Unnatural Disasters; Reckless Aid

PrintEmail

Anyone in the development world has heard the mantra, 'there is no such thing as a natural disaster.' Yes, earthquakes are outside the realm of human control, but vulnerability and resilience are not. In a recent article, Oxfam America, which is currently responding in Haiti, writes that recovery from this earthquake will be "especially [hard for] a nation saddled with deep poverty and minimal infrastructure."
 
In other words, Haiti's susceptibility to catastrophic events is a byproduct of its impoverished state, which is a byproduct, in part, of American interference and neglect.
 
Of course now, in the short term, we give money. Emergencies, like the tsunami of 2004, the Pakistan earthquake of 2005, and now the Haiti quake, capture the hearts and minds of people in wealthy nations, and inspire generosity that can overwhelm – in the literal sense of the word.
 
The 2004 South Asian tsunami taught us this. I worked as part of a team of people who compiled research on aid effectiveness after the tsunami, which gave me the opportunity to visit affected areas in South India and Sri Lanka. Local development agencies described for our team a "tsunami" of aid that flooded their countries in the weeks and months after the killer wave.
 
This system of bust and boom generosity is inefficient and potentially harmful.
 
Emergency response is designed and implemented hastily, because in the aftermath of a disaster needs are widespread and urgent. Regardless of the size of their budgets, emergency response programs usually have very short timelines: six months, one year, two years maximum. After that time, all money must be spent – all programs closed.
 
As my team met with researchers and development workers in India and Sri Lanka, they all said that if they had longer time lines, if they could have had program extensions, they could use their large budgets to have longer lasting impacts.
 
What was really needed, they said, was the means to reduce vulnerability to future disasters, and what would do that best was poverty reduction and development.
 
As money pours into Haiti (the E.U. has pledged $180 million in emergency aid), Marketplace's Steven Beard ended his Monday report with a ringing warning: The aid agencies agree that delivering supplies is the first priority. But they warn that promises of longer-term aid often evaporate as the humanitarian crisis subsides.
 
Unfortunately, people in wealthy nations are not often inspired to give just because people are poor. And we rarely acknowledge that it could be our foreign policy that pushes a nation's populous into poverty, or keeps it there.
 
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There is a serious need to change our cycles of giving, so that we invest in development and disaster risk reduction before earthquakes can demolish entire capital cities. Not only might it save us money in the long run, but more importantly, it will save lives.
 
America's incredible post-quake generosity would not have been necessary if conscientiousness had prevailed before January 13.
 
 
If you found this piece informative, be sure to read this post on ways you can help in Haiti now and in the future.
 
(Photo of a Haitian woman being pulled from earthquake debris by members of LA County SAR; taken by US Navy: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin Stumberg)