On 3rd May 2019, Tropical Cyclone Fani hit the Odisha coast affecting the lives of over 15 million people. Of these, the largest number of people were affected by failure of basic services—electricity, telephone connectivity, and to a limited extent, road connectivity. People initially feared there being a shortage of essential commodities, or an inordinate rise in their prices, but that did not happen. The basic services are expected to be restored for at least three-fourths of the affected population within a month or less. Life will be back to normal for them.

For about a quarter of the affected population, the aftermath of the Cyclone will have a much longer effect. There are the people living in the slums of Bhubaneswar and Cuttack cities and the economically less endowed people in many villages of Puri district and some in Khurda district, who will have to fight a long battle to restore what they have lost. ‘Build Back Better’ is a favorite punch-line for those in the disaster response sector, but there are many fault lines emerging that will make this a tough proposition.

The change in dynamics of government—non-government relations over the past two decades has had implications in the post-disaster response, and reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Odisha. After the 2013 Cyclone Phailin, the Government of Odisha was at the forefront of rehabilitation and reconstruction. The World Bank-funded Odisha Disaster Recovery Project was almost entirely a government affair, save some limited involvement of non-governmental organizations in social mobilization of communities identified for rehabilitation. This has been a very long drawn process, that is not yet complete.

Rebuilding after disasters such as the cyclones, especially for poorer communities who suffer loss of property and livelihoods, however, requires a different approach—both social and technical. For one, there is need for an enabling mobilization approach to select beneficiaries. In such disasters, almost everyone in a community is affected, albeit in varying magnitudes. How does one select a few households for a particular benefit, a task quite difficult to achieve in regular development projects, leave alone when combined with the trauma caused by the disaster.

There are cases where priorities of planners and those of the affected people will be in clear conflict. For example, in the case of marine fisher-communities, the choice of living nearer to the coast is driven by their primary livelihood activity. Safety concerns will dictate that they be moved more inland, and houses built where it is less likely to be affected by cyclones in the future. Moving away from the seashore will not be accepted by the people, as it would immediately hamper their daily lives.

Unfortunately, in the government sector, post-disaster rehabilitation or reconstruction work becomes part of the routine, relying on templatized solutions, not taking people’s needs into account or enabling processes for capacity building. The results achieved often do not contribute to enhancing the disaster resilience of the people and communities.

Read the full article about disaster relief based on community realities by Liby Johnson at India Development Review.