Well. Disasters are not natural, now what?

Picture: Diciembre 2017, ‎⁨Port-de-Paix⁩, ⁨Nord_Ouest Department⁩, ⁨Haiti⁩. Vicente Sandoval.

Let imagine that we are aware of the latest trends in the academic discussion about disasters and risks, their social, economic, political and cultural underlying factors. Suppose that we know about what determines a disaster, that is, a serious interruption –sudden or slow– in the operation of a community (UNISDR, 2009), city or country, is not exactly a natural extreme event, but our ability to avoid that hazardous event (exposure), of our preparation for its impact (mitigation), or of the ability to adapt positively in the future (resilience). Let's imagine that we all know those things, and now what?

Although in reality many academics, practitioners, and politicians know about this complex relationship between nature and society, by some strange mechanism, things do not improve substantially. And in fact, in many parts of the planet they get worse at the time of writing this note.

Disasters are closely related to development and to capabilities of individuals, institutions, and states. With access to resources, it is easier to avoid those areas where there are hazards, either by mitigating them, or adapting to them. In certain way, there are more alternatives. Others have no option but to live with certain threats, as they do not have access to resources to mitigate exposure, no supporting networks (safety nets) to face the impacts of disasters.

We know that the benefits of development are not equitably distributed, even within rich or supposedly developed countries. Then, we should not be surprised by the fact that, in absolute numbers of dead and affected people, the poor lead all the figures.

It is a myth that earthquakes and other extreme events affect us all equally. They disproportionately affect those who have the least: those who live precarious homes, those who cannot afford insurance because it would mean stopping bringing food to home, those who do not have no one but themselves, or perhaps some pious NGO, or the state. Certainly, there are multiple responsibilities in the creation of these risks and disasters. It is not only the state or the government that is solely responsible reducing such risks. Although, it is true that only the state can fulfill the guiding role of offering, and in some cases forcing, a risk reduction agenda. Here, the obvious, is that this role and that agenda cannot be limited to reaction and emergency only, it must encompass preparedness and avoiding risk creation.

And this is the heart of the matter. Some questions: What should we do to secure the safest lands for all and not only to the wealthiest and most connected? What does it take for migrants, women and people with disabilities to have the same opportunities to develop their capacities and thus be more resilient? How do we make development reach everyone? All possible answers to these questions will inevitably lead us to our development model, our political and economic model in particular. Is the model that advocates competition as the ultimate pathway to achieve the best of society the answer? Do not forget that in all competition there are losers, who for multiple reasons do not run with the same advantage, they run with obstacles, or start from behind.

So, if we really wanted to tackle the root causes of disasters, we must look at beyond hazard zones and mitigation projects, even beyond resilience. We must look at our development model, our mode of (re)production of society, our gender relations, our relationship with nature, and our relationship between ourselves and other countries and cultures. That, if we started from the fact that we all know that what determines a disaster is not precisely a natural force, but the social ones.

This note was originally writen in Spanish by the author. Available here: https://gridchile.org/bldnsnyaq/