Papel das instituições locais na resposta a desastres naturais: caso das cheias de 2000 na região do Alto Limpopo

Abstract

How do social institutions mitigate the vulnerability of populations when they suffer a natural disaster? It is known that some families are more vulnerable than others and do not respond in the same way to these disasters. Governments and NGOs are concerned about increased vulnerability in communities experiencing survival difficulties due to the recurrent occurrence of these disasters. Understanding how households respond to risks has become increasingly important. This understanding will ensure that measures aimed at reducing vulnerability complement and strengthen people's own inventive solutions, rather than replacing or blocking them. This study presents key findings on how the communities of Tsokate and Hoyohoyo in Mabalane district mitigated the problems caused by the 2000 floods. To assess the communities' responses to the problems caused by the crises, the study relied on the model of sustainable rural livelihoods which bases its classification on tangible and intangible capital assets. The same model was used to collect and analyse the data. It should be noted that as a means of understanding livelihoods^ the model was very useful. The study describes the coping strategies of people directly or indirectly affected by the 2000 floods in the two communities. It showed that people applied a range of options from agriculture to emigration, and that within these options access to the five capitals (natural, physical, financial, human and social) was of crucial importance to these households. At the time of flooding, knowledge about previous floods (human capital), and access to social networks, particularly kinship networks (social capital) were key determinants of the success of directly affected households in minimising their losses through preventive measures (e.g. the rolling back of agricultural implements), and finding shelter. The success of these coping measures depends on two factors. The first is natural conditions and the second is social relations. The floods left a major impact on social and physical capital. They also affected natural capital by silting up fertile land for agriculture. The fear of new floods induced a change in human capital, in the sense that the experience of the 2000 floods induced people to make farms in the highlands, which are less fertile, more prone to pest attacks, and more prone to drought. Thus, the lesson learned from the floods makes people vulnerable to other disasters, namely drought and pests. Finally, the present work shows the capacity of people to cope with crises like the 2000 floods. It also shows that external interventions do not always bring benefits to all, and may even create conflicts within the community. Finally, it shows the analytical capacity of the livelihoods model, in the sense that its application has served to analyse the response of communities to emergencies (TRADUÇAO NOSSA)