Shopping Cart
RSS FeedNatural Disasters
Worldwatch Live Online Discussion
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: Worldwatch Researchers
October 27, 2005 - 2:00pm EDT
On October 8, a magnitude 7.6 earthquake struck Pakistan, India and Afghanistan—killing at least 43,000 people and leaving more than 3 million people homeless. Residents of the affected region are no stranger to suffering, having been at the epicenter of a tense political conflict for more than 50 years. Natural disasters have the potential to destroy dwellings, damage livelihoods, and spark disease epidemics. In some cases, however, natural disasters create suffering that cuts across the divides of conflict, prompting common relief needs and opening paths to reconciliation. Indeed, post-earthquake diplomacy may give an added boost to India and Pakistan’s efforts since 2003 to settle the Kashmir conflict. What special challenges do aid agencies face when working in conflict zones? What can governments do to seize post-disaster peacemaking opportunities?
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live. Worldwatch Researchers Michael Renner and Zoë Chafe are joining us today to discuss "Natural Disasters", and their effect on populations, international relations, and the ability for aid organizations and peacemakers to do their job. Welcome, Zoë and Michael!
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: Hello Steve, and hello to all the participants of today's chat. We think that our topic today is one that is slowly getting more recognition and attention, particularly in the wake of the Pakistan/Kashmir earthquake and the Dec. 2004 tsunami. So we are eager to get started!
Peshawar, NWFP: Does the author know how much of the quake hit area is the cinflict area? How much of the affected population fall in the conflict area?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: It's not entirely clear just how much overlap there is in precise territorial and population terms. The epicenter of the quake is very near the Line of Control (LoC). But it appears that most of the affected villages are on the Pakistani-administered side (and of course in Pakistan proper). The Kashmir Valley, where much of the violence has taken place is of course slightly afield (but had the epicenter of the disaster been there, the number of victims would be much higher, given the relative population concentration there.)
It may well be that India and Pakistan would feel more compelled to cooperate with one another had the number of victims fallen roughly equally on both side sof the LoC. It's always a bit hard to know how the mixture of psychology and politics in the aftermath of a disaster will play out--whether it leads to cooepration or actually deepens mutual mistrust.
Islamabad: there is wide spread logging in kashmir area.it is the rainy season now.there are always land slides due to over logging. Do you think over logging caused more than usual land slides when the earth quake hit?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: Thanks for this question. Irresponsible logging and deforestation can definitely contribute to both the frequency and severity of landslides--and it appears that this has happened in the earthquake disaster area. Commercial logging, local needs for timber, and overgrazing have contributed to soil destabilization and hindered natural water retention. When an earthquake occurs, these factors contribute to landslides. Recent reports suggest that landslides may have actually been the cause of death for many of those affected, and that countless roads have been closed because of the massive amounts of earth from slides.
Unknown Location: Is there any evidence that global warming/deterioration of the eco system can contribute to an increase in earthquakes?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: While global warming and environmental deterioration may play a significant role in the increasing frequency and severity of weather-related disasters, there is no indication that the frequency of earthquakes or other other seismic events have been affected by global warming. However, there are clear indications that environmental degradation can worsen the effects of a disaster. For example, after the devastating tsunami last December, researchers found that mangrove ecosystems on the Sri Lankan coast that had not been impacted by human activities provided a very effective natural barrier against the powerful waves. However, in areas where the mangrove forests had been disturbed (often by shrimp farming or siltation), the mangroves suffered damage from the waves, and the water was able to move significantly farther inland. It is also important to note that, while the number of earthquakes is not linked to human activity, the number of people affected by earthquakes is increasing, mostly because of higher population density in earthquake-prone areas, and environmental degradation, which can exacerbate the effects of the earthquakes.
