“ Technical assistanceby NSETandHandicapInternational mountain communities in , , mountain communitiesinHumlaDistrict,Karnali Increased resilience tonaturaldisastersforremote andvulnerable Risk Assessment designedandanalyzedby Mission East DIPECHO project ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/02022 DIPECHO project Implementation by KIRDARC andMissionEast 1 ”

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 ehdlg 5 8 3 11 6 4 Vulnerability andcapacityofhouseholds 10 Risk Perception andknowledgeofsurroundinghazards Potential hazardsidentification Overview ofpastdisasterevents Methodology Summary: thehiddenDisasters Introduction Contents 2 3 2 1 important Furthermore statistical information on disaster events see instant. an in vanished efforts sometimes human and despair financial that and communities fatalism in de-motivation, by efforts development spreading the down slows also but Natural hazards not only pose threats to communities to natural disasters. respond and for prepare to capacity the issue: important very a address to need still UN the and /INGOs NGOs Government, by efforts the assistance, In war. civil the transitional process from emergency to development from recovering is Humla a with 5.8 is population densityof7.21personspersq.km. size household Average female. is (48.4%) 19,633 and male is (51.6%) 21,016 which 40,749 of population a hosts district Humla that indicates census 2001 The development and assistance. humanitarian for conditions difficult during the rainy season. by Thus creating difficult transport of Possibilityvery and villages of number a to limited is helicopter walking. of days after accessible only are villages the of Most . in airport one only and access road no has It north. the m.a.s.l to 7,300 of Region Autonomous Tibetan and bordering 1,500 with between Nepal of elevation district remote most the is Humla 73rd outofthe75districtsNepal. 2007) and ranked by development indicators (2003) (UNDP, 0,367 of Indicator Development Human a with Nepal, in poorest the of one is district Humla Introduction Desinventar isa national-wide databaseonhazards occurrencefrom1971thathasbeen createdandmaintainedbyNSET DevelopmentDatabaseof Projection for2009is47,229persons,withaveragesizeofhousehold 6,44–source:ASocio-Economic Meter abovesealevel. Intensive StudyandResearchCentre, Kathmandu2008 2 694 oshls of households) (6,974 1 , 3 assessment that took place in September 2009 the from resulted information following The under thisgrant. planned actions Management Risk Disaster Based Community for foundations the laying to data of as well as set situation risk the precisely analyze large a assessment collect This to Asia. enabled East South of plan DIPECHO 5th the of frame the in assessment risk a conducted East Mission context, this In and on hazards maps produced by UNOCHA. DESINVENTAR the in mentioned being not thus level, central and authorities District to reported not events minor leaving system communication developed poorly of because find to difficult is district Humla in Shreenagar, KalikaVD , Jaira, Gothi, Saya, district: Humla Area wheretheassessmenttookplace that liveunderhazardousenvironment. villages 11 from households 376 among as in 31 villages of 6 VDC in south Humla as well 3 database Nepal,

