Post-disaster Financial Wellbeing for Marginalised Communities

Climate-induced ecological disasters create financial crises for marginalised communities around the world. Drawing on recent Australian and international examples, Dr Sajal Roy and Dr Jack Noone argue that frameworks for disaster response and risk-reduction do not adequately reflect or address the impact of pre-existing inequalities on these communities’ exposure to risk and their capacity to ‘bounce back’. They call on governments to draw on the knowledge and experiences of marginalised groups to develop more nuanced approaches.

Introduction

Climate-induced ecological disasters create financial crises for marginalised communities around the world. However, frameworks for disaster risk-reduction in these contexts are flawed. They fail to address the actual loss and damage experienced by marginalised communities. Therefore, any disaster recovery must consider the pre-existing inequalities and intergenerational disadvantages. Then they need the adaptive capacity to respond to disasters. The aim of this piece is to show ways in which marginalised communities act to build resilience in post-disaster contexts.

Linking Financial Wellbeing with Post-disaster Recovery

Financial wellbeing requires fiscal education, credit management and debt guidance. It is also concerned with making wise future decisions for controlling money (Lea, 2021). Thus, it is intimately associated with financial capability. Financial wellbeing is not only dependent on what individuals in communities know. It’s also related to whether they have the willingness, confidence, and opportunity to act. Studies show that women and immigrants with little financial literacy will avoid risky financial investments (Nelson, 2014; Fehr-Duda, 2006). They may lack decision-making skills or confidence in balancing household income and expenditure. This creates economic inequalities among members of disadvantaged communities (Fuentes-Nieva and Galasso, 2014).

In terms of disaster management, marginalised communities are more vulnerable to risk. These include LGBTQ+ communities, slum dwellers, homeless people, front-line workers, immigrants and elderly women with poor financial literacy. This discrimination exists alongside pre-existing economic inequalities based on both economic class and geographical location. Such inequalities lead to weaker political engagement and a limited ability to build networks. The constraints of political engagement weaken marginalised peoples’ ability to respond to climate-induced disasters. It also hinders disaster recovery efforts and the resilience building that should follow.

Weather events pose different gendered impacts on individuals, their households and communities. Their socio-economic position, home type and the disaster preparedness in place all play a part. These determine how people respond to the impact of cyclones, bushfires, drought, heat waves and floods. During a disaster, pre-existing inequalities in marginalised groups’ access to financial resources become more obvious.  Coupled with the loss and damage from a disaster, they’ll have limited access to social capital, economic resources, and environmental assets. Differences in gender, age and social class all affect financial literacy. Marginalised communities thus face key barriers to financial resilience. They have a reduced ability to bounce back. Marginalised women with limited access to financial resources are 14 times more likely to die in an extreme weather event than men (UNFPA, 2021). This is apparent amongst women with lower incomes in the Asia-Pacific and Sub-Saharan regions. It especially affects women who are financially dependent on their male-headed household owners in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal.

Gendered Inequalities

Globally, women and LGBTQ+ communities have limited opportunities to act for themselves or to negotiate with the patriarchy. The prevailing negative social attitudes towards Muslim and Indigenous women in particular increases their social and economic vulnerabilities. Their vulnerability affects their disaster preparedness, evacuation readiness, and recovery from disaster.  Studies (such as Lea, 2021; Fabinyi et al., 2022) have been done on minimising the psychological and financial stresses caused by humanitarian disasters. Analyses drawn from Lea (2021) and Fabinyi et al. (2022) show that members of financially fragile families, in particular women, undergo clear short-term hardships. Such members also suffer long-term financial decline. Worst of all, they are unable to build much in the way of financial resilience. During the immediate consequences of disasters, young women, wives, pregnant women, women with disabilities and elderly women become financially weaker.  This group of people may be forced to take shelter at cyclone centres, thus becoming separated from families. Likewise, disaster-led separation from families has occurred in Eastern Australia following the recent floods. Many homes were destroyed, and roads ruined. Many disadvantaged women remain homeless, or live in temporary caravans or tents, as rents rise. This is not only due to their large-scale financial dependency on their male counterparts and patriarchy. There is also a lack of provision of age-specific disaster insurance and a failure of financial institutions.

For example, Cyclone Amphan on 20 May 2020 affected 10 million people from 19 coastal districts in Bangladesh. Nine of these were severely impacted and 26 people died. The Government of Bangladesh carried out a large-scale evacuation of 2.4 million people. These were spread over 12,078 cyclone shelters. Cyclone Amphan produced massive displacement, and destroyed countless houses, road networks, communication infrastructure, crops and livelihoods. This worsened d the humanitarian crisis already affecting the financial wellbeing of Amphan survivors in Southwest Bangladesh and parts of West Bengal.  

Frameworks for Disaster Risk Reduction

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015 - 2030) is the leading model for disaster risk reduction. It recommends using public knowledge in disaster risk governance at local, national and global levels. The SFFDRR (2015 – 2030) model recommends that local authorities get the regulatory and financial tools they need. They need to work with civil society, communities, indigenous peoples, NGOs and migrants. Disaster risk management must minimise both economic and non-economic loss and damage. This framework unfortunately doesn’t address the financial well-being of those on the fringes. These people will also likely suffer inequalities and long-term impacts post-COVID-19. The Sendai framework then doesn’t specifically improve the financial wellbeing of marginalised peoples. It ignores their lived experience of humanitarian disasters, racism, disadvantage. It fails to consider their already limited capacity for financial resilience.

