Mankind's relationship with nature has gone through several stages, starting with symbiosis with nature in primitive times, through a period of increasing mastery over nature since the industrial age, when vulnerability to natural disasters was reduced. However, the rapid material-intensive growth patterns of the twentieth century have adversely affected the environment, which in turn has made many groups (especially the poor), more vulnerable to disasters.

In the past twenty years, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, tropical storms, drought, locust invasions, and other natural calamities have killed over 3 million people, inflicted injury, disease, homelessness, and misery on 1 billion others, and caused billions of dollars of  material damage. Currently, annual global economic costs related to disaster events average US$440 billion per year (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent   Societies, 1996) and it is likely to double between 1995 and 2000 (Munich Re, 1996)

90% of the natural disasters and 95 % of the total disaster-related deaths worldwide occur in the developing countries, while the fraction of GNP lost is estimated to be twenty times greater than in industrial countries.  For many years, the response to disasters and environmental threats was reactive and characterised by increased defensive activities. More recently, our attitude towards such risks has evolved to encompass the more proactive design of projects and policies, the seek to anticipate and limit the damage. In this context, the world is currently exploring the concept of sustainable development -- an approach that will permit continuing improvements in the present quality of life at a lower intensity of resource use, thereby leaving behind for future generations an  undiminished or even enhanced stock of natural resources and other assets (WCED 1987,Munasinghe 1995).

The concept of sustainable development has emerged after several decades of development efforts. Historically, the development of the industrialised world focused on material production.

In the fifties and sixties, emphasis was on output growth and economic efficiency but by the early 1970s, the large and growing numbers of poor in the developing world, and the lack of  "trickle-down" benefits to them, led to greater efforts to directly improve income distribution. The development paradigm shifted towards equitable growth, and efficiency and equity became the  twin objectives.

Protection of the environment has now become the third major objective of development. 

Therefore, the concept of sustainable development has evolved to
 encompass three major points of view: economic, social and environmental -- although no universally acceptable practical definition of sustainable development exists as yet (Munasinghe 1995).

Economic, Social and Environmental Vulnerability to Disasters

Natural disasters threaten all three dimensions of sustainable development. The economic approach to sustainability is based on preserving the stock of capital (or assets) that yields the  maximum amount that a person or community can consume over some time period and still be as well off at the end of the period as at the beginning. Natural resources and the assimilative capacity of the environment, whether technologically induced or natural, are included as assets.

Thus, the loss of natural capital plays a crucial role in limiting development. Of course, the degree of productivity loss occurring as a result of natural disasters is also determined by the resilience of  societies in the face of stress and shocks.

From this economic viewpoint, the rapidly increasing interconnectedness has exacerbated the transmission of disaster vulnerability. The number of people affected by disaster damage worldwide is typically one thousand times the number of people killed by disasters (Burton,  Kates and White, 1996). For instance, losses could be propagated via capital markets, through capital flight, depreciation of domestic currency, greater indebtedness etc. Developing economies are specially sensitive to the vagaries of international capital flows, which makes them additionally vulnerable to disruption from natural disasters. The key elements for economic growth include investment, effective governance and social stability -- unfortunately, disasters lead to  exactly the opposite conditions. Loss of manmade and natural capital causes sudden disinvestment; post disaster relief increases both the financial and administrative burden on government, and  finally, disasters are socially destabilizing. 

The social view of sustainable development indicates that vulnerability to natural disasters is definitely a function of human actions and behavior. Thus, the resilience of socioeconomic systems may be increased through mitigation efforts, and adaptation in anticipation of a perceived risk, and more generally, through greater economic development. Environmental vulnerability and poverty are mutually reinforcing. Developing countries face the most debilitating consequences due to natural disasters. Many studies have identified variables that broaden the concept of  vulnerability, including poverty, social and political marginalisation, lack of social security and  other options, and other social, political and economic indicators that cause people to act in ways which exposes them to greater risk. Thus, proximity to an extreme natural event combines with          low economic or social status to result in deadly consequences. The figures provide a grim picture.

By the year 2025, 80% of the world's population will reside in developing countries, and it has  been estimated that up to 60 % of these people are highly vulnerable to floods, severe storms and  earthquakes (First International Earthquakes and Megacities Workshop, 1997). 

As the impacts of natural disasters fall disproportionately on the poor, the social view of  sustainable development stresses the participation of at-risk communities in devising and implementing effective strategies to reduce vulnerability. The communities must have a voice in identifying site-specific solutions and assessing the efficacy of proposed measures. The   implementation of disaster planning is best performed jointly by local communities, the  government, and industry. Better community awareness is essential. There is a need to identify  and understand people's perception of risk, to develop better channels of communication and  popular consultation, and to rely on local resources. In many cases, the profound changes brought  by urbanization have undermined the traditional support system for coping with crisis.

Decentralization of decision making is important in the strengthening of organization for disaster  preparedness prevention and mitigation, particularly given the need for rapid and localized  responses in the face of swiftly occurring catastrophes.

