ordinances and establish minimum requirements in light of Article 140A of Pakistan's Constitution. Fourth, put pressure on governments to enact laws requiring community and female participation in decision-making and implementation structures and procedures. Establish DRR committees at all tiers of the local government organization, as the fifth step. Build community resilience in disaster-prone areas by providing regular training and education. Improve student sensitivity in the seventh grade through educational materials and exercises. Build a solid platform for the expression of the needs of the most vulnerable groups, and establish connections between rural and urban networks and social organizations.

 

Finally, sanity must win out. For instance, everyone is aware that certain months are prone to flooding and that these months are also when the glacier melts most quickly. Additionally, we are aware of the paths taken by torrents and floods. Why don't the authorities take action in advance if we are aware of everything beforehand? They cannot use nature as an excuse for their criminal irresponsibility. People must be included in disaster risk reduction efforts to lessen the effects of disasters.