The Indian Ocean Tsunami: an Act of God, or manufactured by mortals?

The article below was published in Harambee 51, March 2005, entitled 'Disasters: Out of our hands?'.

Harambee is an excellent publication produced by Tear Australia and available from their website (http://www.tear.org.au/). I highly recommend this entire issue, as well as an issue of Tear's other publication, Target - Target No. 2, 2005, 'When Disaster Strikes'.

‘Natural’ disasters: Acts of God, or manufactured by mortals?

by Rebecca Monson

In the days following the Indian Ocean tsunami, two explanations for the tragedy were given coverage by the Australian media. The first was that the disaster was solely the result of ‘nature’, via the movement of tectonic plates. The second was that the tsunami was somehow an ‘Act of God’. Neither of these explanations is particularly helpful in preventing and responding to disasters, as both deny the role that humans play in compounding the damage that natural events cause to families, communities and the environment.

The events that we call ‘disasters’ are never purely ‘natural’, but arise from the interaction of natural events with human societies. For instance, a tsunami occurring in an uninhabited region, or a flood occurring over rice paddies, would not be called a ‘disaster’, but merely a natural event. Whether or not a natural event becomes something we call a ‘disaster’ is determined by the social, cultural, economic and political conditions existing in the area hit by an event. Efforts to prepare for, mitigate the effects of, and respond to a disaster must therefore be based on understanding both the natural event and the social, environmental, and economic conditions that shape the effects of that event.

‘Vulnerability’ has emerged as a key concept for understanding the conditions that enable a natural event to become a ‘disaster’. Broadly speaking, ‘vulnerability’ refers to the likelihood that people will experience damage, loss and suffering as a result of a natural event. Class, caste, ethnicity, occupation, gender, disability, health status, and age are factors that can influence vulnerability, because people who are disadvantaged by one or more of these characteristics are more likely to suffer from a natural disaster. In India, for example, Dalits (so-called untouchables, or low caste people) appear to be amongst the most vulnerable in the aftermath of the tsunami. NGOs and journalists have reported that members of higher-caste communities are preventing Dalits from accessing relief camps, and government officials have refused to provide water, food and shelter to them.[i]

Poverty is not synonymous with vulnerability, but the two conditions tend to be highly correlated. The poor often live in unsafe locations, and have fragile health and livelihoods. This makes them more vulnerable, because their ability to cope with the additional burdens arising from a natural event is limited. In Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia, poor fishing families had been forced to build their houses closer to the coastline due to the construction of resorts, hotels and highways. Due to their limited finances, these houses were weak structures that were unable to withstand the force of the tsunami. As a result many fishermen lost their homes and all their belongings, including their means for earning a living. Since most are without savings or insurance, their ability to reconstruct their livelihoods is limited. By contrast, concrete hotels were far more likely to withstand the tsunami. Furthermore, even in areas where virtually everything was destroyed, hotel owners had insurance and overseas investments to enable them to restore damage.

Poverty is also often associated with limited access to infrastructure and services, which is a key cause of vulnerability. While the location of Aceh at the epicentre of the earthquake and tsunami meant that severe destruction was inevitable, the effects were exacerbated by the fact that it is one of the poorest provinces in Indonesia, and the scene of protracted civil conflict. Prior to the tsunami, roads were poor, electrical services were erratic, and schools and hospitals were poorly equipped. Physical infrastructure was already prone to disruption before the tsunami, and was completely shattered by this additional assault. Disaster response has also been hampered because development agencies have been prohibited from working in Aceh for several years, and therefore lack the local structures and expertise that facilitate swift and effective action. Thus while the sheer force of the Indian Ocean tsunami would probably have triggered a disaster wherever it occurred, the scope of the disaster would have been greatly reduced if it hit the north-east coast of the North America. In many respects, the tsunami was simply the latest blow to people already struggling to survive.

