Measuring Commitment to Best Practice
HRI
NEWS
Interview with Riccardo Polastro
Humanitarian Crisis in Pakistan
In October 2005, Southern Asia suffered one of the most devastating earthquakes of the century in the region. The earthquake’s epicentre was located in the area of Kashmir and North-western Pakistan, two regions where poverty levels have always been highly elevated. In Pakistan alone, the death toll reached 73,000 and numerous infrastructures were badly damaged. Riccardo Polastro visited the area to complete the HRI surveys with first-hand information on the emergency and explains the particularities of the crisis that took place in one of the most mountainous regions, and also the most prone to seismic movement.
What are the distinct features of the humanitarian crisis that took place as a result of the earthquake in Pakistan?
First of all, it was the most devastating disaster of the end of 2005. The death toll and the number of people affected reached record numbers during that year. The international response, which began to arrive in 2006, was massive. In fact, it was the most important natural hazard of its kind. Finally, it cannot be forgotten that it was one of the 10 worst earthquakes in history, according to Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).
In the stages following the catastrophe, what were the humanitarian priorities?
The first priority was to determine the magnitude of the disaster. We are talking about very remote areas that are extremely difficult to access. Kashmir and north-western Pakistan are home to ethnic minorities, and are not social or ethnic priorities on the political agenda. Nevertheless, they are military priorities due to the conflict with India. In this context, reaching these areas and determining the real needs of those affected was essential to begin providing humanitarian aid. This initial stage lasted three weeks, and during this time, information was not communicated to donors. Let’s just say that this chain did not work very easily. There is, however, an issue that must be emphasized, and that is the fact that the humanitarian response was possible thanks to the Pakistani government. Pakistani officials facilitated access to the areas that are practically inaccessible due to the topography. Let’s not forget that the highest mountains in the world, the Himalayas, are located here.
You mentioned that Kashmir is an area with high poverty levels. How can reconstruction and development be fostered in such a poor area that also experiences a powerful earthquake?
Obviously, the earthquake’s impact is much more severe in a region like this. In cases like this, a great deal of the response is visible, but once the emergency is over, reconstruction remains, which is one of the most problematic issues that local authorities, and the population face. Usually, many promises are made, but not all are kept. In the case of Pakistan, however, given that it is an important geo-strategic ally of the United States, of Great Britain due to historical ties, and of other governments that support Pakistan with bilateral assistance, the reconstruction took on a dimension of its own, contributing to the country’s recovery. This, compared with other countries, worked better.
It has been almost a year since the earthquake. What is the situation there today?
According to data from secondary sources, recovery has progressed gradually. DARA’s team was not able to observe first hand some of the affected areas due to political reasons that prevented this. However, we were able to speak with many organisations that work in the region and they all described the international response as a huge success and stated that although not completed, reconstruction has made considerable progress. There is another issue that should be stressed and that is the fact that a very important reconstruction plan was prepared by the Pakistani government in conjunction with the United Nations. In general, this initiative has moved forward quite positively on a political level. However, we do not have information on some of the very remote areas we could not access, which makes us think that reconstruction has not been as efficient in these areas.
You mentioned a Pakistan-United Nations joint plan. Do you think that coordination among the humanitarian actors in Pakistan has been effective?
Yes, I think so, especially due to the fact that a government structure was created immediately with the mandate of coordinating on a national level all actions needed for a disaster of this magnitude. Also, an organization was established to organise humanitarian aid, define priorities and to show, in some way, the accomplishments that guide the coordination. If initiatives of this sort are not adopted, we often find that organisations put pressure on the government, creating dependency on foreign aid in the long run. In the Pakistani context, however, the government led the response and simultaneously, was advised by international organisations. Furthermore, the lessons learnt from previous experiences were quickly incorporated and as a result, the majority of the organisations and coordination integrated these lessons in their actions.
What are Pakistan’s main reconstruction challenges at this point?
There was a period when it was impossible to reach remote villages. Now, gradual, yet positive progress is taking place in this sense. However, I think one of the main challenges is to maintain a coordination structure in the event of a larger catastrophe. We are talking about a highly seismic area that lies on the tectonic plates of the Himalayan Mountains. For this very reason, there must be a capacity to react rapidly, and if this is already prepared and continues developing, it will be vital for future disasters. Also, a large part of the coordination and response to the 2005 earthquake was carried out from Islamabad, as Pakistan is still very centralised in many aspects. And, in cases like this one, it is essential to create and maintain disaster preparedness structures in provinces, districts, and most importantly, in local communities in order to have more effective actions. In other words, it needs to be taken down to a lower level so that it directly reaches the social network, that is, the population most exposed to future risks of disaster.