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 h Wrd od rga) n earthquake and Program) Food World the and government the by addressed (although scarcity Food exist. also threats scale Large death tollamongvulnerable population. heavy generate that facilities care health to access limited and conditions hygienic low to due diseases epidemic by affected mainly (especially are disability) humans with infant and children small while livestock, land and as such assets affect / mostly landslide mudflow as such Disasters remain unrecorded. still but year every landslide, occur fires and as such avalanche, mudflow, lethal epidemic hazards diseases, Numerous disaster”! “hidden a to confronted is district Humla country the of part inaccessible this in that consider can we context, such In determine. to hard then is not is what and disaster a to cases or destruction occurred. What is linked will not always inform authorities when death in Humla being extremely hard, communities condition living “disaster”?The a it name we to the whole communities’ development, can threat visible poses together cumulated and regular are events such when But “disaster”. call these many events that strike the region a recover.to resources cannot local we find So that to but choices other no have people affected important so is isolation geographical and limited often is damages of size Humla, In resources. own their with cope to people affected the of ability exceeding society the of functioning the of disruption serious a is “disaster” definition, strict its In unclear. is life of accident “usual” and disaster a to due destruction and death between frontier the and report disaster events is one cause but also reported. not are In Humla District two third of disaster events Summary: thehiddenDisasters h dfiute t access to difficulties The 4 isolated to benefit from inclusive central support and resources too an are Communities task. easy with an not is approach Humla in disaster Addressing left behindduringadisaster. the community social life. They will be the first to be survival to close family members and are excluded of their owe impairment by affected people whereas workload this of share important an carry women that observed We alive. community the maintain to every member and of the community is expected to contribute each extreme, being conditions Living Humla. in looming now is ago, years ten inexistent seemed which threat, flood) outburst lake (glacial GLOF the Finally, area. the of condition accessibility the difficult to due situation catastrophic a create can risk efhl ad oiaiy ehns between mechanism solidarity and VDC by self-help at start should capacities, level, community and and knowledge DRR local effect. durable a ensure to disabilities with groups vulnerable to and activities and work their in reduction risk and disaster of society elements integrate civil to communities authorities, local Encouraging inclusive DRRintolocaldevelopmentpractices. through is it address to way best the absence of transportation facilities. In such conditions, mitigation work in every village is build unaffordable to due to even and systems, warning early up set to cost to deploy emergency equipment and resources, approach. standalone a be cannot Humla in communities disaster-resilient Building hazards. natural of risk at is Humla in village single Each by othercommunitymembers. government. central useless considered are Finally,disability with People the of attention the draw to scale deployed. little too rapidly of but be numerous are Disasters to walk, hard of days long by accessible away,only far too are level district at uh s oe, ais people Dalits, women, as such ae at n uh cin will action such in part take Creating or strengthening or Creating mainstreaming enhancing involve The

ee, seily n oshls otn people hosting households in especially household level, at vulnerability the properly assess To Technology). Earthquake for Society (Nepal NSET Nepal: in development community in experiences a group of hazards and disaster specialists with sound by 2009 September in implemented was survey the of phase first the hazard, on data “scientific-based” and relevant have to order In context. local the to on a list of 12 key indicators of vulnerability adapted of households exposed to hazards. This survey is based survey is conducted aiming at measuring vulnerability level household a villages, pre-selected the in Then risk. higher at communities of pre-selection enables population target the by drawn sketch hazard a with hazards, vulnerability and on capacity at the indicators village level, together 80 than more collecting aimed at screening risk a First, approach. of 2-phase a consists survey The Tajikistan. of communities mountainous the for Caritas and GB OXFAM East, Mission by conceived initially Model a on based is The methodology used to perform the risk assessment Methodology increasing of process Humla resilience. sustainable a for in challenges engage to major remain instability political the and level VDC at officials government of lack the Nevertheless population. the of isolation essential tool to increase communication and reduce and district community level, even if difficult to implement, is an between dialogue improving Finally, scarcity, food/water epidemic disease). , (drought consequences and change its climate of effect the to disaster due natural increase of effects adverse the if jeopardy into put be will this but decrease, and stabilization for potential the WFP,is and there government the by coping food of distribution livelihoods the to a Thanks mechanism. as continue will Migration and tacklingtheattitudeoffatalismdespair. villages, reducing stigma on people with disabilities, with people on stigma reducing 5 hs uvy a ipeetd n October 2009. in implemented was survey This interviews. the during data the of the collection in team Handicap field the from assisted International experts disabilities, with The outputsoftheseprocessesare: Village passport model Village passport

e GS nomto o infrastructures on information GPS Key 86 summarizes that passport” “village A indication with settlements 31 of sketch A unrblt idctr o fmle with families of indicators Vulnerability Sketches ofNattavillage,JairaVDC such asschool,bridges,helipad,etc ranking model; risk comparative a on based villages target of pre-selection enabling indicators, 6 risk produces and indicators vulnerability by drawn mapping; hazards communities during a participatory hazard surrounding of emergency planningpurpose. for needs specials with people of mapping

