Socio-economic effect and consequences of flood 2015 Pdf

SURVEY ON EFFETS OF 2015 FLOODING AND

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF FLOOD WATER

STAGNATION

Sindh Development Studies Centre, University of Sindh

SURVEY ON EFFETS OF 2015 FLOODING AND

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF FLOOD WATER

STAGNATION

Research Supervisor: Professor Dr Shahab Mughal

Course

Livestock Development

BS (Part 3) Rural Development Studies

University of Sindh

COPYRIGHT

University of Sindh is authorized to distribute, reproduce or translate this academic

research. No part of this research report may be copied or referred to without proper

citations. Any reference must be fully acknowledged.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Irfan Hussain, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Mr. Taj

Muhammad, Mr. Lal Girdhari, Ms. Shama Shah, Ms. Saba Baloach, Mr. Sanaullah

Junego, Mr. Liquat Ali Mastoi and Mr. Fahad Bughio have carried out necessary research

work during the course Livestock Development in BS (Honors) Rural Development

Studies .Their survey entitled “SURVEY ON EFFECTS OF 2015 FLOOD AND CAUSES

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FLOOD WATER STAGNATION” under the supervision of

Prof. Dr. Shahab Mughal was conducted during Oct 20, 2015 to Nov 03, 2015. The

students were able to complete and defend the research.

SIGNATURE________________________

DIRECTOR SDSC

PROF. DR Ghulam Ali Jhariko

SIGNATURE________________________

RESEARCH SUPERVISOR

PROF. DR. SHAHAB MUGHAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to Prof. Dr. Shahab Mughal,

research supervisor, for his kind support and in-depth guidance during the development

of various components of this study.

Special thanks are due to Prof, Dr. Ghulam Ali Jhariko, Chairperson, Sindh

Development Studies Center, and to other teachers of the department who remained

instrumental through their constructive criticism.

We would like to dedicate the research to the students at Sindh Development Studies

Centre.

Note: This study was initiated by the group of students of BS Part 3 Rural Development

Studies as an assignment. Information presented in his paper doesn’t reflect the

viewpoint of the SDSC and Teachers.

Study Group

1. Irfan Hussain Shaikh

2. Mukesh Kumar

3. Lal Girdhari

4. Shama Shah

5. Saba Baloach

6. Akhtar Hussain

7. Taj Muhammad

8. Sanaullah Junego

9. Liquat Ai Mastoi

10. Fahad Bhughio

Acronyms

UOS University of Sindh (Main Campus)

SDSC Sindh Development Studies Center

RDS Rural Development Studies Center

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

NDMA National Disaster Management Authority

PDMA Provincial Disaster Management Authority

RBOD Right Bank Outfall Drainage

Contents

Cover Page COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................................ 2

CERTIFICATE .............................................................................................................................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 5

Study Group .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Procedure ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Transit Walk .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Social Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Focus Group Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 11

Key Informant Interview ......................................................................................................................... 12

Data analysis, validation and interpretation ........................................................................................... 13

Findings and Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 14

Section 1. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of flood affected population. ................. 14

Section 2. Flood 2015 and its social-economic effects on Populaces ..................................................... 20

Section 3: Causes and consequences of flood water stagnation ............................................................ 24

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 32

Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 33

Introduction

This Survey study was assigned by Prof. Dr. Shahab Mughal Asst. Professor Sindh

Development Studies Center (UOS) University of Sindh (Main Campus) to the students

of BS (Hones). Part 3 Rural Development Studies (RDS) in line with his subject Livestock

Development. In his viewpoint he assigned this task to the students so they may apply

the learned tools and techniques and may in large their knowledge of the field. In this

regards, a group of ten students was formed with the major objective of assessing the

effects of 2015 flash flood, identifying the causes of flood water stagnation in the target

area and obtain suggestion about their solution by applying mix of formal and participatory

rural appraisal (PRA) tools and techniques.

