Recently I conducted a major research project on behalf of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre in Bangkok and the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). The research evaluated progress in how Disaster Risk Reduction, along with Climate Change, is being mainstreamed into government planning to achieve sustainable development in the Asia Pacific region. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction is a now globally recognized system that promotes the adoption of a Disaster Risk Management approach to develop decision-making to protect public investments from the impact of hazards as well as prevent them from exacerbating the existing risk profile of communities and assets. The language and terminology of the international disaster sector is unnecessarily confusing – something I highlighted in my research report as being in dire need of simplification as it creates barriers to acceptance. Disaster Management, Disaster Risk Management and Disaster Risk Reduction each describe separate, specific management practices and policies. For clarity here, I have avoided acronyms and used complete titles, hence the seemingly unusual use of capitals at places. My report –“Sustainable Development, Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction Integration,” highlighted the achievements and challenges across the 26 member countries of the Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Risk Reduction and made recommendations on what needs to be done by countries and communities to build their resilience to multiple shocks. The findings showed that while there had been progress, certain key challenges remained consistent across most countries, including Pakistan. These include: insufficient funding; political will; a lack of comprehensive risk assessments; capacity constraints; local/district level participation is minimal; public-private partnerships are almost non-existent; trans-border issues not sufficiently understood; and man-made disasters, including the impacts of conflict are totally overlooked.

The report forms part of the Asia-Pacific contribution for the global consultations to shape the second phase of the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA-1), a United Nations initiative that was adopted by 168 countries, including Pakistan, in 2005. HFA-1, for which the timeframe concludes in 2015 focuses only on “disasters caused by hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks”. While emphasizing that coordination with other hazards may be important, until now, they have not been included as part of the global Disaster Risk Reduction framework. As a result, man-made hazards such as industrial or nuclear accidents, fires, food insecurity, pandemics, and the impact of conflict-related issues are not properly considered.

This omission struck me as rather odd as there are many overlaps between the risks and impacts associated with both natural and man-made disasters and both have devastating effects on communities. Managing them separately creates a duplication of services and resources and also leads to ad hoc planning and gaps. Other high-level international reports have also been highlighting this omission and there are now growing international calls for governments to pay more attention to man-made disasters in the Disaster Risk Management frame-work. To understand why this matters, it is worth looking at just a few of the key areas of major concern and why they need to be addressed alongside natural disasters. Industrial accidents such as chemical and oil spills can cause substantial devastation for communities and the economy. Industrial accidents are also sometimes triggered by natural disasters, as was the case in Japan where the 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered a major industrial emergency at nuclear power plants. According to a 2013 report by the World Nuclear Association, there are currently 119 nuclear power reactors in Asia, with 49 under construction and another 100 with confirmed plans, but there is little research available on the Disaster Risk Reduction planning for communities within the at-risk areas, including trans-border regions, that could be potentially affected by an accident at one of these sites.

Off the coast of Sindh, not far from Karachi, lies a dangerous seismic fault line. Should at some time in the future, a shift in the tectonic plates causes an undersea earthquake in that area, the risk of a tsunami striking the coast of Sindh is relatively high. Karachi would potentially be at risk of great devastation, with substantial loss of life. Yet there are housing developments built in at-risk areas. Although planners have deemed it safe to build, no comprehensive Disaster Risk Management plans that fully assess and address the multiple risks to the communities should an earthquake and tsunami strike that area, have yet been prepared. Preparedness and protection of communities is paramount. Japan, a developed country with substantial Disaster Risk Management planning and procedures, got it wrong. We in Pakistan should learn from this and plan accordingly. Like natural disasters, man-made disasters have a serious impact on the ability of countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development. Conflict is a man-made disaster that is the most prevalent and costly. According to the United Nations, more than 1.5 billion people live in conflict-affected countries, up to 50 % of which are also affected by natural disasters. Pakistan is just one of these countries dealing with both but is one of the most affected. The country has suffered massive shocks in recent years from both natural disasters and conflict. The Ministry of Planning, Development and Reform and the United Nations Development Programme recently launched the Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Report 2013 which highlighted natural and man-made disasters – particularly the impacts of the 'War on Terror' – as being among the key challenges inhibiting Pakistan's progress towards achieving the Development Goals. Conflict and terrorism have cost at least USD 68 billion by 2011 – at least 3 times the cost of natural disasters. The cost has continued to escalate. This inhibits Pakistan's progress in other critical development sectors such as education, health and infrastructure but is not considered in disaster planning.

