rural coping strategies to natural disasters: household responses to hurricane mitch in nicaragua
Post on 11-Jan-2016
28 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Rural coping strategies to natural disasters: Household responses to
hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua
Marrit van den Berg, Development Economics Group
Research project: Natural hazards, poverty traps, and adaptive livelihoods in Nicaragua,
2005-2008 (funded by NWO)
LSMS survey 1998-1999-2001-(2003?) Own data to be collected
Assets
Utility
L1
L2
AS
Shocks and poverty
Income Poverty Line
A
Static Asset Poverty Line
Dynamic Asset Poverty Line
A*
At=A0 (dynamic equilibrium)Next Period’s Assets
A*1
U*L
Poverty Trap
A*2
U*H
AbAa
x
Natural Hazards in Nicaragua
Table 1. Descriptive figures per disaster type, Nicaragua (yearly averages for 1980-2000). Disasters [number/
year]
Casualties [killed/year]
Population exposed
[number/year]
Relativevulnerabilit
y[killed/million
exposed]
Droughts 0.14 0 267,116 0
Earthquakes
0.14 8.9 1,515,588 5.8
Floods 0.24 2.5 328,459 7.7
Cyclones 0.33 162.6 804,228 202.1
Hurricane Mitch, October 26-27, 1998
Aggregate effects
Intense rains: floods, strong currents, landslides Effects magnified by deforestation, intensive land
use & human settlements on hillsides, riverbanks & lakeshores
19% of population affected 867,000 people homeless (end of Nov: 65,000) 3,045 dead, 287 wounded, nearly 1,000 missing Rural areas: lands left unusable, roads and bridges
destroyed Total cost of US$ 988 million (45 % of GDP)
Damage to productive sectors 34%, mostly to agriculture
Mitch and food production
Crops (domestic consumption)
Estimated production losses
(% of production)
Rice 22%
Beans 28%
Maize 7%
Sorghum 18%
Soybeans 33%
Prices of staple crops
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
jan
feb
mar apr
may jun jul
aug
sep
oct
nov
dec
jan
feb
mar apr
may jun jul
aug
sep
oct
nov
dec
1998 1999
C$/
lbs Rice
Beans
Maize
Rural support programs
Stimulation of apante production WFP
2/3 Food for Work (housing, infrastructure, farms) 1/3 Vulnerable groups (women and children)
..
Pre- and post-Mitch rural poverty ( HCI, % )
Poverty Extreme poverty
National 0.4 0.0
Pacific -4.0** -3.6**
Central 3.6** 2.9**
Atlantic 1.3 -0.8
Household effects: reported losses (N=393)
% of hhs Average loss (C$)
Income shocks
Loss of crops 71 4,539
....
Asset shocks
Damage to agr. assets 53 5,731
Damage to home 49 -
...
Consumption change 1999-1998
-10000 0 10000 20000 30000
consumption per capita 1999 - id 1998
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Fre
qu
ency
Mean = 145.52Std. Dev. = 2966.302N = 381
Institutional support in Mitch-affected areas
% of households Value per recipient hhold
All rural households (N=429)
Gift of home, building material or land
12% 1,713
Gift of clothes, shoes, medicine, other
29% 328
Food gift 53% 459
All farmers (N=329)
Technical assistance 12%
Participation in projects 5%
-technical assistance 3%
-inputs 1%
-credit 1%
-other 0%
Note: a Up two three answers allowed.
Coping mechanisms for 98-99 shocks to agricultureN=297 % of households
Drastic reduction in consumption 31%
Work longer hours 14%
Spent financial savings 10%
External support (NGO/govt/other) 6%
Stopped repaying loans 6%
Sow other product 5%
Asset sales 5%
Received loans 4%
Use organic treatment 2%
Other 1%
Nothing 49%
All farm households experiencing shocks 100%Note: a Up two three answers allowed.
Methodological considerations
Focus on income-generating capacity: assets Physical, natural, human, social, financial Asset vs income shocks Assets as coping mechanism
Analysis at different scales
top related