WITH the confirmed death toll from the Indian Ocean tsunami still climbing, and with relatives and friends still awaiting news of the thousands missing, we might reasonably have hoped for more. Hoped that the world’s governments would at least ensure that the next giant wave or earthquake does not become a humanitarian disaster on such a scale.
But it was not to be. Last week’s World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, was once again bedevilled by realpolitik. What many were hoping for was a clear plan of action. Instead, the representatives of 168 nations settled for well-intentioned declarations and policy initiatives.
Many observers and delegates say the conference achieved all that could be expected. Most notably, governments agreed that the basic technology needed for an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system would be put in place within 12 to 18 months. And there was optimism that this system will be rolled out globally, and extended to provide early warning of a host of more common and more insidious disasters. One of these is drought, which in most years claims far more lives than other natural hazards.
Advertisement
The conference’s main declaration, the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, sets out a range of policies and commitments designed to reduce the death toll from extreme natural hazards. These include establishing national and local disaster reduction policies, and ensuring that the technological, logistical and bureaucratic systems are in place to support disaster detection, assessment and management. The UN made a commitment to improving relations between a variety of groups, including NGOs and financial institutions, to help implement these policies.
What was lacking were the specifics. Delegates failed to agree how to measure the success or failure of these policies, and without any clear yardstick it will be impossible to hold governments to account if they fail to deliver on their promises. Attending countries could not even agree how much money should be spent to prevent the next city from collapsing during an earthquake or warn of the next flood or volcanic eruption.
One problem highlighted at Kobe is the dire lack of knowledge about what disaster mitigation projects are the most effective. The same is true for programmes for recovery and reconstruction. Researchers, and more importantly those who provide research funding, need to face up to their responsibilities. At least one UK university has felt compelled to waive PhD fees for research in this field because there is so little funding for those wanting to study it. Donor organisations need to set aside a portion of their relief funds for research, and make greater commitments to the reconstruction work that is needed – often for years after high-profile disaster relief runs out.
“Countries could not even agree on how much money should be spent to warn of the next flood or eruption”
Research is only the start, however. Much of the death toll in natural disasters is linked directly to poverty. Some 95 per cent of the deaths from disasters are in developing countries. Individual poverty can force people to live in poor-quality housing in disaster-prone regions. State poverty leaves governments faced with tough decisions about where to invest meagre resources. If disaster management programmes take scarce funds away from drugs to treat HIV or from budgets for schools, then we will simply be replacing one disaster with another.
In 1969, and again in 2002, UN members agreed a target for development assistance of 0.7 per cent of GDP. Of the 22 industrialised nations, only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have met or exceeded this goal. Six others, including the UK, have committed to do so by 2015. The rest, including the US and Japan, have not even gone this far.
Many would say it is naive to have expected more from Kobe. International summits may not be the best place to forge radical new policies, they argue, and the Hyogo framework does at least form a basis for concrete action. But if big conferences aren’t the answer, the world’s leaders need to find another way. The generous public response to the Indian Ocean disaster shows that the backing is there if governments have the political will. Mitigating the threat from natural disaster should rank alongside fighting disease and poor education in pricking the rich world’s conscience. Millions of lives are at stake.
