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