Natural Disasters – More Frequent and More Destructive in Developing Countries Between 1988 and 1997, natural disasters claimed an estimated 50,000 lives per year and caused damage valued at more than $60 billion a year. According to the World Bank, developing countries suffer the brunt of natural disasters. In Bangladesh alone, three storms, four floods, one tsunami, and two cyclones killed more than 400,000 people during the 1988-1997 period, and they affected another 42 million. In 1991-92 alone, parts of southern Africa, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe experienced severe droughts. In Latin America and the Caribbean, major natural disasters claimed thousands of lives and caused billions of dollars of damage between 1995-98. In 1998, severe flooding of the Yangtze River caused devastation in China, and a large earthquake occurred in Armenia. Another long series of disasters struck in 1999 – a major earthquake in Turkey, a cyclone in Orissa (India), floods in central Vietnam, torrential rains and catastrophic mudslides in parts of Venezuela, and floods in Mozambique. The list goes on. – World Development Report 2000/2001

Studies suggest that people in low-income countries are four times more likely than people in high-income countries to die from a natural disaster. Why do poor countries suffer greater devastation? For the most part, the reasons boil down to factors related to the country's poverty itself – the large population of the absolute poor, and a government that is resource-strapped.

In most cases, the poorest cannot afford favorable and safe residential areas, and so they are forced to live in large concentrations in hazardous and marginal habitats, such as Brazil's favelas (dense slums, often located on steep slopes). The sheer numbers of people living in these areas amplify the horror of disasters when they hit.

On top of this, there are the risks associated with the makeshift homes and the poor quality of building materials that predominate in most shantytowns or slums. The danger is greatly exacerbated because ordinary building safety norms are invariably short-circuited – a failure that was the primary cause of the huge death toll in the January 26, 2001 earthquake in Bhuj (India).

At the national level, governments in developing countries have limited ability, and perhaps even foresight, to prevent or minimize disasters. In any case, resource-strapped nations are invariably caught in a dilemma without easy answers: diverting resources to prevent damages from random episodes in the future involves a trade-off – it means there will be fewer resources to combat the more devastating presence of endemic poverty and destitution in the here and now.

When disasters occur, nations have little capacity to cope with the consequences. What little they do, inevitably comes at the cost of the country's development goals.

Disasters Deepen the Poverty of Today and Tomorrow

Natural shocks affect the poor in a more fundamental and cruel manner – they reinforce the mechanism of chronic poverty. By deepening impoverishment today, the poor's ability to escape from conditions that keep them poor recedes further and further away.

This happens in several ways. For those dependent on daily wage labor for survival, injuries can prevent them from earning their living for a duration that depends on the intensity of the injury. In the worst case, permanent disability makes them unemployable.

Invariably, households with a disabled breadwinner will sell or mortgage their valuables and productive assets, including livestock or their own labor, to stave off hunger. An equal number take loans at usurious rates.

Both recourses have devastating implications for the future of families. It means either a permanent loss of productive assets (destroyed or sold) that would have added value to their economic activity. Or, it means a condition of chronic indebtedness (mortgage of assets or labor) and hence inter-generational servitude to the moneylender. Both lead to long-term chronic poverty.

The fate of the country also suffers similarly adverse consequences due to disastrous events. Widespread destruction of crops or production units slows the present and future growth of the economy, apart from erosion in national wealth due to mass destruction of lives and property.

Indeed, governments have little choice but to divert resources that had been earmarked for development activities and productive investment in order to provide relief and rebuild infrastructure. This sets back a country's growth prospects by several years.

Marrying Mitigation to Development Goals

Even so, investing in reducing the risk of natural disasters, rather than merely coping with the after effects, is worthwhile. It makes people less helpless when disasters threaten to overwhelm them, and gives them a fighting chance to scrape through with minimum permanent damage. While this is a worthy goal by itself, it also makes tremendous economic sense, especially for countries that must make choices between competing development claims on their inadequate resources.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, every dollar spent on disaster mitigation can save seven dollars in economic losses from a disaster. The cost-benefit ratios clearly favor mitigation. The economics of such an undertaking look even more attractive and agreeable if mitigation schemes are dovetailed with development plans, a task that is not as difficult as it may seem at first glance.

The most sensible and methodical approach involves systematic attempts to identify all possible hazards, and who and what are at risk. This lays the foundation for disaster-proof, sustainable projects such as flood-proofing dams in areas where flooding is common – through appropriate land-use planning, structural design and construction practices.

Collecting such data also reveals whether entire populations should be relocated from disaster-prone areas. This is not always practical or feasible, however, and is circumscribed by the limitations of funding and alternative sites.

The only remaining option is to reconstruct homes. This can be tied to housing projects financed by soft loans, and to equipping local masons with the skills needed to construct disaster-proof structures, making the process more sustainable and affordable.

The impact of disasters can be minimized in other ways – promoting afforestation, intensifying development of micro-watersheds, promoting mangrove plantations, etc. All these efforts contribute to soil and moisture conservation, increasing agrarian productivity and hence directly address issues of rural development and poverty alleviation in a sustainable manner.

