Saving lives is amazingly simple

In an increasingly dangerous world, channelling significant amounts of humanitarian assistance toward disaster preparedness would pay really big dividends, Norway’s minister of the environment and international development, Eric Solheim wrote in an opinion piece recently published in the Bangkok Post.

In recent decades millions of people have died as a result of natural disasters and the cost of dealing with the disasters was in the trillions of dollars. These figures say nothing of the untold suffering caused by these disasters, and there is no reason to expect that the situation will improve. In fact it may well get worse.

In the past year there was a series of natural disasters, including the floods in Pakistan, the earthquake in Haiti and the forest fires in Russia. More international relief operations were carried out in 2010 than ever before and the international community spent huge sums of money on emergency relief.

Prevention, prevention, prevention!

The climate changes we are experiencing today are increasing the risk of natural disasters such as flooding and drought.

In addition, for the populations of big cities in high-risk zones the menace of tropical storms and/or earthquakes is increasing. In 2000 there were some 680 million people living in such exposed areas. By 2050 this figure will be 1.5 billion.

These are figures from a new World Bank report, ''Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters'', which looks at disasters primarily through an economic lens.

The study asks how can we reduce the material damage caused by natural disasters, and thereby also the human suffering. The conclusions reflect the complexity of the problem, but the solution is simple: prevention, prevention, prevention!

Such findings rarely make the headlines, of course. The media do not tend to report such information until a disaster strikes. Emergency relief organisations are also most active – both in the field and in the media – once a disaster has occurred. But often, the measures required to make a country less vulnerable to natural disasters are quite simple. Moreover, according to the report, the returns are high.

Some examples

Here are a few examples. Many national meteorological and hydrological services in Asia and Africa have far too limited resources. They lack both qualified personnel and equipment and are unable to make sufficiently accurate forecasts of storms, flooding or tsunamis. Thus, millions of people miss out on information that could make it possible for them to get to safety in time.

According to the World Bank report, meteorological services in Mozambique were estimated to have a benefit-cost ratio of 70. A similar estimate in China from 1994-96 found a benefit-cost ratio of between 35 and 40.

It is not only the forces of nature that determine the scale of a disaster. Poor governance can exacerbate the consequences. I recently visited Haiti to take a closer look at the progress of the reconstruction efforts since the earthquake last year. The country has always been extremely poorly prepared, for example, for the cyclone and hurricane season. This is in sharp contrast to neighbouring Cuba, where political planning has helped to minimise property damage and human suffering.

Burma is another example. When the tropical storms begin in earnest, it is only the power elite who are safe. Although neighbouring Bangladesh is no richer than Burma, its people are better protected. Bangladesh has taken the problem of cyclone preparedness seriously. Cyclone-proof public buildings are being erected where the people can seek shelter.

Conclusion

Thus, the key is political planning, as some have realised. But we still have a long way to go. Today approximately 20% of all humanitarian aid goes to immediate disaster relief and response. This percentage could have been much lower, if not for the fact that less than 1% of official development assistance funds are spent on prevention measures.

Every country and every international organisation, including the UN and the World Bank, must shoulder their share of the burden. We must shift the focus of humanitarian aid from immediate relief and response to risk reduction and preparedness.

Norway has already begun. Almost 10% of our humanitarian aid is used for preventive measures. This is not being done in the hope of favourable media coverage, but solely because such measures work. Preparedness saves lives and protects physical assets. Or as the proverb goes: ''It's better to be prepared than to swift afterwards.''

• Add New
• Search

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2