Disasters are predictable, but are not being planned for

Shaken before we are stirred?

Disasters are predictable but countries don't plan for them • News Comment

Friday • July 7, 2006

Ajay Chhibber and Ronald Parker

THE devastating earthquake in Indonesia killed about 6,000 people and displaced as many as 650,000. This followed the tsunami from which Indonesia and other countries in the Indian Ocean are still recovering.

The earthquake and the tsunami were natural phenomena, but their ghastly impact on lives could have been avoided if disaster risk had been an integral part of long-term developing planning.

Yet, the development community seems to refuse to learn a number of simple yet vital lessons that can save millions of lives and hard-won development gains in poor countries.

Disasters are becoming predictable. There are about 50 developing countries with a recurrent pattern of natural disasters, including earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. A disaster in any of these countries could easily wipe out their economies and affect an entire generation.

However, donors and international agencies do not recognise these risks as a threat to their development assistance, and often have to provide new resources to rebuild previously completed projects.

The World Bank, for example, negotiates development plans with its borrowing countries every four years. Of those who have borrowed money from the Bank for disasters, almost half do not even mention disasters in their plans.

Many have seen earthquakes, floods, or tropical storms strike repeatedly, yet do not recognise that they will happen again. This must change.

The number of disasters is increasing. The associated risks will only rise as population pressures increase.

Climate change will, in all likelihood, bring with it additional changes and new risks.

As sea temperatures rise, the risks of cyclones will increase. As sea levels rise, more coastal areas will be affected, and as weather patterns change, droughts and floods will increase in number and affect new areas.

We know that these are not one-off events. We must help countries prepare for and deal with these risks within the context of their development plans.

Prevention is more cost-effective than response.

Poor construction quality is a major reason why so many lives are lost in developing countries when disasters strike. It is caused by weak building codes, lax enforcement of construction standards and corrupt procurement practices. Better land-use planning is of critical importance to ensure that people are not building in risky areas.

Building materials and design are closely related and small changes can either save thousands of lives or put them at even greater risk.

It costs very little, an estimated 10 per cent increase, to make structures safer.

In Turkey, for example, many lives could have been saved during the 1999 Marmara earthquake if the country's building code had been followed.

Maintenance of key infrastructure is also vital for protection from future catastrophes — as is shown by the costly neglect of levees designed to protect New Orleans.

Collective action and financial commitment from the international community must finally go beyond the quickly fading wave of compassion that sweeps over the world when a natural disaster strikes.

Of course, the world community must help Indonesia as it tries to help those affected, just as help was provided in other disasters — in Pakistan, Turkey and the Caribbean.

But the world community can also do better. Studies have shown that $1 spent on prevention can save up to $40 of damage. Still, countries are reluctant to invest more in risk management when it might divert funds from other development needs.

Many countries have seen risk mitigation as a cost rather than a benefit.

But if we are ready to spend more funds on establishing the mechanisms for well-run financial systems in order to avoid financial crises, then we should do the same with disasters.

A combination of financing incentives and regulation is needed to ensure that risk mitigation is not neglected.

The disheartening events in Indonesia remind us once more of the fact that nature creates hazards, but man-made actions create disasters.

Unless we rigorously change the way disaster risk is brought into development thinking, we will remain in a vicious and costly cycle of quick fixes, provoke donor fatigue and continue to jeopardise the lives of poor people in disaster hotspots.

The writers are from the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group.