Comprehensive insurance coverage of the sort seen in the developed countries is not yet possible in the poorer countries. Nevertheless, there is a strong case for helping governments bear the costs of these disasters.

Alternative means of sharing risk are being tested to avoid disrupting expenditures on government development projects. Some of the most effective tools have been micro-finance schemes (a la Bangladesh's Grameen Banks) that provide the immediate consumption needs of the affected population, plus easily accessed loans for productive investment.

Other innovative methods include establishing grain banks, social safety nets and calamity funds (see "An Innovative Risk-Transfer Mechanism in Mexico"). The trick here is that such funds should be made available quickly and not burdened with unbending rules. Experience shows that as the structures for handling such funds are made more decentralized and localized, the response becomes swifter and more sensitive.

Finally, establishing functioning and widespread disaster warning systems is a simple but powerful instrument for reducing risks. It is one of the most pervasive tools used in developing countries to reduce weather-related damages, especially loss of life.

In developing countries, which are primarily agrarian economies, disaster warning systems will be very useful to farmers on a daily basis because agriculture in these countries remains vulnerable to seasonally-related factors. Moreover, as the innovative collaboration between the U.S.A.'s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several African countries shows, this can be done effectively without incurring major costs, thanks to rapid developments in information and communications technology.

An Innovative Risk-Transfer Mechanism in Mexico Mexico is susceptible to a wide range of natural disasters – floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfires, tropical cyclones, and volcanic eruptions. In 1996, to help reduce the country's vulnerability to natural disasters, the government established the Fonden (Fund for Natural Disasters). This federal fund was a financier of last resort for emergency response equipment, disaster relief activities, and reconstruction of public infrastructure and protected areas. In 1998, following a period of particularly heavy losses from natural disasters, the government decided to use Fonden more strategically, to provide incentives for insurance use and disaster mitigation. After extensive consultations with stakeholders in 1999, the new focus includes encouraging the following: (a) greater use of private insurance, (b) mitigation in the reconstruction programs financed by Fonden and in beneficiaries' regular investment programs, and (c) refinance disaster response activities initially financed through emergency liquidity facilities to speed disaster recovery. These measures will increase transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the use of Fonden's resources and redistribute the costs of natural disasters between government and the private sector. Over time they will also reduce the share of costs borne by the federal government for mitigating and coping with disasters.

Natural disasters leave destruction in their wake on an unprecedented scale. For many of the victims, the rubble at their feet signifies the ruin of a lifetime's accumulation, or the loss of near and dear ones.

The fear, shock, and utter sense of disbelief are traumas that eventually must be dealt with. But the immediate concern is for quick action to rescue those who can be saved and to concentrate on immediate needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, first aid and medicines.

In this emergency phase of coping, time is of the essence; so is swiftly delivering the necessary resources, both material and financial, to affected areas. This is where citizen sector organizations' (CSOs) response time is the fastest. The three articles in this month's Journal of Changemakers – about the Solidarity Network in Argentina, Setu in India, and Eko Teguh Paripurno's KAPPALA in Indonesia – demonstrate how such organizations systematically build a formidable network of concerned individuals and organizations that rally around with expertise and finances as soon as an SOS is sounded.

The long haul of reconstructing lives and landscapes begins only after the debris has cleared and the dust has settled. The major task is rebuilding communities, which is where the big donor agencies and governments play a pivotal role. If planners have foresight, then this also presents an opportunity to build in mitigation measures, such as disaster-proofing of homes and proper community planning.

Some useful lessons can be learned from two such outstanding endeavors, one in Mexico and the other in India. The earthquake that struck Mexico City in 1985 rendered 180,000 families homeless. Popular Housing Reconstruction (RHP), an agency that was set up three weeks later, is a textbook example of successful reconstruction. By July 1987, just 14 months later, RHP had rebuilt 45,100 dwellings – an average of 3,220 dwellings per month.

The Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MEERP) that attempted to rehabilitate the 230,000 victims of the 1993 Latur earthquake in India repeated a similar feat there. The most sensitive issue here is targeting assistance. CSOs play a significant role to ensure that relief and rehabilitation reaches the most marginalized peoples, as the examples of the two social entrepreneurs profiled in this issue show.

The success of any reconstruction program depends on how closely the affected community participates in the planning and implementation of these projects. The Mexican, Indian and Indonesian examples cited above, and the two CSOs profiled here, owe their success to such a participatory approach.

Close local consultations also help post-trauma therapy, as the affected peoples get involved in rebuilding their lives and thus shed their feelings of helplessness and impotency. It also builds solidarity within the communities. And last but not least, it provides sorely needed employment and income to those who have lost everything and have no other source of livelihood.

But the task cannot be considered completed just yet. Once the initial shock wears off, disaster survivors often require emotional and psychological support. It is common for people to suffer from a fear psychosis and a sense of hopelessness.

Social entrepreneurs, like Juan Carr, Suchitra Sheth, and Eko Teguh Paripurno, who got involved in disaster management work, use their considerable skills and experience to turn-around affected communities. Their brand of intervention ensures a sustainable rebuilding of life, with hope and optimism, long after the disaster has vanished from public memory.