Theft

Another asset depleting agent that explains the differential household vulnerabilities is stealing which is rampant in the study communities. Where hazard stricken households are not lucky enough, their economic assets can get stolen in the heat of their disasters. Such act makes them more vulnerable to respond to the disasters in their households. Stealing is much more frequent among households who lose members in a boating accident. During the funeral period where they do not go to their work places, thieves can be free to operate. Stealing of food crops is very common in the communities and as mentioned earlier, that is one of the reasons why people farm across the lake. Even farms across the lake are not safe from thieves in the aftermath of hazard events. An informant in Dambai responded that his wife died when they were transporting groundnuts from the farm across the lake to the house. He said after the funeral of the wife, he got to the farm only to realize that someone had gone to steal the rest of the groundnuts they had left to dry. Another widow in Dambai responded that it was the canoe of her deceased husband that they stole. The canoe capsized and was still in good condition. She said the intention of the household was to give the canoe to the eldest son to be using for the farm, but after the funeral rites, the canoe was missing and they had no money to buy a new one. Much of the theft cases involve livestock, especially when there is a reduction in the household numbers. A 55-year old watchman who used to farm across the lake in Dambai shared his experience. His wife died in a canoe accident and all his three daughters are now married. He said that: “I had so many goats and sheep but they have all

been stolen. I used to sell some in times of need after the death of my wife, but they stole them all and I had nothing to rely on.”

Stealing is therefore one core factor that depletes the assets of people and hence increases their vulnerability. It also partly explains why one household will suffer more disasters than another. A household that has all its assets intact after suffering from a hazard will suffer fewer disasters. On the other hand, no matter how wealthy a particular household is, it will have nothing to respond to disasters if its economic assets are stolen. In reference to the vulnerability stories above and comparing the livelihoods of Yaw and Koffi, the latter has

81

all his livestock intact while some of Yaw’s animals (goats) were stolen. Yaw cannot even go far into the lake for better fish catch because of the fear of the theft of his remaining animals.

5.5 Summary

Both inter and intra-household power analysis is important to understanding post-disaster livelihood conditions. The native ethnic groups are at the top of the power structure in the study communities as they command the resources. At the household level, women are at the bottom of the power structure as is the case in most African traditional societies. Political, social and economic reasons explain why people in the study communities are engaged in hazardous livelihoods or live in areas that have many disadvantages. Apart from people making conscious economic decisions, the study found that the creation of the Volta Lake brought about many livelihood problems and these explain why some of them are living with unsafe conditions. The study also found that most households, both high and low income, have experienced some disasters after losing a member or property through boating accidents. This vulnerability change among the study households was assessed by comparing the ability of households to provide their basic needs both before and after they experience a boating accident. There are however differences in the disasters households experience and in the levels of their vulnerability. These differences are largely due to the differential household characteristics and in some asset depletion agents. The study further found that some marginalised groups such as female-headed, migrant and settler households lose access rights to their livelihood resources after the suffer from a boating accident. It was also revealed that other social factors such as theft, conflict, and customary rites during disasters helped to deplete the asset bases of households and partly account for the differences in vulnerability among both high income and low income households.

82

6 Post-disaster household livelihood strategies and support

services

“If I stumble with my bicycle and fall on the way to the farm I can quickly pick myself

up and continue but I cannot pick myself up with ease if I have an accident with a canoe.”

Kwabena in Dambai, who formerly owned a farmland across the lake

6.1 Introduction

In the last chapter, the vulnerability situation in post-disaster times and the reasons for the differences in vulnerability were outlined. This chapter continues the analyses of responses by looking at the livelihood activities households undertake in post-disaster times. It also looks at the support systems available to households when disasters strike. In this chapter, I make the argument that because of the limited livelihood opportunities in the study areas, most boating households try to adapt their activities related to boating after experiencing an accident. This chapter complements the previous chapter and therefore helps give a holistic understanding of post-disaster livelihoods in the study areas. As it can be recalled, I am not concentrating on the assets households use in coping as outlined in the last chapter, but in the activities. I want to repeat here that livelihood assets cannot clearly be divorced from the activities.

6.2 Revisiting the literature on coping, adaptive and substitutive strategies