Problem Statement

The settlement are located on right hand side of Jamshoro to Hyderabd Highway near

Toll Plaza. It locates on the ride side of khanpur road. The livelihood of these people is

mainly dependent upon agriculture and livestock. Cropping is done on agricultural

land/plots within the area. They have been living on the river delta for long time and

settlements have spread throughout with increase in population. During flood of 2015, the

villagers suffered significant losses including displacement and destruction of crops,

damage to houses and livelihood. The flood water although receded when water-levels

lowered in the Indus River however it has been witnessed that the flood water is stagnant

on their agricultural land and houses. This stagnant water has post devastating impact on

the socio-economic aspects of villagers. Therefore this survey study aims at (a) assessing

the effects of 2015 flood on the key socio-economic variables, (b) identifying the causes

of stagnation of flood water and (c) infer solutions in light of the viewpoint of flood affected

community. The study also highlights demographic characteristics of people living in the

target area. To achieve these objectives, combination of formal survey and participatory

methodology was designed and implemented.

Objectives

The assignment seeks to:

1. Examine the causes of water stagnation and suggest appropriate solution

2. Analyze the effects of 2015 flood on villagers

3. Assess the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the people

Procedure

1. Initial observation of the area

2. Identification of focal person FP (orientation session to FP about intervention)

3. Community mobilization with team and FP

4. Social mapping

5. Orientation of intervention to participants (during FGD)

6. Transit walk with community to observe the overall environment

7. Interviews with individual villagers

8. Data analysis

9. Report writing

Methodology

In total, five villages were surveyed namely Haji Muhammad Baladi Shoro, Qasim Shoro,

Khamiso Shoro, Allahwhario Shoro and Waruchawro. These villages are located around

3-4 km away from University of Sindh Jamshoro. The exact population and households

settled on the Indus delta is not known.

For data requirements, as per the objectives, mix of qualitative and quantitative research

approaches were utilized. Participatory rural appraisal tools and techniques including

transit walk, social mapping and focus group discussions, and key informant interviews

collectively are applied to collect the data on key variables. The structured questionnaire

was also administered and analyzed to draw conclusions in light of the objectives of the

study.

Transit Walk

The transit walk was made with the villagers to observe and understand the overall

environment. It helped in identifying the effects of flood, assessing the causes and

consequences of water stagnation and also helped in the brainstorming of the villagers

about the causes of water stagnation. The information so gathered from transit walk was

used to validate the data that was obtained from the villagers through structured

questionnaire. (Picture 1, 2).

Picture 1: Transit wall of the villages

Picture 2: Transit walk inside hamlets

Social Mapping

In this task, a village map was drawn. The village map highlighted the physical structures

and composition in the area such as roads, houses, agricultural lands/plots, water

courses, mosques and schools. The map particularly helped in assessing the current

position of displaced population and the causes of water stagnation such as absence of

water-ways (Mori) and watercourse, farm land, roads above surface level of agricultural

land/plots.

Figure 1: Social Mapping with community

Focus Group Discussion

Following the social mapping, two focus group discussion (FGD) were conducted in the

research area with 6 and 13 individuals respectively from five villages. The purpose of the

FGDs was to gather the point of view of the community about floods and displacement,

and the causes and consequences of water stagnation. The solutions to the problem of

water stagnation on agricultural land were also discussed along with required support

from concerned government agencies which have not been provided as yet. Similarly,

issues among others of livelihood, education and health were also discussed in the FDGs.

The responses of the groups were corroborated in light of the prevailing conditions as

observed during transit walk and social mapping.

Figure 2: Focus Group Discussion

Key Informant Interview

Data from 25 key informants interviews are collected, analysis and summarize in

the form of frequencies, percentage.

Figure 3: Key informant interview with landlord

Figure 4: Key informant interview / questionnaire administration

Data analysis, validation and interpretation

The obtained data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Microsoft Excel 2013 was

used for data entry and validation. Keeping in mind the reliability of data Mix of survey

tools and techniques were laid down to cross check and validate the gathered information.

The findings were interpreted and presented in the form of tables and graphs with

narrative explanation.

Findings and Discussion

Section 1. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of flood affected population.

Age Group of villagers

Majority of the sample size 8 out of

25 (32%) respondents reported their

age between 33-37 at the time of

interview.

7 out of 25 (28%)

respondents reported age

between 33-37

5 out of 25 (20%)


between 28-32

3 out of 25 (12%)


between 23-27

2 out of 25 (8%) respondents

reported age between 18-22

Level of Education

Majority of the respondent age ranged

18-57 forming 21 out of 25 (84%) of

the sample size are illiterate. While

only 16% are literate.

