Natural Disasters
Saving lives is amazingly simple
The border between Haiti (left) and the Dominican Republic (right) shows that the institutions of society and political governance can influence a country's vulnerability to natural disasters. The Dominicans have managed to preserve large parts of their forests, while on the Haitian side of the border, poverty and want have led to deforestation, which increases the risk of flooding and landslides. Photo Courtesy: National Geographic
The past year has seen a long series of natural disasters: the floods in Pakistan, the earthquake in Haiti, the forest fires in Russia. More international relief operations were carried out in 2010 than ever before. The international community has spent huge sums of money on emergency relief. The recipe is simple. First, some figures: 3.3 million people died as a result of natural disasters from 1970 to 2010. The property damage during the same period is estimated to be $2,300 billion. These figures say nothing about the untold suffering caused by these disasters. There is little indication that the situation will improve. The climate changes we are experiencing today are increasing the risk of natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes and drought. In addition, the populations of big cities in high-risk zones for tropical storms and/or earthquakes are rising. In 2000 there were some 680 million people living in such exposed areas. By 2050 this figure will be 1.5 million. These are not my figures. They are from a new World Bank report, Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters (http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/NHUD-home#NHUD), which looks at disasters primarily through an economic lens. 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. The emergency relief organisations are also most active – both in the field and in the media – once the 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. Amazingly simple measuresI can give you some examples. Many national meteorological and hydrological services in Asia and Africa have far too little 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 make it 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. Poor governance responsible for deaths
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. For example, cyclone-proof public buildings are being erected where the people can seek shelter. 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. But then it is not enough to spend less than 1% of official development assistance funds on prevention measures, as is the case today. Here each country and international organisations such as 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 prevention 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 swift afterwards. The writer is Norwegian Minister for Environment and International Development.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Related News
Why is safe water inaccessible for millions despite rising spending?
5 hour(s) ago
Editorial
BB must confront bad loans’ true scale
18 June 2026, 18:38 PM
Editorial
Dolphin deaths must be investigated
18 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
Weak policing fuelling rise in crimes
17 June 2026, 18:18 PM
Editorial
Three union names, one troubling pattern
17 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
Comments