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 h pplto fo te uvyd villages surveyed the from population the Desinventar because the and period, same the via on Database NSET by produced area. When we compare with official statistic surveyed the in reported been have events disaster 148 now, until 1960 from total, In landslide. and fire, epidemics, Human of hazards: major 3 with increase decades, last the an in events disasters shows communities, by The history of past hazard events, as reported Overview ofpastdisasterevents northern districtsofMid-West region. the of most for also but area surveyed the for only not valid the be can that study this of assume findings We constraints. of same kind the and face similar and a context in Humla environmental live districts from surrounding the communities Most 6 central level. to reported been never have Humla in disasters that estimate can we Humla, of population total the of third one roughly represent adld. 6 io erhuks ih damages with earthquakes minor 16 landslide. and fire by followed diarrhea), and cholera (mainly diseases epidemic is hazard main the expected, As –September 2009 ME Survey Esre 18 0 129 132 401 391 148 150 ME survey Desinventar Comparison betweenDesinventardataandMission destroyed Houses Death Number ofevents East survey w tid f the of third two

odtos n h stlmns oe dfcto is defecation (open settlements the in conditions Human casualties are mainly due to very bad hygienic people dyingfromfirescoredinsecondposition. whereas cholera, and diarrhea mainly epidemic, to Communities report massive percentage of death due Human casualties surprisingly evenhumanlife. and rebuilt) be can (they buildings than more much valued are communities, the for assets vital both are of methods Since affected below). counting varies from primarily communities (especially for land chart events (c.f. livestock, disasters 148 These killing livestock. by mainly communities, the affected seriously they when (11) reported were neighboring have events different Drought by could villages. felt it one same but the reported been were casualties or s ad lt, which plots, land as clear well as livestock that is it people, with discussion from Nevertheless, reserve. some with taken be to have figure way) measured in the same not was disasters by unit of land destroyed the which for plots, 7 in thenearestHealthPost. people died because of absence of medicines many epidemic, diarrhea 2009 last During treatment. proper allow not do professionals Posts, together with the lack Sub-Health of qualified and health Health the in absence medicines water the of fetch this, Above to thaw. open have from people and dry go but also during dry season when clean springs drinking, for used usually reserves water into during exacerbated monsoon is when contaminated water can flow which tradition) a reported in Kalikot, Jumla, Mugu or Humla. or Mugu Jumla, Kalikot, were in reported none Nevertheless, 2009). - (OCHA Karnali surrounding district than in casualties 300 more generated epidemic 2009 The –September2009 ME Survey –September2009 ME Survey

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 house toanother duetolackofmatches). one from coals burning (moving running fire the keep to way safe of lack and used being stove quality low the to due also is hazard fire that reported discussion Women’sgroup from houses. away places special in stored is hay where be observed in neighboring districts of Mugu, could practices safe as communities, among varies situation the Nevertheless, now). until 1960 from died people (22 statistics see the in could we as people disabled severely or kills also but dwellings destroys only not Fire women. of concern main the and threat serious a is fire field, the in are parents while children by fire of manipulation and season, Due to hay storage on roof of houses in the dry Fire report ittoDistrictAuthorities. such death as “normal” and won’t necessarily consider to tend people and make, to hard is opportunity treatment health of lack and and a “normal” death rate due to low hygiene that the connection with an epidemic disease important so is (elderly,children) population vulnerable on toll death the Humla in that We level. central to reported not was believe this but epidemic, diarrhea 2009 the from districts other and Humla in died people of number significant a that assume can we So 31 in only Humla. south from VDC 6 of diarrhea communities of died epidemic, people 2009 18 the to specifically it link cannot and 2009 in occurred diarrhea from death reported the season which check not Based on the above statistics, although we did (Old womenfromDulli,SayaVDC) go toHeaven!” the we serious, very is to it when Post,and Health VDC go we important, more is it If ourselves. it fix we problem, health small have we “When