3 out of 25 (12 %) respondents

reported their highest level of

education up to primary


reported their highest level of

education up to secondary

None of the respondent who are

literate have reached Higher

education.

18-22 ,8%

23-27, 12 %

28-32 ,20 %

39-57, 32%

Graph 1: Showing the share of age group in percentage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

illtreats84%

Primary12%

Secondary4%

Highersecondary

0%

Graph 2: Shows the educational status of villagers in percentages.

Marital Status

Majority of the respondent 21 out

of 25 (84 %) of the sample size

are married.

While (16 %) 4 out of 25

respondent are single-unmarried

None of the respondent were

divorced

Household Size

Majority of the respondent 11 out of 25 (44%) reported household size between

1-5 members

Large number of respondent forming 11 out of 25 (44%) reported household size

between 6-10 members

2 out of 25 (8%) respondent reported household size between 11-15 members

1 out of 25 (4 %) respondent reported household size between 16-20 members

Only 0 out of 25 (4 percent) respondent reported more than 20 members in the

households

House hold size Frequency Response of respondent

1-5 11 44%

6-10 11 44%

10-15 2 8%

16-20 1 4%

Table 1: Showing the household size of respondent.

Graph 4: Shows the household size of respondent in percentage

0%

50%

1-5 44%6-10 44%

10-15 8%16-20 4%

Single 16%

Married 84%

Graph 3: Shows the Marital status of the respondent in percentage.

Number of children as per their age group

Majority of the respondents, 15 out of 25 (60%) reported to have children under age range

11-15 years.

05 out of 25 (20 %)

respondent reported

number of children between

01-0510 out of 25 (40 %)

respondent reported


06-10

14 out of 25 (56 %)

respondent reported


11-15

11 out of 25 (44 %)

respondent reported


16-20

05 out of 25 (20 %) respondent reported number of children between more than

20

Educational Status of Children

21 out of 25 (84) respondents

replied that their children are

illiterate

03 out of 25 (12%) respondents

said that their children have studies

up to primary


said that their children have studies

up to secondary

None of the respondent said that

their children is enrolled higher

secondary, graduation and technical

education.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1-5 year 20%

6-10 40%

11-15 year 60%

16-20 year 44%

> 20 year 28%

20%

40%

60%

40%

28%

Graph 5 Respondent Children as per their age group

82%

3%

4%

0

illiteates 84%

primary 12%

secondary 04%

Graph 6: Shows the educational status of Children’s

Houses owned by the family

Majority of respondent, 25 out of

25 (100 %) respondents reported to

have between 1-5 houses

None of the respondent family

owned houses more than 5.

Type of Houses owned by the respondent

Majority of the respondent,

16 out of 25 (64 %)

respondents said that they

have hut/ thatched houses

9 out of 25 (36 %) have

concrete (Pakka) houses

While none of the

respondent out of the

sample size are having

houses with tiles work and

none are living on rented

house.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1-5 houses 6-10 houses 11-15 houses other

Graph 7: Shows the number of house owned by the family.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

70%

Series 1

Column1

Series 3

Graph 8: Shows the type of houses owned by the respondent in percentage

Source of income

Majority of the respondent, 15 out

of 25 (60 %) reported their source of

income as agricultural labor.


reported their source of income as

agriculture (land owner cultivator)


reported their source of business/

trade



agriculture and allied activities



private job

o None the respondent is

respondents reported their

source of income as government

job

Extent of agricultural land owned by respondent in acre

20 out of 25 (80%) respondent do

not owned agricultural land.

05 out of 25 (20%) respondent

owned agricultural land, out of

which, 1 out of 5 (4%) respondents

said that they own 1-5 acres of

land


reported to own 6-10 acres of no

land. While 2 out of 5 (8%)

respondent reported to own 11-15

acre of agricultural land.

o None of the respondent reported

to own more than 15 acres of

agricultural land.

20%

60%

4%4%

12%

agricaltur

Agricaltur labor

Agriculture andalide activity

government job

privet jobbusiness

Graph 9: Shows the source of income of the respondent in percentage

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1-5 acre 6-10 acre 11-15 acre land less

Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

Graph 10: Extent of agricultural land owned by respondent in acre in percentage

Kind of Livestock owned by the respondent


did not possess any livestock, while

20 out of 25, (80%) respondent

reported that they possess

livestock.