Managing conflict related issues including preparedness and mitigation, post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation, is a challenge that many countries are today grappling with. While the direct response to conflict is one for law enforcement authorities / militaries, these other substantial conflict-related issues need to be addressed. The Asia Synthesis Report on Consultations on the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA-2) notes: “In approaching HFA-2, the importance of understanding multiple risks communities face, including conflict, and building their capacity to cope with the risks, was brought up. The need to focus HFA-2 on building resilience of nations and communities to multiple shocks, also through the ability to address issues such as hunger, food insecurity and migration has been highlighted in consultations”. Some multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors have also been drawing attention to the need for a multi-hazard approach and encouraging countries to take a more holistic approach for both natural and man-made disasters in Disaster Management strategies. This then, is something for Pakistan's National and Provincial Disaster Management Authorities, and other key government ministries and departments such as Finance and Planning to consider. But the country already has significant resourcing challenges in dealing with natural disasters and other priorities so this may be difficult. However, this should not preclude taking whatever measures are possible.

The parallels between natural disasters and conflict are obvious: loss of life; damaged and destroyed houses, massive displacements of populations; increased urban vulnerability resulting from migrating populations; environmental degradation (which leads to future disasters); famine and increased levels of food insecurity; prolonged poverty; lost livelihoods; destruction of crops and livestock; and massive socio-economic shocks. Some areas in Pakistan have had to deal with both either simultaneously or one after the other. It takes years for communities to recover from either natural or man-made disasters / conflict but to try to recover from both is truly devastating.

Swat is a good example. In 2009 this beautiful region was the scene of conflict and an ensuing complex emergency when the entire population had to be moved to safety prior to military operations to subdue an aggressive and dangerous militancy. In a remarkable feat of organization led by the Special Support Group that was established by the Pakistan Army on behalf of the government, the communities were sheltered then safely returned home six months later. However, they then had to deal with substantial damage to their homes and community infrastructure. In 2010, Swat was again devastated, this time by a massive flood which swept all before it including more than 100 bridges, thereby dividing whole communities, making movement of relief and recovery goods very difficult and creating potential security issues.

When natural disasters and conflict issues collide – as they did in the September 2013 Balochistan earthquake – the need to look at both together becomes apparent. Military relief convoys were fired on by the militants, and two relief helicopters, including one carrying senior government officials assessing the damage, were fired on in rocket attacks. The threatening security situation made it impossible for the government to allow UN or international NGOs to assist on the ground and only a very small group of local NGOs were able to work there and even they were at great risk. The Army, as always, very ably took care of relief efforts but it made the response extremely difficult and exacerbated the stress on affected communities. This highlights the problems of responding to disasters in areas affected by any sort of conflict.

If in the future, there is a major disaster of any sort in a more populated area affected by conflict, the situation would be extremely challenging. For example, had the floods hit Swat in 2009 when the area was affected by conflict, one can only imagine how difficult it would have been to respond. The Army would of course swing into action as they always do in times of crisis, but it would be a massive challenge for civilian responders to assist. We can only hope a crisis like this never happens, or preferably, plan for such a possibility.

There are many challenges in addressing the prevention, mitigation and impacts of conflict aspects of man-made disasters but there are some standouts. One of the most visible that exemplifies the complexity and cost is that of displaced populations. Although natural disasters cause displacements, it is conflict, both local and regional, that causes the greatest and most long-term problem. A complex emergency resulting from conflict usually has some or all of the following characteristics – extensive violence and/or loss of life; displacements of populations; widespread damage to societies and economies; the need for large-scale, multi-faceted humanitarian assistance; difficulties in providing humanitarian assistance due to political and military constraints; and significant security risks for humanitarian relief workers. There are obvious parallels with the characteristics of natural disasters and the shock to communities and the national economy equally if not more extensive.