On the other hand, Bangladesh's National Plan for Disaster Management (2021-2025) does promote an infrastructure to reduce disaster risk. This is to be implemented by city corporations and municipalities. These bodies will train young males, females, and urban catastrophe volunteers. It emphasizes disaster readiness for an effective response. If focuses on "Building Back Better" in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction efforts. Unfortunately, the BNPFDM (2021 – 2025) does not clearly outline what capacities institutions require to adopt considering post-disaster financial wellbeing for the marginalised communities.  

The Standing Order on Disaster (2019) of the Bangladesh Government emphasises identifying people at risk. This includes those who are vulnerable due to their gender, age, disability, social status, occupation, or financial condition. It assesses damage and loss. It then decides on what is needed to rehabilitate affected areas. Finally, it formulates, approves and implements coordinated disaster risk management. It must mobilize resources at different stages under a clear financial plan. Although the SOD offers directives on women's financial assessments, it lacks detail. It doesn’t show how women’s financial assessments before and after disaster are measured. It also lacks financial initiatives that local committees should adopt to minimise the financial stresses on women and girls.  

Examples of Bushfires and Floods from Australia

In the recent past, the frequency and intensity of floods and bushfires have increased in Australia. For example, during the worst floods seasons approximately 2,000 homes were ruined in Northern Queensland. Over 18 million hectares were burned in the Australian bushfire season of 2019–2020. Fires destroyed over 5,900 buildings including over 2,800 homes. In addition to human fatalities, women are more likely than men to want to evacuate. Men are more likely to want to remain and “fight the fire”. This means men are three times more likely to die in bushfires. This can suddenly deprive women of husbands, partners or sons; children without a father. But the gendered impacts of bushfires also affect the aftermath (Cowlishaw et al., 2021).

Marginalised Post-Disaster Experiences

LGBTQ+ people have historically been socially repressed, excluded and ignored. Therefore, following disasters, they can fall through the cracks. They may be socially isolated, disrespected and harassed in emergency shelters (Frank, 2020).

The aforementioned frameworks for disasters risk reduction have not seriously considered experiences of marginalised communities both during and after a climate-induced disaster.  Support for the disadvantaged in general becomes problematic during natural disasters, which demand fast intervention. Disabled people may not be able to evacuate as quickly as others. Women caring for disabled children or aged parents may be left behind – during and after a disaster. The gender gap hasn't altered greatly, even though global financial inclusion is rising. After a disaster, women need secure housing and renewed earning capacities. So, governments need to start including women’s financial well-being in their national policies and protocols. There are several steps they can take to achieve this. They can support gender-responsive financial services by partnering with microfinance, microloan, and insurance institutions. They can tailor financial services to help women restart livelihood activities. They can make it easier for women to access financial protection schemes by identifying and removing barriers (legal, policy, cultural or social). Gender-responsive recovery initiatives must of course be properly financed.  Existing social protection schemes can be used to deliver post-disaster help to women and marginalised groups. Governments should structure these schemes "risk layers," with different instruments for different risks. Women aren't often considered "economic actors" with capital and property rights. Therefore, vulnerable female-headed households should be able to receive social protection benefits. They should be able to claim entitlements (e.g., identity or land ownership documents), and to access legal services for recourse, compensation, or property restitution.

Concluding Note

In conclusion, much needs to be done to ensure that all members of a community are helped equally during and after climate-induced disasters. Institutions implementing the frameworks discussed above do not often include the experience of women and marginalised groups in responses to floods, cyclones or bushfires and subsequent recovery processes. Their pre-existing inequalities make them even more vulnerable to disasters and negatively affect their ability to ‘bounce back.’ This is why any disaster recovery efforts must consider the pre-existing inequalities and intergenerational disadvantages. Then they must be provided with the adaptive capacity to respond to disasters. Disaster response frameworks are urgently needed which can identify and mitigate these inequalities.  

References

Cowlishaw, S., Metcalf, O., Varker, T., Stone, C., Molyneaux, R., Gibbs, L., Block, K., Harms, L., MacDougall, C., Gallagher, H.C. and Bryant, R., 2021. Anger dimensions and mental heath following a disaster: Distribution and implications after a major bushfire. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 34(1): 46-55.

Fabinyi, M., Belton, B., Dressler, W.H., Knudsen, M., Adhuri, D.S., Aziz, A.A., Akber, M.A.,       Kittitornkool, J., Kongkaew, C., Marschke, M. and Pido, M., 2022. Coastal transitions: Small-scale fisheries, livelihoods, and maritime zone developments in Southeast Asia. Journal of Rural Studies, 91:84-194.

Fehr-Duda, H., De Gennaro, M. and Schubert, R., 2006. Gender, financial risk, and probability             weights. Theory and decision, 60(2), pp.283-313.

Fuentes-Nieva, R. and Galasso, N., 2014. Working for the few: Political capture and economic           inequality. Oxfam

Garcia, J., Vargas, N., Clark, J. L., Magaña Álvarez, M., Nelons, D. A., & Parker, R. G., 2020. Social isolation and connectedness as determinants of well-being: Global evidence mapping focused on LGBTQ youth. Global public health, 15(4): 497–519.

Lea, S.E., 2021. Debt and overindebtedness: Psychological evidence and its policy implications. Social    Issues and Policy Review, 15(1): 146-179.

Liu, S., Haucke, M.N., Heinzel, S. and Heinz, A., 2021. Long-term impact of economic downturn and loneliness on psychological distress: Triple crises of COVID-19   pandemic. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(19): 4596.

Nelson, J.A., 2015. Are women really more risk‐averse than men? A re‐analysis of the literature     using expanded methods. Journal of economic surveys, 29(3), pp.566-585.

Priya, S.S., Cuce, E. and Sudhakar, K., 2021. A perspective of COVID 19 impact on global   economy, energy and environment. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 14(6): 1290-1305.

Content moderator: Sue Olney