Hello All,
Important discussion on reconstruction. The following four paragraphs
are abstracted from an introductory chapter I wrote for the book The
Legacy of Mitch: Lessons from Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Honduras,
Ensor, M.J (ed.) Tempe: The University of Arizona Press. It is a
somewhat pessimistic view, based on what happened in Honduras. There is
also an editorial I wrote for the IJDRR (March 2013) that speaks to the
point that Ian makes about the progress in research and the failure to
reduce risk.
The fundamental question that needs to be asked is how reconstruction
can address the complex of environmental, economic and social variables
that produces the disaster in a way that is sustainable, reduces
vulnerability, and enables people at the household and community level
to survive socially and economically. In other words, how do you
reconstruct and recover economically without re-installing the same
system that generated the environmental degradation and extreme
vulnerability in the first place. Reconstruction therefore becomes a
test of the capacity of the system to respond to a clear demonstration
that the major human and environmental destruction that takes place in
the disaster is rooted in the changes enacted in the social and
environmental setting that took place in the distant and probably not so
distant past.
The dilemma lies in the fact that pre-disaster policies and practices
of production are both the major forms of generating income and in many
contexts directly linked to environmental degradation and increased
vulnerability. For example, from a perusal of the relevant documents,
it was clear that the complex relationships between environmental,
economic and social factors that led to the devastation of Hurricane
Mitch in Honduras were both apprehended and appreciated by Hondurans and
the international community. However, the outcome of reconstruction
plans were a set of policies and practices that addressed symptoms, even
effectively in some cases, but did little to address causes, thus
condemning themselves to repeat the exercise at some future point as
both causes and symptoms evolve with attempts to address them.
If we view the death and destruction of Hurricane Mitch as due in part
to economically and socially inscribed practices and the capital and
commodity flows that created and sustained them both nationally and
internationally, the capacity of the Honduran government to address the
root causes of the disaster was limited. For that matter, under current
global economic structures, the capacity of any single society to
address such root causes is open to question.
In contemporary disasters perhaps our most important task is to
discover and implement those aspects of reconstruction that feasibly
within the limits of action permitted by existing structures can reduce
both environmental degradation and vulnerability to hazards.
Post-hurricane Honduras provided an important opportunity for economic
forms and practices to be altered towards more sustainable forms of use,
but little could be achieved toward that end. However, whether the
political and economic structures of the nation could, even with the
necessity and the incentive of reconstruction, truly ever come to grips
with a set of endemic conditions that are so deeply embedded by both
national and international forces in their own forms and practices
remains in doubt.
Best to all,
Tony
--
Anthony Oliver-Smith
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
1739 NW 11th Road
Gainesville, FL 32605
tel.352-377-8359;Fax 352-392-6929
www.anthonyoliver-smith.net
|