Displaced populations fall into two categories – one trans-border and the other is internal. Refugees are populations fearing persecution and violent conflict, fleeing across borders into other countries. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are persons or groups who have had to leave their homes as a result of the effects of armed conflict and generalized violence to take refuge elsewhere, but who have not crossed a border out of their country. Each group has its own characteristics and issues but both have far-reaching economic and social consequences for the entire country. During the 9-year Soviet war in Afghanistan, more than 3 million people fled to Pakistan, mostly taking refuge in Khyber Pakthunkhwa. Many took up residence in Peshawar. Many have since been repatriated to Afghanistan but the remaining population of around 1.6 million registered refugees remains contentious and creates a dilemma for the government as to their future.

In addition to the Afghan refugees, more than a million people have fled their homes in FATA in recent years because of intolerable levels of violence by the Taliban and the ensuing military operations against these militants. Like the refugees, most are living with host families or in rented accommodation in cities like Peshawar, Karachi, Dera Ismail Khan and Rawalpindi. Approximately 10 % are living in camps. The exact number of IDPs is uncertain as statistics vary between FATA Disaster Management Authority, UNHCR and other agencies, but it is safe to say that it is currently around one million people.

And herein lies one of the big challenges for the country. The impact of these large migrations to the urban areas around the country greatly increases urban vulnerability because of the additional strain they place on already over-crowded neighbourhoods. The local infrastructure and public facilities are inadequate, water and sanitation systems are insufficient to cope and do not meet appropriate health standards, livelihoods and the socio-economic wellbeing of the existing residents are affected, and there are increased levels of violence. Environmental degradation from unplanned development also creates the potential for future disasters.

Peshawar is one of the best examples of this. The National Disaster Management Plan places Peshawar on the 'high disaster vulnerability' index for major cities. Karachi, also a city with a huge population of displaced communities from FATA and with similar problems, is even higher on the disaster vulnerability index. Added to that, the problems with violence within these displaced groups in certain parts of the city are escalating. There is little understanding of how to manage the risk and no proper comprehensive risk assessments have been conducted. If a natural disaster struck Peshawar or Karachi today, it would be extremely difficult to respond safely and effectively. This alarming thought is a real possibility.

There is also a potential health disaster unfolding in Pakistan resulting primarily from the movement of displaced communities from FATA to urban areas. According to the World Health Organisation, Peshawar has become the country's largest reservoir for the wild poliovirus with the vast majority of cases being traced back to FATA displaced families. Even some of the polio cases discovered in Afghanistan, can be genetically traced back to FATA families residing in Peshawar. Again, Karachi is suffering similar problems. This is due not only to poor sanitation but the unwillingness of people, particularly those from tribal areas, to have their children vaccinated because of pressure from the Taliban and disinformation about the side effects of vaccination. The problem was further exacerbated by a fake immunization campaign in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden which created suspicion about infiltration of foreign agents into the polio campaign. As a result, polio workers and their security details have been attacked by militants leading to the deaths of more than 50 people. There are no signs of this abating.

If the wild poliovirus in Pakistan is not eradicated – and it is one of only three countries that have failed to eradicate polio – the risk is that it will multiply and spread across borders, potentially triggering a future international pandemic. Make no mistake about this: it would be a man-made disaster for which Pakistan would be held accountable. On 5 May 2014, the World Health Organisation recommended worldwide travel restrictions on residents of Pakistan in an attempt to stop the global spread of the poliovirus. As of 1 June 2014, it will be mandatory for Pakistanis travelling abroad, to have a certificate of immunization. However, this alone will not solve the problem. The Pakistan Army has now taken on the responsibility of security for polio workers in Khyber Pakthunkhwa and FATA so that vaccination campaigns can progress. This will give impetus to the campaign and make a difference. But the reality is that the fallout of conflict has already pushed Pakistan to the brink of a health disaster. How this is managed from here on is critical and it needs to be treated on a disaster footing by all stakeholders.