Majority of the respondent, 11 out

of 25 (44 %) who they possess

livestock reported that they owned

buffalos. 8 out of 25 (32%)

respondents owned goats. 4 out of

25 (16%) respondents have bullock

and 4 out of 25 (16%) respondents

reported that they have sheep. 1

out of 25 (4%) respondents have

cow, and only 1 out of 25 (4%)

respondents have camels

o While none of the 20 respondent

who possess livestock reported

that they owned Hens and

Fisheries.

Time span of living on the Indus River Land

Graph 12: Highlights that the majority of

the respondent 44% living on the Indus

River delta for more than 20 years. 20% of

the respondent reported that they are

living since 1-5 years. 16% are living since

6-10 years. 12% living on the area since

16-20 years and 8% respondent reported

living on the Indus River land since 11-15

years.

4%

44%

4%8%

16%

4%

20%

cow Bufalo Bull/ox

sheep goat Camel

not avealable

1-5 year

20%

6-10 year

16%

11-15 year

8%

20-45 year

44%

Graph 12: Shows the time span of living in the area in percentage.

Graph 11: shows the proportion of livestock owned by the respondents.

Section 2. Flood 2015 and its social-economic effects on Populaces

The villagers have experienced two major floods in last six years including the flood of

2010 and 2015. The flood of 2015 occur in between August to September. The villagers

were unaware of the actual inflow or outflow of flood water. However they said that this

year the volume was between 4.5 to 5.5 thousand cusecs. The flood water came in

August on their lands. As per the villagers water levels gradually increased, if compared

to 2010, the flood of 2015 took much more time to reach to their agricultural land and

houses. The flood water took one month approximately to completely withdraw from the

river Indus.

Population Displacement

The entire population of the area was affected by the flood. The villagers are unable to

quantify the exact number of displaced population. The flood caused wide spread

displacement in the area and majority of the affected population moved to right bank of

River Indus at (band) and some of them

moved to the highway. Graph 13

highlight that, 22 out of 25, (88%)

respondent reported they moved to

spontaneous settlements. 2 out of 25,

(8%) displaced respondent secured

organized camps while 1 out of 25

displaced respondent move to different

host communities. District government

had provide the service of organized

camps including provision of food and

medicines. People who took help of

other communities for their survival

moved to right bank of Indus River and

nearby places. People especially male did not move to long distance because they think

that after the withdrawal of water if they move to long distance from their area of living,

other people will occupy their land.

Health Hazards due to flood

Large number of villagers reported that they rely on government hospitals primarily for

the health care. The villagers were of the view that their health had been affected by the

flood. Females are the most vulnerable as they sacrifice the most to fulfill the basic urgent

needs of their children and other households especially in emergencies. Secondly,

children are exposed to diseases and un-hygienic diets and environment.

Spontaneoussettlements88%

Organizedcamps 8%

Host community4%

Graph 13: Shows the type of population displacement in percentage

Graph 14: shows that majority of the inhabitants 18 out of 25, (72%) have not receive any

healthcare facility, while 7 out of 25 (28%) respondents had received healthcare facilities

during displacement. Villagers having multiple health problems due to the flooding.

Malaria, diarrhea, skin diseases, mal-nutrition and respiratory illness are the major effect

of flood on people health.

Graph 14: Shows the weather the healthcare facility is provided or not by the institutions

Crop Damages

At the time of flood the villagers were mainly cultivating cotton and some vegetables.

Under normal conditions crops are sold in view of the prevailing market rates and a

substantial proportion of income for farming household come from the harvest and sell

of crops. The selling of crops is carried out by land owners who cultivate crops the

villagers are facing severe financial crises due to crop damage.