The environmental view of sustainable development emphasizes preserving the resilience and  dynamic ability of biological and physical systems to adapt to change. While disasters may be beyond human control, the probability of their occurrence may be affected through human actions.

Accelerated changes in demographic and economic trends have disturbed the balance between  ecosystems - there is a seemingly apparent correlation between frequency and severity of natural disasters and growing local and global environmental degradation. Thus, the failure to limit  environmental degradation resulting from human intervention increases the vulnerability to risks posed by natural hazards. Manila, Rio de Janeiro, and Jakarta are examples of uncontrolled urban development, combined with deforestation and dumping of wastes into rivers and canals, which  have led to increased runoff and heavy flooding. Many of the same actions that preserve the  ability of systems to adapt to change also increase resiliency to external shocks or extremes in the environment such as natural disasters. This interconnection between natural resource degradation and increased vulnerability to natural catastrophe emphasizes the need for preventive measures.

Policy Implications 

Economies could cope with potential losses due to environmental threats, is incorporating disaster  risk into decisions on development investments (for example, infrastructure and houses need to be constructed to withstand cyclically recurring natural events) and by sharing disaster risk and costs through insurance arrangements.

To formulate effective policies, environmental externalities have to be included into cost-benefit analysis. When information is scarce, cost-benefit analysis should be used in conjunction with multi-criteria analysis (which integrates economic, social, and environmental aspects in a balanced way) to reduce risk as well as expenditures. 

One crucial factor that has to be accounted for, is peoples' ignorance of risk. Widespread  dissemination of accurate and vital information is, therefore, essential. Improved warning and  mitigation have reduced significantly the number of lives lost in the technologically advanced nations. This underscores the role of information and focuses on the need for developing countries to be able to increase their own capabilities in this area.

However, any measures are effective only when associated with appropriate regulatory structures.

For developing countries, some important features which need to be included in any insurance program are increasing the scope of the insurance - provision of all natural hazard insurance, government reinsurance to ensure the stability of the insurance markets and subsidized or lower cost insurance to the poor. Thus, insurance can be used as a tool to promote mitigative behavior and to limit vulnerability.

Other market-based control mechanisms, such as pricing and taxation, can be used to reinforce such behavior. Improvements in institutional arrangements such as better urban management are also critical. The focus must be on inclusion of more comprehensive environmental protection  within the definition of basic services.

A nation's capacity to respond and face these unpredictable happenings as well as the type of  response depends on its ability to measure, appraise and evaluate the possible losses. While cost-benefit analysis is useful, factors such as problems of moral hazard, role of expectations, and undervaluation of benefits (due to uncertainty, inadequate information, or lack of an appropriate accounting framework), must be recognized. When the risk is of a more global/widespread nature, and the costs of mitigation are large as in the case of global climate change, fewer incentives exist  for an individual country, especially a poor one. Cooperative efforts between countries will realize the greatest benefits.

Finally, a comprehensive approach to disaster management involves four basic phases: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Usually, ex-post preoccupation is with recovery, but the greatest potential for loss reduction is typically during the mitigation phase. Even in the recovery phase, good mitigation principles need to be exercised instead of mere rebuilding. 

At-risk communities must participate in devising and implementing effective strategies to reduce vulnerability, identifying site-specific solutions, and assessing the efficacy of proposed measures.

Implementation of disaster planning is best performed jointly by local communities, the government, and industry. Thus, there is a need to identify and understand people's perception of risk, develop better channels of communication and popular consultation, and rely on local resources and traditional support systems (For example, informal networks among slum-dwellers  in Turkish cities provided support for communities during crises, Parker et al 1995 ). Lastly, lessons learned from one phase of disaster management can be extended to use in other phases as well as from one country to another and from past disasters to face future ones.

References

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates and Gilbert F. White. 1993. The Environment as Hazard. 2nd Edition, New York:The Guildford Press.

First International Earthquakes and Megacities Workshop. September 1997. Report on Earthquake Disaster Reduction and Mitigation, Seeheim, Germany.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 1996. World Disaster Report. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Parker, Ronald, Alcira Kreimer and Mohan Munasinghe. 1995. Informal Settlements, Environmental Degradation and Disaster Vulnerabiliy: The Turkish Case Study, IDNDR and the World Bank, Washington DC.

Munasinghe, Mohan. November, 1995. Making Economic Growth More Sustainable. Ecological Economics, 15:pp 1- 4.

Munich Re. 1996. Natural catastrophe losses will continue to increase. Press release, March 19, 996. See World Wide Website at http://www.munichre.com.

The Global Disaster Information Network (GDIN). November, 1997. Harnessing Information and Technology for Disaster Management, Disaster Information Task Force Report.

UNCRD/United Nations Department for Development Support and Managemetn Services. 1994.

The Effects of Disasters on Modern societies, World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

We welcome your comments, suggestions and contribution.
Amjad Bhatti  afbhatti@hotmail.com
Phone: 92 51 8 088, 8 009
Duryog Nivaran dnnet@itdg.lanka.net
Journalists Resource Centre jrc@syberwurx.com

Phone: + 92 42 6666404 - 6687827
 

 

 
E-mail: jrc@syberwurx.com