8 Hay ontheroof:Tumcha village(JairaVDC,Humla) ih h cmuiis s el s rnet ak to walks transect as well as communities the with the events, past assessment of included a participatory history mapping exercise a drawing from Apart Potential hazardsidentification drought willgeneratefoodshortage. here, analyzed not although course, of and houses, and hay animal threaten will fire water, of lack to from free not also disaster. Epidemics can spread during is dry season due season dry the population, Humla for season dangerous most the remains and Whereas the monsoon increases the risk of epidemics flood livestock. landslide, and lands affect mudflow,mainly and that generates the and to season, linked monsoon is disasters water-induced of Most Conclusion Safer storagetechnique:SorukotVDC,MuguDistrict disaster with those resulting from “natural” from causes. resulting casualties differentiate to is difficult it that Humla in poor so is facilities health to The overall health / hygiene condition and access ehius sd y the by used techniques traditional observe could we important, very threat was the where some place In communities. the damage further will that falls rock trigger will earthquake highly an is seismic, area the As real and dangerous threat. a represent nevertheless population exposure), they low with events (localized are these Although isolated and extremely fast anticipate. to difficult very is fall, magnitude its but Humla, as such area mountainous rock is hazard in threat serious a is fall Rock landslide. by followed potential critical most The Rock fall –September2009 ME survey of observation visual of communities. basis of the part on this study, in the assessed be drought, not earthquake, could fire, epidemic, as anticipated. such and risks landscape. mapped Disaster be could surrounding which risks, the disaster water-induced on focused observation The of observation identify hazards based on geological / morphological the classroom. August in 2009 – No children were in Shreenagar in A large stone fell on a school 9 the rocktoincreaseitsstability. above hole a digging in consisted technique observed Another pieces. smaller into stone the crack would shock temperature the that around a large stone and watering it rapidly so population to reduce the threat, by setting fire o te omnte, n ee i te are they if even and communities, the for vital are plots land new and firewood both Since land). agricultural new of creation and firewood (for deforestation quoted regularly are usually well known by the population who Our survey showed that the causes of landslides population. the of concerns major the of one is landslide land, agricultural scarce Affecting Landslide remains the major threat in Humla. Landslide motn (s o al f ea) Sol an Should Nepal). of all for (as important remains risk earthquake decades, last the in an occurred as event such no as earthquake threat immediate see not do themselves people and risk, earthquake of assessment Although this survey did not engage in precise earthquake inthelast50years. important sustained hasn’t area the because that seems It probably most lost, got knowledge traditional for. is know belt this not what do exactly people and tremors heavy exists, its connection isn’t adequate to sustain mitigation still belt wood the if houses, recent more For appropriate measures with wood belt properly assembled. used buildings traditional old NSET.that observed team The by seismic identified (MCT-3.2.1/Mg7.6) fault one active to close is area surveyed The Earthquake other alternative. no of know they practices, deforestation by create they threat serious the of aware well