Livestock Damages

Surprisingly no one suffered livestock damage as the livestock was timely moved to

save places. The people were of the view that mobile messages from PDMA and slow

and gradual increase in flood water allowed them enough time to move their livestock to

safe places. However they mentioned that milk yield has decreased due to lack of

fodder. All the habitants moved their livestock to the right bank of River Indus. It was

observed that very small portion of the villagers were having livestock.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes 28% No 72%

Column1

Series 2

Series 1

Effect on Houses

The villager reported that nearly 200

to 300 houses were affected by the

flood. There were three type of

houses present in the surveyed

villages namely Concrete/ Pacca

house, katcha houses and huts. The

huts and katcha houses are

completely affected whereas

concrete houses are partially

affected. Graph 15: Showing that

majority of the houses were affected

by the flood, 25 out of 25, (100%)

Respondent report that 1-5 houses

were affected by the flood.

Graph 16: Present that large number of respondent, 14 out of 25 (56 %) respondents

said that their houses were completely damaged. While 11 out of 25 (36 %)

respondents said that their houses were moderately damaged.

Graph 16: Shows the extent of effect on houses that post by the flood

0% 20% 40% 60%

Completely 56

Partially/moderately 36%

on damage 8%

Category 4

Series 3

Series 2

Series 1

1-5 100%

Graph 15: Shows how many houses are affected per person in percentage

Effects on Children Education

Majority of the people whose children are enrolled in schools said that their children

education is negatively affected by flooding as they face hardships and displacement.

The schools located in the vicinity are submerged under flood water and are not

functional.

The out of school children were therefore

vulnerable to waste of time. Graph 17:

Showing the response of respondent

about the effect of flood on children

education. 09 out of 25, 36% report that

their children education is effected by the

flood while 16 out of 25, 64% reported

that their children education is not

effected by the flood.

Support services during Flood

Affected population had receive support, however not every affected household had

receive assistance. The villagers were of the point of view that government did not provide

adequate support but some villagers also reported that government had taken care of

their needs during floods. Government had provide medicines and flood during flood

including tents for shelter but after the withdrawal of flood water no institution had provide

them with necessary services. They also said that the provision of the services from

government was also insufficient and did not reach to every household. They particularly

thanks to MPA Malik Asad Sikandar who advocate for their need to the government.

When the villagers heard about the flood they collectively and periodically took actions

including racy of the river land to assess the situation and to provide early warning to the

communities so that they may have time to move to save places. They also took collective

steps to protect their families and assets when they were displaced.

yes 36%

No 64%

Graph 17: Show the effects of flood on children education.

Section 3: Causes and consequences of flood water stagnation

Causes of Flood Water Stagnation

After analysis the finding of FGD it has been established that the flood water is stagnant

in their villages since two and an half month. The stagnant water in five villages covers

an area of approximately 1400-1500 acres.

Graph 18: Summarize the how much acre of agricultural land is under stagnant water

Graph 18: Summarize the finding of interviews conducted from 25 villagers, large number

of the respondent 03 out of 25 (2%) reported that their 6-10 acre of agricultural land is

under stagnant water. 1 out of 25, (4%) responded reported that flood water is stagnant

on 1-5 acre. 01 out of 25 (4%) respondent reported 11-15 acres while 1 out of 25, 4%

reported more than 15 acre agricultural land is under water. The average depth of

stagnant water is 2.5-3.5 feet. The highest depth is 5 feet.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Series 3

Series 1

The target area is located on the right hand side of Karachi to Hyderabad Highway near

Toll plaza. Khanpur road located on the right hand side is reported as the major cause

of water stagnation. Further the cause-ways (Mori), which go through the roads so that

the water can cross the roads, are not present and therefore water flow is blocked in

between plots of agriculture land. Secondly, the height and depth of the surface of land

is uneven. Thirdly the watercourses build on villager’s farm lands are of concrete

(Pacca) which also cause stagnation. It is noticed that communities living on the area

are un-willing and less motivated to undertake self-help actions collectively, it is

because of the fact that these communities having minor conflicts with each other.

Together these three major reasons and other factors contributed to none withdrawal of

water therefore water stagnation in the area.