It is easy to blame the displaced populations for many problems but this is unfair. Life for most is very tough, especially for those living in camps and none of us should underestimate their misery. Some time back, I visited a camp for displaced persons in Kurram and spoke to some of the women, mostly widows who were caring for their families in very trying conditions. The women were particularly distressed by their circumstances and wept as we spoke. Living in a camp is difficult for women and there is a great loss of dignity. All just wanted to go home but had no idea when that would be or what they would find when they got there. Most expected their houses to be gone and asked how they would manage. Would the government provide them with compensation to rebuild? Their situation typified the misery of thousands of other women in these same reduced circumstances. It is not much easier for men either – living in a camp is miserable for all. In April 2014 the Political Agent announced that the remaining displaced families were being repatriated to their homes in Kurram Agency. I think of these women and hope they have found their way home and been given the assistance they needed.

The prolonged nature of these complex emergencies and the enormous cost involved in support and rehabilitation of displaced communities, have made it difficult for governments to raise the necessary funding to get people home and compensate them for the damage or destruction of their houses. The multitude of international crises is drawing donor funds elsewhere so resources in Pakistan are all the more scarce. UN Agencies like United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), have worked tirelessly to raise funds and to support government initiatives to provide assistance to displaced populations. Donors such as the World Bank, ADB, and bilateral donors have also provided substantial assistance. Last year alone, the World Food Programme provided food and other support including cash-for-work to 162,000 displaced families, including support packages for a six-month period when they return home. The government too, is a large donor – one of the biggest donors to the World Food Programme is the Government of Pakistan (GOP). In 2013, the GOP donated 150,000 tonnes of wheat worth $52 million through WFP, to be milled into flour and for the making of high-energy biscuits. But none of this is enough to meet the needs and if the situation with displaced populations worsens due to regional events, then the problems will escalate.

For families who do make the journey home, the cost is also a personal concern. With houses damaged or destroyed, livelihoods gone and with little means of support, it is very hard to face the future. In Mohmand and Bajaur, where families returned some time ago, compensation provided by the government to the returnees was supplemented by generous international donor support through a USD $65 million housing compensation project administered by PaRSSA, an arm of the Khyber Pakthunkhwa Provincial Government.

But in South Waziristan, perhaps the agency I know best from my various visits in the past year or two, the situation is different. There is little donor support for South Waziristan as compared to some of the other recovering tribal agencies. Although many families have returned, without funding support for housing compensation, it will be difficult for others to return soon. The Army has done an impressive job of rehabilitating the area but they cannot do everything and it is not officially their responsibility. It is ultimately a problem for Government and they appear to need funding support from donors for this.

Not all displaced families want to return home. Some fear retribution from militants who may still roam the tribal areas, clashes between rival groups, and threats of intimidation into joining one side or the other. And for quite a few families, it is simply a case of the cities providing better work opportunities, access to health facilities and education for their children. Whatever the reasons, some will never return though quite a few remain listed as 'displaced' thereby confusing the statistics on displacements.

So what does the future hold? Will these problems get better or worse? Two key factors will affect the outcome. Firstly, the final outcome of elections in Afghanistan will be critical to Pakistan. The elections have been relatively peaceful with a very high voter turnout. This is a positive sign for the future but the reality is, it is simply too soon to tell whether a new government will bring stability. The other unknown factor for Afghanistan is what will happen after the withdrawal of the US troops? If all is peaceful, then there will be no major influx of refugees into Pakistan. However, if internecine conflict erupts within Afghanistan, the floodgates will open and large numbers of refugees are likely to arrive in Pakistan. So, Pakistan should be prepared for all eventualities and hope for a best-case scenario.

Secondly, the outcome of peace talks in Pakistan between the Government and the Tehrik-i-Taliban will also define what happens in Pakistan. But with more than 50,000 people killed since 2001, and attacks continuing under the guise of various relentless militant elements, it's hard to see a time in the immediate future where there will be peace and, therefore, no displaced persons. If talks fail and there is a need for military operations in North Waziristan to protect the country from ongoing attacks, there will be a flow of displaced families from there and possibly some destabilization in other agencies leading to further displacements.