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 uh ihr Rc fl ws h first survey 1 the phase was during fall identified threat Rock higher. be could much impact their although less frequent, are fall rock and earthquake whereas impacts, adverse minor but numerous with the area the threat: regularly to hit hazard others due that fact is potential It fall. rock and their earthquake minimized with are compared hazards 2 Nevertheless, fire. and drought) of consequences being (hunger drought of community, as such hazards their kind “global” including strike to the likely of hazards understanding rather correct a have they that notice we hazards surrounding the name could who those For to multipleresponse Note: total percentage is higher than 100 due surrounding of hazards isimportant:40,7%. idea no have who people of number the perspective, general a From of surroundinghazards knowledge and Perception Risk isolated foralongperiod. impossible by land, and to people would remain Access altitude). almost become would communities affected higher in risk mention GLOF to (not floods flash to lead which could falls, rock and landslides numerous trigger would it Humla, in occur earthquake 10 s ihr ut iprat 5% or (51%) important quite of thethreat,96%consideritimportant. respondents either unknown by (47%). Of those who have perceived an understanding as is level threat The geologic and constitution ofsoil. landscape mountainous the to due ial, ucms f KP uvy n group and survey collection data the with KAP parallel in held discussions a of outcomes Finally, chart (see threat above). lower a or reality in than threat one. surveyed 11 higher the a either perceived villages, 5 of in Respondents out villages 6 in exists threat of perception correct rather a that found We and therisklevelpervillageidentifiedduringphase1. level threat the compared we risk, surrounding real the with consistent is feeling threat the if assess To 4 households, 69%wereilliterateand31%literate. surveyed 376 the within persons 2587 the of Out Literacy households Vulnerability andcapacityof very hardtoachieve. is participants of presence physical and intellectual of days many as short be to needs trainings of length the and Humla in revised be to have material IEC and Training dissemination. knowledge on impact there’s nothing thatcanbedoneagainstit. and decision God’s to refers it as mainly fatalistic is attitude coping the Finally, community. surveyed the of half almost in risk assessed the with identified. But their perception of risk is not adequate properly are hazards population, the of pose. rest the For hazards the that level threat the appreciate hazards, and 47% of interviewed people do not fully surrounding the of unaware the are of (40%) part population large a that see can we conclusion In that couldfallondwellings,orbetterstorageofhay. stones heavy the breaking as such risk, the reduce to attitude pro-active observe nevertheless could we it’s attributed to a “divine intervention”. In few villages believe they cannot influence and mitigate it because identified the hazard that can affect their community, properly have they when even people, that showed Nepal HumanDevelopment Report(Table 2.7page 47)–UNDP2009 ME Survey –October2009 ME Survey for men 81% and women for 54.4% is rate literacy the level, national At a a immediate an has that literacy of level low extreme an to confronted in Humla are we 31%, of rate to an average literacy 4 . Compared 11 International. staff and the technical assistance of Handicap survey required a specific training for the field itself. the population during Disability with People the Identifying by identify and to name even to difficult sometimes are that various temporary or permanent impairments from suffering are people of lots inexistent, almost services medical and hard very is life where area rural a In process. CBDRM the in inclusion full their ensure to order in East Mission for concern major a been has Humla in disability with people identifying Properly People withdisabilities olwd y oig maret (12,2%), impairment closely moving (13,3%), by followed first comes impairment When analyzed by type of impairment, hearing (2587). persons surveyed total the of 6% represent which 162, then is disability with people number of total The 3. 2,4% and 6,4% two disability, having with member one having more members or with disability. one 23,2% having declared declared (32%) families 120 PWD =People withDisabilities –October2009 ME survey

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 2007. 5 and 51%havenoidea. everybody for same is risk 35% the that disaster. believe natural to vulnerable more are that people of categories are there that recognized respondents the of 14,6% Only others?” than disaster natural to vulnerable more are that people of categories are there vulnerability the with assessment, time to the question “Do same you think that the at performed survey KAP the of part Finally,as required. not even name what kind of special care was majority the being children and 70% of respondents named, could were disability with babies and (including elderly people), but only 2 person care special requiring members family having declared households of 36,7% they havedifficultiestoadaptthesituation. that declared persons 8 disability, only with family their in member one declared least at families having 120 If life. daily their in the of idea, difficulties no that people with ifdisability are few,facing have Respondent because respondentsdonotreallythinkatit. either because families hide the information identified, or were impairment with people all that unlikely is it but handicap, of situation in family their of member one least household at surveyedhave the of 32% of total A has learningdisabilities. members family their of one if exactly know to them literacy,enable of not levels did low with together disability, on population the of knowledge limited the but higher likely is number real the that assume can we (1,6%), Humla. If learning difficulties scored very low which is a serious issue in an environment like

Among manypublications:“Gender Matters-LessonsforDisasterRiskReductioninSouthAsia”, ManjariMehta–ICIMOD,