Majority of the respondent, 09 out of 25 (54%) described roads (without cause-ways

and above surface of agricultural land as main reason for stagnation of water. 7 out of

25 (28%) respondents described concrete water courses (that block water flows) as

main reason for stagnation of water in the villages. 06 out of 25 (24%) respondents

described uneven heights and depths of surface area as main reason for stagnation of

water. While 03 out of 25, (12%) describe the height and depth of surface as the main

reason of flood water stagnation in the villages.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

concrete water cource

Due to Rods

Deep Surfes

Both rode and deep surfese

24%

54%

12%

28%

Graph 19: shows the respondent views about the reason for flood water stagnation in the villages

It took one month for water to recede from the adjacent land. The water of adjacent land

receded naturally with the decrease in flood. To this question, the villagers said that water

receded naturally from the adjacent land. This was possible because water could not

stand in plots of agricultural residential land and since there were no roads without cause-

ways above the ground level of agricultural land. On the other (left/right) side, where the

survey is conducted, water has submerged most of agricultural land as well as plots. The

water cannot recede or move because roads above the surface have blocked water flow

and there is also no arrangement in form of proper drainage infrastructure in the

concerned land.

According to the villagers, this year water flow was slow and took around one month to

completely go through Kotri Barrage. The height of water gradually increased and

therefore roads and watercourses were not damaged. If compare to previous flood of

2010 the flow of water was high and the height of water was rapidly increase therefore

damaged the road and watercourses due to the damage in roads and watercourse,

flood water has receded easily. Figure 5: Village Map (Social mapping) highlight the

physical structure, composition, settlements, Roads, Farm land, Watercourses,

Houses/hurts more importantly the reasons for water stagnation in the surveyed

villages.

Figure 5: Village Map (Social mapping)

Villager’s response about the occurrence of diseases due to flood water stagnation

The villagers were of the viewpoint that stagnant water on the land has adversely

affected their health condition. Graph 22 out of 25 (88%) respondent said that diseases

occur due to the flood water stagnation. 03 out of 25 (12%) respondent said that none

of the diseases occur due to the flood water stagnation in the area.

Graph 20: Shows the response of respondent about the occurrence of diseases due to flood water stagnation

Type of Disease and health problems that occur due to water stagnation

When asked about the Disease or health problem that accrue due to water stagnation

the respondent give multiple answer, Graph 60% reported malaria and 60% reported

Diarrhea, while 56% report skin diseases, 28% reported Malnutrition and 12% reported

eye soiling.

88%

12%

Yes No

Graph 21: Shows the type of disease and health problem occur due to water stagnation

Community Response to clean the stagnant water

A very large area is submerged under water. Flood water is receding with time and for

many villagers individual or collective action has not produced significant result. The

landowners who cultivate crops have although arranged on their own to drain water with

diesel pumps. The villagers most of which are agricultural laborers, cannot do anything

until flood water recedes or governments intervenes with necessary support and

resources to help remove/pump water. Land owners as said above are using some

means such as pumps to remove water from land plots.

Graph 22 shows the actions taken

by the villagers to withdraw the

water from their villages, it is found

that 23 out of 25, (92%) respondent

doesn’t take any action to withdraw

the stagnant water from the area.

While 2 out of 25, (8) of the

respondent are using diesel pumps

to withdraw the water from the

villages.

Graph 22: Shows the type of action villagers are taking to withdraw the stagnant water

0%

12%

60%

0% 0%

28%

0%

No any action have been taken

92%

diesel …

0%

No any actionhave beentakendiesel pump

Support services from institution to withdraw the stagnant water

The common perception about contacting and requesting authorities for pumping and

removal of water is very vague. Some villagers and land owners at different times have

requested concerned authorities to make arrangements for removal of water from land.

Graph 23. Show that 04 out of 25, (16%) of the reported that do not request to any

concerned authority. While 21 out of 25, (84%) reported that they had requested the

concerned authority.

Graph 23: Shows whether the villager request to any concerned authority for the withdrawal of stagnant water

The villagers have not received any support for removal/pumping of water from anyone.

It has been noticed that in the five surveyed villages that there are two diesel pumps

functioning to withdraw the stagnant water. As per the villagers they have arranged

these two pumps by their own well and cost, they haven’t receive any kind of support

from institutions. The majority of the villagers were of the viewpoint that responsibility of

water removal from their land lies on part of the government. Graph 24 shows that

when asked about who is responsible to withdraw the stagnant water from your land, 25

out of 25, (100%) reported that district government is responsible for removal of water.

None of the respondent reported that private institutions are responsible.

yes 16%

No 84%

yes No

Graph 24: Shows that what respondent said Government or either Private institution for the withdrawal of water.