These are just some of the challenges to be considered but they are significant. So how should these man-made disasters be better addressed in Pakistan's disaster management system? The National Disaster Management Act defines disasters as “a catastrophe or a calamity in an affected area, arising from natural or man-made causes or by accident which results in a substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property”. It goes on to define 'disaster management' as meaning “managing the complete disaster spectrum, including: (i) preparedness; (ii) response; (iii) recovery and rehabilitation; and (iv) reconstruction. This indicates that they should be included but this is no simple matter. I spoke with Major General Saeed Aleem, Chairman of NDMA, to seek his views on the current national perspective. He explained to me that although NDMA is mandated to address all aspects of natural and man-made disasters, it is currently a question of authority and resources. While NDMA has the over-arching monitoring and coordination role for all disasters, it currently has no authority in conflict-related issues, or the funding. Another issue is that in the national disaster management system, the implementing partners for NDMA should be the district disaster authorities. In some areas, particularly those affected by instability, it should be the District Commissioner or the Political Agent. However, at this stage, the national system is not sufficiently energized so for now, the reliance is on those who have capacity. The national capacity is mostly with the military and where needed, national NGO's dovetail to provide humanitarian support. In the event of a large-scale emergency, international assistance can also be called upon if needed. The Ministry for States and Frontier Regions (SAFRON) has the responsibility for the return of displaced populations but not the overall management of conflict-related issues. There are many grey areas and along with the resourcing gaps, these need to be resolved if NDMA is to be able to reach out in relation to the conflict aspects of disaster management.

The resourcing issue is not new for NDMA, even for natural disasters. This is something I had highlighted when writing the Lessons Learned on the 2010 Pakistan floods. It's not unique to Pakistan – it is a problem for most developing countries. It is not an easy problem to solve given the competing priorities. The Government of Pakistan has now included disaster management as a line item in the national budget. This is genuine progress but so much more is needed. Although some multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors are working with NDMA, many are now also working directly with the various Provincial Disaster Management Authorities since disaster management has been devolved to the provinces. While this is appropriate, it does draw funds away from the centre and makes national coordination and oversight of all activities difficult. A balance in how international donors distribute their funds between national and provincial authorities would help solve some of these problems.

The Khyber Pakthunkhwa Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) is now looking more closely at how to reduce the risks associated with both natural and man-made disasters, including conflict. KPK has been hardest hit not only by natural disasters but also the full impacts of conflict and terrorism. The cost in human and economic terms has been very high indeed and they are taking the initiative to do something about it. Conflict-related issues are to be addressed in their new Disaster Management Plan and activities to be implemented through the supporting Road Map. This is a big step forward but, again, it will take time and resources.

The challenges ahead for Disaster Management in Pakistan, at all levels, are enormous. We need to remember that a disaster is not just a natural phenomenon and address all hazards. Humans create disasters and often with greater impact than all the floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and glacial outbursts combined. Conflict is the one of the greatest disasters that can strike any country and one that can lead to other types of disasters. Yet we still don't address the impacts in the Disaster Management system. Understanding how man-made disasters – including conflict – can be better prevented, mitigated and managed in the same way as natural disasters, must be on the agenda. Funding and political will are necessary to make this happen. We also need to recognize that it is not a problem for the disaster management authorities alone. A coordinated whole-of-government approach at national, provincial and district level is needed to help prevent, mitigate, respond and recover from all such crises. Despite the enormous challenges of recent years, there has been substantial progress. The next step now must be to ensure that the national, provincial and district disaster management authorities are properly resourced and supported to fully implement their mandates according to the National Disaster Management Act. This will take time and the support of all stakeholders is critical. If this can be achieved, Pakistan can be a world leader in Disaster Management and Disaster Risk Reduction, addressing all natural and man-made disasters together. Most importantly, it will be a valuable investment in making the country and communities safer and more resilient to future shocks.

The writer is Australian Disaster Management and Civil-Military Relations Consultant, based in Islamabad where she consults for Government and UN agencies. She has also worked with ERRA and NDMA. [email protected]