Seattle, Washington: You mention in your introduction that aid agencies face special challenges in conflict zones. Looking back over the past couple of years, we have seen situations (such as the war in Iraq) where aid agencies were unable to do their job, and were forced to remove their presence because of the extreme danger to their workers. We have also seen situations where aid agencies have been hampered by other political forces when trying to enter disaster zones. One example being Hurricane Katrina, where local, state, and national agencies butted heads in the initial response to the disaster. In the current world climate of such extreme political pressures and intense wars, where aid organizations are no longer held in a position of neutrality, are we going to see a decline in the ability to respond to such disasters, or will a new paradigm of thought emerge?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: You touch upon a very critical issue. Indeed, aid workers have increasingly been exposed to extreme danger--of being abducted, held for ransom, shot at, or even "just" intimidated. In large part, it seems this is because many conflict zones are chaotic situations, where it's not always clear who is who, and who is acting on behalf of what force or cause. Also, Western aid agencies have come to more and more depend on the cooperation of interventionary military forces. And most of the intervening--whether for good or for bad--has been done by Western states, particularly the US. So it's very difficult for aid agencies to maintain their independence and neutrality.
The problems probably aren't (yet) nearly as pronounced in disaster zones as in armed conflict zones. But depending on the timeliness and quality of the aid, local residents may well resent the agencies more than welcoming their arrival. People affected by disasters often are very angry in the face of inadequate relief efforts. Situations such as those after Hurricane Katrina may become more typical. We have seen this play out again after the Pakistan/Kashmir earthquake.
In some cases, this may have significant political repercussions. Back in 1971, the inept and corrupt response of the Nicaraguan government (under dictator Somoza) to a massive earthquake in Managua led to growing unrest and helped the Sandinista National Liberation Front gain strength; it overthrew Somoza in 1979.
So we may well see a decline in the ability to respond to disasters. There is also, sadly, the so-called "compassion fatique" -- people getting tired of hearing of needy cases and thus declining support. Donor governments often fail to make sufficient relief aid avalaible (and pledges of money are practically never fully translated into actual money flows).
New York, NY: You mention natural disasters like the earthquake, but what about disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which in my opinion wasn't just 'natural'? Do you see similar opportunities related to these?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: You bring up two separate issues, both of which are important.
First, the question "natural" or "un-natural" disasters. In a substantial number of cases, one can make a strong argument that human actions have an impact on disasters. Most disasters will happen no matter what, but human actions can worsen the disaster or render certain regions and communities more vulnerable to them. Ecosystem destruction, climate change, population growth (particularly in areas very vulnerable to forces of nature) have set the stage for more frequent and more devastating disasters.
In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the destruction of wetlands in Louisiana made New Orleans and other communities more vulnerable to storm surges and floods. Global warming heats up the oceans, and warmer oceans act as a "pump" that can considerably strengthen the destructive force of hurricanes. Then there are the social dimensions. It's now clear to everybody that the poorest inhabitants of New Orleans llived in the most exposed--read: low-elevation--parts of the city.
The second issue: do natural disasters other than earthquakes offer similar peacemaking opportunities? The answer is, yes, in principle. Following the December 2004 tsunami (which, of course was itself triggered by an earthquake), new opportunities arose to settle the long-running conflicts in Idonesia's Aceh province and in Sri Lanka. In Aceh, a peace agreement was negotiated within a few months, and is now being implemented. In Sri Lanka, the outcome is far less encouraging. After initial hopes, the process has stalled and it's unclear where the country is headed. What these two cases demonstrate is that commitment and political leadership are critical in translating a humanitarian impulse for cooperation into actual gains. In brief: disasters offer such chances, but there's no built-in guarantee of success.
Some types of disasters may actually end up being more divisive than they bring people together. Droughts, for instance, slowly build and often lead communities to intensify their competition with one another for scarce water and arable land. There is not the sudden impact of a quake or a flood--the kind of shock that transforms the political dynamics of a country.