100%

0%

Conclusion

Flood water is stagnant in the area causing multiple negative effects on the populace

the major effects identified through the methodology are as follows.

Due to the water stagnation communities are displaced from their land. Large number of

people are categories as spontaneous settlers, some of them move to host

communities, while some of them have secure camps and are categories as organized

camps. These people are mostly move to right bank or River Indus at (Band) or at

highway.

Health issues are common among these people the disease and health issues includes,

diarrhea, malaria, mal-nutrition, skin disease, sickness and respiratory illness. Health

care facilities are unavailable. The medical services provides by the government only

during flooding are unsatisfactory. Women and children are the most vulnerable among

these people.

Mostly people are illiterate, children who are enrolled in schools having lost of their

education. There are two schools present in the area, one of which is under stagnant

water and the second which build by Sindh Community Foundation (SCF) is located at

Band however is not functional.

There houses and other assets are underwater, the water is gradually decreasing

naturally with the passage of time. Houses which are buildup of bricks and concert are

partially damaged while houses buildup of hurts / bamboos are completely destroyed.

People are resettling on land where water is being dries and are started to building their

houses.

The likelihood of these people are based on agricultural output. They are unable to

cultivate crops hence suffering loss of their income. Very small portion owning livestock,

household with some livestock use only for substance needs. They have no other

income generation sources available.

Three major factors are identified contributing to flood water stagnation in the area

namely non-availability of cause ways (Mori) on the Khanpur road, height and depth, of

surface of land, and concrete watercourses on their farm land and other communal

factors of these communities such as minor conflicts between communities, visa vise

none self-help measures.

No support has been provided by the District government except at the time of

evacuation and temporary resettlement. Medical facility, provision of food, and shelter

doesn’t reached to all of the populace. Some of the local politicians had performed

crucial role in advocating and lobbing for their basic urgent needs.

Recommendation

Keeping in mind the facts and findings from the targeted area of objectives stated, following

recommendation are set forth in light of the survey and findings.

1. It is clear that the area and people affected by flood have special needs and

government should initiate a mechanism for immediate delivery of relief goods until

stagnant flood water dries up. Government and non-government organizations

should provide people with instant-food items, wheat, grain, bottled mineral water,

nutritious supplements, medicines, vaccines and essentials of life in the first place.

2. Complete registration and authentic demographic survey of the population be

conducted to facilitate pro-poor targeting and provision of minimum relief as

mentioned above and to facilitate evacuation and relief action.

3. Livelihood recovery support program / package be provided in support to farming

household for approaching cropping seasons. If the government cannot do this, it

should at least help them to cushion the negative effects of the same with

reasonable financial assistance.

4. All social protection programmers can be utilize for the welfare of the effected

population.

In case if these people are not willing to leave this land, the following intervention might

found beneficial and sustainable;

5. Design and implementation of suitable land re-settlement projects. With funding of

international donors / government with provision of all essential infrastructure and

services particularly.

5.1 If the government and community could reach an understanding over separate

land for residential purpose, the risks to major disaster can be minimized. It is

recommend that government private institution jointly resettle these settlement

to the save places to completely free them from risks of major disaster. Keeping

in mind the socio-economic life of the people which is dependent on cultivation,

it is suggested that the government resettle these people to the nearest zone-

area so they may continue their income generation activity which depends on

Indus river land.

5.2 Construction of cause ways (Nalas-Mori) on Khanpur road and between farm

land and at appropriate place after detail contour survey including designing and

planning of the affected area in particular and considering the entire zone.

5.3 Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) in coordination with National

Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) should utilize all available means to

facilitate early warning system, developing risk reduction strategies and

coordinated relief for evacuation and temporary settlement / organized camps.

As part of this need assessment should be made by concerned agency.

Bureaucratic delays should be prevented and complete redressal system should

be implemented.

5.4 Waste water drainage infrastructure can help to mitigate the risk of water

stagnation, sewerage wholes can drain water. This water can be pumped to

RBOD (Same Nala).

6. There is a need for mobilizing and sensitizing communities about the importance of

self-help action / collective action.

7. Conflict resolution campaign with public private institutions are needed so they may

undertake self-help measures.

Documents

Socio-economic effect and consequences of flood 2015 Pdf