Walk into any disaster risk reduction (DRR) forum, browse through project documents, or attend community workshops, and you’ll encounter a common, noble goal: reducing human suffering when disaster strikes.

We see impressive presentations on state-of-the-art techniques – earthquake-safe construction, cyclone-resistant shelters, flood modelling, early warning systems.

Driven by genuine compassion and technical expertise, these efforts aim to build resilience and save lives. And undoubtedly, where these modern, often structural, measures are sincerely adopted, vulnerability does decrease.

But amidst these earnest efforts, a critical, often uncomfortable question nags: Are the primary beneficiaries of these programs truly the most vulnerable members of our communities?

For many DRR initiatives, especially in developing contexts like the Himalayas or other parts of the Global South, the honest answer might be ‘NO’.

This reveals a potential flaw, a blind spot in our strategies, inadvertently designing interventions better suited for those who already possess a degree of security, literacy, and resources.

State-of-the-Art Solutions vs Stark Daily Realities

Consider the standard DRR toolkit.

We promote earthquake-resistant building practices, often involving specific materials, engineering designs, and skilled labor.

We advocate for retrofitting existing homes or building new, stronger shelters. These are proven life-savers.

But now, picture the reality for millions living on the absolute margins:

• What does an earthquake-resistant housing seminar mean to a family displaced by river erosion, living under a flapping tarpaulin sheet held down by rocks?
• How relevant are cyclone-strengthening techniques to a landless labourer whose primary concern is securing the next meal for their children, not reinforcing walls they don’t own?
• How does a sophisticated early warning app help someone without a smartphone, electricity, or even basic literacy?

For vast segments of the population grappling with deep-seated poverty, chronic malnutrition, precarious informal employment, lack of access to clean water or sanitation, and systemic social exclusion, the immediate, grinding ‘disaster‘ is their daily existence.

The potential future threat of an earthquake, flood, or cyclone, however deadly, often pales in comparison to the certainty of today’s hunger or tomorrow’s eviction.

Their capacity to engage with, let alone invest time or non-existent resources in, conventional DRR measures is virtually nil.

The Equity Dilemma: Who Benefits, Who Pays?

This raises a crucial question of equity and resource allocation. If DRR programs, funded by public money or international aid, primarily deliver services – like technical advice, training, or subsidies for safer construction – that are most readily adopted by homeowners, landowners, or those with stable incomes, are we inadvertently subsidising the resilience of the relatively secure?

This is not to argue against helping anyone become safer.

Rather, it’s to question the efficiency and fairness of using limited resources.

Should programs targeting beneficiaries who demonstrably could contribute towards their own safety explore cost-sharing or fee-for-service models?

Doing so could potentially free up desperately needed funds to design and implement interventions genuinely accessible and relevant to those who have absolutely no capacity to reduce their own vulnerability.

The state, often struggling to provide even basic services, arguably cannot afford to disproportionately channel DRR funds towards those least in need, while millions remain exposed due to sheer poverty.

Why the “Real Vulnerable” Remain Out of Reach?

The most vulnerable aren’t necessarily ignorant of the risks they face.

Evolution has hard-wired all of us – poor or affluent – to assess the risk of hazards they are exposed to.

The poor often know perfectly well that their makeshift hut won’t survive a storm, or that living on a steep, unstable slope is dangerous or the house constructed in close proximity of mountain torrent is likely to be overwhelmed during the rains.

But then, they are left with little options; they don’t have land to settle down at aa safe places, they lack resources to construct a sturdy and safe dwelling.

All the more, they remain unreached by most humanitarian programs because of the following:

Survival Preoccupies

Their daily struggle for food, water, work, and health leaves them with no time, no energy, and absolutely no financial resources to attend meetings, listen to and absorb technical information, or implement safety measures.

Their risk calculation is brutally short-term, because their survival horizon is immediate.

They really have no time to ponder over an earthquake that could hit their area in coming years when their immediate survival is at stake. They have to make the ends meet and that too for today and not have the luxury of worrying about incidences that might happen at some future point of time and more so that is not a surety.

Irrelevance of Interventions

Standard DRR solutions – say building code advice – simply don’t apply to their circumstances as they are either homeless, or live in informal settlements.

Access Barriers

Illiteracy, language differences, remote locations, lack of access to information channels like smartphones or internet, and social exclusion prevent them from even knowing about or participating in programs.

Lack of Trust

Past negative experiences with authorities or external agencies can create deep-seated mistrust.

Powerlessness

They often lack the political voice or social capital to demand safer living conditions or access to resources.

They are acutely aware of their vulnerability, but trapped by circumstances, they can do little about it.

Thinking about the next potential flood is a luxury when faced with the certainty of today’s empty stomach.

Rethinking Our Strategy: Towards Truly Inclusive DRR

If our goal is genuinely to reduce disaster losses for everyone, especially those who suffer most, we need a fundamental shift in our approach and embrace the following:

Address Root Causes, Not Just Symptoms

Recognize that vulnerability to natural hazards is deeply intertwined with poverty, inequality, lack of basic services, and environmental degradation.

Effective DRR must be integrated with poverty reduction strategies, livelihood enhancement programs, social safety nets, public health initiatives, and access to basic amenities like clean water and sanitation.

Building daily resilience is the foundation for surviving shocks.

Design for Reality

Move beyond one-size-fits-all technical fixes.

Ask: What are meaningful DRR interventions for the poorest?

This might include:

• • Diversifying livelihoods to reduce reliance on hazard-prone activities.
  • Improving sanitation to prevent disease outbreaks post-flood.
  • Facilitating access to micro-credit or micro-insurance.
  • Strengthening community support networks.
  • Providing safe, voluntary relocation assistance coupled with livelihood support.
  • Basic first aid and community-based rescue training.
  • Ensuring access to safe drinking water during and after disasters.

Participatory Approaches

Meaningfully engage the most vulnerable groups from the very beginning.

Use accessible methods – oral communication, local languages, participatory mapping, community theatre – to understand their perception of risk, their priorities, and their ideas for solutions.

Build trust through consistent, respectful engagement.

Target Intentionally

Develop clear criteria and mechanisms to ensure that program benefits actively reach and demonstrably improve the conditions of the most marginalized and excluded populations.

Monitor outcomes based on equity.

Integrate DRR and Climate Adaptation

The poorest are often on the front lines of climate change impacts as well.

Combining DRR and climate adaptation efforts makes sense practically and financially.

Conclusion: Leaving No One Behind Means Reaching Everyone

The commitment to reducing disaster risk is commendable.

But good intentions must be matched by effective strategies that acknowledge the diverse realities of vulnerability.

If our programs primarily serve those already equipped with some level of security, we are failing those who stand to lose the little they have, and often their lives.

Building true community resilience requires the courage to question our assumptions, the humility to listen to those we seek to serve, and the creativity to design interventions that address the complex interplay of poverty and hazard risk.

It means moving beyond technical solutions alone and embracing a more holistic, equitable, and people-centered approach.

Only then can we truly hope to fulfill the promise of disaster risk reduction – leaving no one behind when the ground shakes, the winds howl, or the waters rise.