EMERGENCY RISK REDUCTION

Is there a connection between development and disasters? Emphatically yes! The line may not be straight, but the more developed is the country, the less is the impact of disasters. I am speaking mostly of natural disasters, because these seem to be the most frequent events in developed countries. What do we mean by ‘developed’? In general, we’re speaking of countries in which the citizens have access to a sustainable supply of goods and services that enhance quality of life. This might mean education, communications, roads, electricity, transparent markets, job opportunities, etc.

It also means building codes and other safeguards for its citizens — that usually come thru a tax structure. You can imagine that the more ‘safeguards’ that are place in a society, the better prepared is the country when a disaster occurs. For instance, the Haiti earthquake several years ago was no more severe than numerous quakes that have hit other countries — for instance, Christchurch, New Zealand.  But look at the comparative devastation and human suffering!  Yes, the cause was an earthquake, but the result came from non-existent building codes, overcrowded and squalored living conditions, lack of response services, etc.  It’s a desperate country of 70% unemployment. No wonder that many thousands died in Haiti compared to no deaths in New Zealand.

Human nature is that we do our fair share of complaining, but a quick reality check indicates that we are very glad that our society basically ‘works’. We have EMS, police, fire departments, hospitals…and too often take them for granted. We, or at least I, complain of taxes, but they help support road, bridge, and building inspections.  All of the above are part of a ‘developed’ country that has buffers when a disaster happens. It’s not perfect by any scale, and this is why we have a Fukashima after a tsunami, a New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, or a New York after Superstorm Sandy. But in general, we suffer far, far less as a developed country than most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which are underdeveloped.

Should our goal be to respond to an earthquake, flood, or hurricane impacting another country? Yes, we do and will continue to respond. It is our moral obligation. But this may and usually does come at a tremendous cost. A much more valuable and efficient goal is to assist these countries in becoming more developed — in order that they can both mitigate and prepare their citizenry against disasters, and more effectively respond when one occurs. Achieving this level of development should be the noble goal. Why can it not be prioritized and emphasized? Sadly, this sure and steady journey toward humanity – all of humanity – being reached in a sustainable, emboldening, and empowering way will not make the 6PM news. It simply lacks the pizazz, the glitz, the “legs”. Yet, is there a more important international story?

Thanks for reading.