This is not to say that those who are vulnerable are completely helpless, or even that someone who is poor will always be more vulnerable than someone who is wealthy. In the South Pacific, local knowledge of tsunamis ensures that local people know to run for the hills if the tide goes out too far. Foreign tourists, although wealthy, generally lack this knowledge (there are exceptions – in Phuket, a 10 year-old British girl triggered the evacuation of a beach when she realised a tsunami was coming). In Thailand, meditation skills have increased the capacity of Buddhist monks to cope with cremating tsunami victims.[ii] Agencies involved in relief efforts must be aware of these local capacities, in order to ensure that they are strengthened rather than weakened. Good relief offers a chance to tap local knowledge and strengthen livelihoods - following the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat, local architects and engineers drew inspiration from the traditional houses when designing new, earthquake-resistant dwellings, because unlike many modern houses, these traditional dwellings had survived the earthquake.[iii]

While nature might be involved, the events that we call ‘disasters’ are not purely ‘natural’, nor are they ‘Acts of God’. They arise from the interaction of a natural event with the social, environmental, economic conditions that humans create. If disaster relief and reconstruction fails to address the long-term conditions creating vulnerability, the poor remain caught in a vicious cycle of repeated disasters and emergency aid.

Although this fact is increasingly acknowledged, very little is being done. In fact, disaster ‘aid’ often promotes this cycle – much of the aid to countries affected by the tsunami is in the form of loans, and foreign debt is often a key cause of vulnerability, because it leads to budget cuts to areas such as health and education. Furthermore, while countries such as Australia spend millions on reducing the risks associated with floods, droughts and bushfires, very little is spent on assisting poor communities to do the same. This leads to some cruel ironies. In 2000, Mozambique appealed to the international community for $2.7 million to prepare for flooding, and received less than half this amount. 3 months later, more than $100 million of emergency aid poured into the country after it was struck by flooding, and a further $450 million was pledged for rehabilitation costs.[iv] Similarly, an NGO in Indonesia reports that they prepared booklets entitled “Tsunami! Kisah tentang peran masyarakat desa saat terjadi bencana tsunami” (“Tsunami! The story of what a village did when it was hit by a tsunami"), but USAid withdrew funding for the project prior to distribution. As a result, the booklets – which may have saved many lives – were not distributed before the tsunami hit.[v]

While the generosity of governments and citizens around the world in response to the tsunami is awe-inspiring, one of the greatest tragedies is that it takes an event of such magnitude to mobilise people. The vast majority of the world’s population are engaged in a constant struggle for survival – while it rarely makes the headlines, this is the disaster of everyday life. As noted in an editorial in the Washington Post;

…it's hard to avoid marvelling at the haphazard pattern of global empathy. Around the world, disasters that cut short hundreds of thousands of lives unfold constantly -- malaria kills 1 million people a year, AIDS kills about 3 million and the current genocide in Darfur has claimed perhaps 300,000 lives so far.[vi]

While commendable, our response to injustice must not be limited to the events that hit the front pages of our newspapers. We must acknowledge that disasters are neither ‘natural’ nor ‘Acts of God’, but are moulded partly by human hands – and that these hands can play a role in preventing and reducing them.

---

[i] International Dalit Solidarity Network and National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, Dalits Face Severe Discrimination in India's Tsunami Relief Efforts (Press Release) Copenhagen: January 11, 2005.

[ii] Talk of the Nation: Thai Buddhists Bury Tsunami Victims (Radio Program) NPR, Monday 3 January 2005. Available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256861.

[iii] UNDP (2001) From Relief to Recovery: The Gujarat Experience. New York: United Nations Development Programme, Emergency Response Division.

[iv] LaTrobe, S (2004) Before Disaster Strikes. Available at http://www.bond.org.uk/networker/aug04/opinion.htm

[v] Johnston, S (2005) IDEP’s Tsunami Readiness Booklet. Available at http://spaces.msn.com/members/susijohnston/Blog/cns!1p9unOFWMVQ3UgLkL7kGIYDA!249.entry

Yayasan IDEP Foundation (2005)Yayasan IDEP’s Community Crisis Response Kit. Available at http://www.idepfoundation.org/idep_crisis_response.html

[vi] Washington Post (2005) Haphazard Charity, Tuesday 4 January 2005. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45947-2005Jan3.html