Washington, D.C.: With all of the uber-large scale natural disasters that have taken place recently, it seems as though some disasters of "almost equal" scale are taking place and going largely unnoticed, at least in the U.S. media. The massive hurricane-caused flooding and landslides taking place in Central America due to recent hurricanes has caused widespread damage, and loss of life. It seems like an uphill battle for aid and disaster-relief organizations... if the frequency of these events continues, will it be possible for these organizations to even remotely keep up with the demand for help?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: It has been difficult to keep track of all of the devastating disasters that have occurred within the last two months. Aid agencies are stretched thin, and the U.N. has expressed concern that sufficient funds are not available for aid to the earthquake hit region. You are right in observing that several severe storms have provoked massive flooding and loss of life in Central America, something that has not received as much attention from much of the world's media.
Just yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan highlighted the need for a Global Emergency Fund--which would enable U.N. agencies to rush relief to disaster sites more quickly than now possible. The Global Emergency Fund was approved by world leaders in September, and needs to be ratified in November. If approved, it could be in operation as soon as early 2006.
It is hard to say, at this point, whether sufficient aid will be available to those affected by the earthquake in Pakistan and India. India has just announced $25 million in aid to Pakistan. And international donors yesterday pledged $580 million more towards relief efforts, but there is often a discrepancy between relief pledged and that which is actually received on the ground. As winter conditions set in, it is imperative that funds are quickly made available and that aid is delivered to those who need it. We hope that the governments of India and Pakistan work together to ensure that this happens.
Philadelphia, PA: In the midst of, and directly after natural disasters and other disasters of significant proportion, we often see a large representation of the "Good Samaritan" principle in effect. Sadly, the "Good Samaritan" attitude tends to fade not long after these events, or once the event are removed from the spotlight. Is this "Good Samaritan" principle something that you think can be improved upon, or better harnessed? Or, should aid and other agencies be the primary helpers and responders in disaster situations?
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: Yes, the Good Samaritan attitude only goes so far, and we have of course seen repeated instances of donor fatigue. Already, people around the world have given far less for the victims of the South Asian earthquake than they have for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami. The media move on to new topics after a relatively short time span. And it's generally hard to ensure the kind of follow-through to aid pledges, etc. that are made soon after a disaster strikes.
In situations where a disaster may lend itself to settling an ongoing conflict in or near the affected area, it's in case clear that we have to move beyond the role of Good Samaritan. The deep emotional effects of a catastrophe, and the goodwill that flows in its wake, need to be translated into political change--meaning new mindsets, new approaches, new policies. And that's no longer the provenance of aid agencies. Others are called upon: national leaders, UN agencies, NGOs, elder statesmen, etc.
Rebuilding processes tend to be very complex, long-term, and it's very important to make sure they are handled in a fair and equitable manner. If they are not, it's unlikely that old conflicts will be settled, and it may well be that new conflicts emerge.
Apeldoorn, Netherlands: Isn't it time to professionalise the worldwide coordination between the helping organizations? They are struggling with each other all the time according to different reports yesterday on Dutch TV!
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: An outpouring of well-intentioned international support often does, as you mention, lead to confusion and chaos on the ground. As many of the organizations active immediately after a disaster are not affiliated with the U.N. or a government, coordination can be very difficult. We saw this happen in many of the countries affected by the tsunami. One important way of improving communication between aid agencies is to empower local governments to take charge of a post-disaster situation. Representatives of both the Sri Lankan and Indonesian reconstruction agencies came out strongly in favor of this idea, at a recent briefing here in Washington, D.C. Another important aspect to consider is risk prevention and planning at the government level. In several parts of the world, UNESCO has helped governments to coordinate earthquake risk assessments and the installation of seismometers, at the regional level. This can help set up networks that can be vital in the immediate response to a disaster. Effective guidance from the government level can help aid agencies avoid duplication and maximize their assistance.
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Zoë and Michael!
Zoë Chafe and Michael Renner: Thanks for moderating, Steve, and a big thank you to all the participants for their questions. We hope to return to this topic in future online chats.