12 environment andlackofcare. may means that such infant did not survive the harsh which retardation, mental as well as deformities, or we impairment with children Finally young any see them. not could with contact no had members relatives take care of them whereas other community incomes), they are highly marginalized and only close communities (working the on lands, fetching wood and of water, bringing activities the difficulties to their contribute to to due by that realized disability we staff, with HI person with interview During Gender vulnerable than men to disaster to men than vulnerable more are women that observed widely been already has disaster,it and gender between relationship the on analysis specific into engage not did we Although household. the male a with co-headed or headed women- are household of 21,5% total, In women. by managed are by lead household are household of 12,2% only whereas male, of number large A –October2009 ME Survey to family members, but their lack of self-esteem, self-esteem, of lack their but members, family to given attention better and context household the of efficiently during a disaster thanks to their knowledge help to potential great have women that observed also we Humla), in is it (as areas rural in significant is women and men and between inequality projects the DRR where running is East Mission where 5 . In other countries other In . any n fml mme laig o seasonal for leaving migration. member family one mainly 6 seasonal their have reduce WFP migration to and people government encouraged the by engaged programs distribution food the that showed Studies to hazard,thusreducingtheriskofcausalities. but(2)it also reduces thenumber ofpeople exposed consequencesdisasters,of thusincrease vulnerability, leaves families with absence of leadership to deal with contradictorytwohas riskeffectssituation.a on It(1) Migration area. the affect recurrently that shortages District and the Karnali region Humlabecause of serious in food feature common a is migration Seasonal Migration can beestablishedfromanearlystage. the CBDRM process so that a process of mutual help in Dalits involve to important therefore is disaster.It not come to assist Dalits in case they are stroked by a emergency assistance since higher cast people would survey. the during made Nevertheless, discussion with was Dalits raised the Caste issue of Dalit the by facing problems specific to reference little but caste Dalit from were survey from respondents of 32,5% Dalit cast children) cameup. their real concerns (fire in house and diarrhea of their groups, men’s the and women the separated we as soon as but landslide), and (drought concern main their being as hazards same the identified men like women workshops, prioritization hazard collective their concerns voicing and all decisions for are taken by males. space During little have women In disaster.Humla, of case in help cannot they believe to them lead etc ) weak are women do (women cannot attitude male the by encouraged usually PASSAGE TO INDIA: MIGRATION ASACOPING STRATEGY INTIMESOFCRISIS INNEPAL –WFP, NDRI– Nov2008 6 W se ht 5 o hueod have households of 25% that see We . 13 ones canbeaproblem. existing maintain and work mitigation some winter time, which is the best season to build during disease), labor male reduced the epidemic nevertheless, flood, (landslide, area the on the affect that impact hazards main the to exposure significant a having migration not that is see can we conclusion, In to copewithdisasters. family their help can and time that at present are members family male season, summer to hazards related to monsoon is higher in the exposure the as hunger-gaps; two the of one winter season (November to February), the during during mainly occur to tends Migration of people possess lands but the landscape in landscape the but lands possess people of the unique subsistence activity in Humla. Most almost is livestock, with together Agriculture, Land andfood

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010 y h gvrmn, nuh o power to enough one lamp). government, the by solar working provided panels solar a individual (ie. system, have 30% only and FM radio to listens population the of half only that revealed survey The family. a for vital are elements 2 these radio, the via is media only the because and electricity of absence the of because Humla, In situation. disaster in flow information improves devices radio and panel solar working a of possession The solar panel Access toinformation:FMRadio/ ME survey –October2009 ME survey already insecure. food people the leaves This hamper resources. meager erosion bank and river landslide numerous but little the and agriculture extensive allow not does Humla 14 Synthesis onvulnerability –October2009 ME survey ranging fromlowtomedium. level compared to 28,2% of people situated in a level population are within a high to very high vulnerability the of 71,8% that showed result scoring global The Disaster Preparedness & Response Plan. Dalit groups). It is also useful when devising the Village depending on where people live in the village (such as vulnerabilityimportantofdiscrepancieslevels and in mapping. It can reveal a specific vulnerability hazardsituation the on based household of groups per vulnerabilitylevel average the compare to devised was The use of an average vulnerability score per household it willreloadbetter! people exposed the battery directly under the sun, thinking some example, properly.As batteries maintain / reload to discussion During years. with communities, it was observed total ignorance on how many for last can system solar instruction on the maintenance and the guarantee that the Solar panels were distributed by government with very little ME survey –October 2009 MEsurvey epe ih iaiiis il e h ms affected most the be will disabilities with people the main livelihoods coping mechanism. Elderly, and remains migration consequences, disaster address to capacities and knowledge limited very With survive. low food reserve, the population of Humla is striving to in resulting and crops affecting hazards regular land, to access scarce rate, literacy low very a of Because Conclusion 15 r mr vleal atog they the of survival although the community. to vulnerable highly contribute more are high the to domination, male strong and illiteracy of rate owing women, Finally, low. on disability “vertical” and how to handle it is extremely such in environment, norm and the population’s knowledge the physical are since barriers disaster during population

A review of vulnerability, hazard and disasters in southern Humla - April 2010