Several days of heavy rain in Europe in late May and early June resulted in flooding in Germany and France. Most notable was the Paris flood, termed ‘The Flood of the Century’, as it was perhaps the worst the city saw after 1910. The level of river Seine rose 6 metres (20ft) above its normal height overnight – a 34-year high. Floods also forced parts of the metro system and major landmarks to close. Louvre Museum was shut down while staff moved art to safety. City roads were submerged by icy and increasingly polluted water from swollen tunnels, sewers and drains. Around 22,000 buildings were underwater. Daily life stood still for Parisians as basic infrastructure
collapsed.
Facts: The number of casualties from this ‘Flood of the Century’ was four; at least two were over 80 years. There were no reports of diseases spreading seriously. No news of people stuck in their homes. No dramatic photographs of lifesavers transferring the sick to boats.
At home, things were more startling. During a similar series of melodramatic affairs that preceded the European floods by just a week or two, more than 100 lives were lost. Over half a million were seriously affected. Many were stuck in their homes with no electricity, no means to leave and no method of communication. In extreme cases, some even went without food and drinking water. How they attended to their biological needs is anyone’s guess. The conditions were so bad that government resources could not meet the demands of the affected. The public also intervened, donating relief materials which included daily lunch packets. Cases of dengue rose rapidly – growing to an epidemic. Many volunteer organizations conducted health camps in flooded areas.
You may think this is because it was Sri Lanka. No. The conditions are similar elsewhere in South Asia. During 2015 floods in South India killed more than 500 people. Over 1.8 million were directly affected. It was an even bigger mess.
These incidents prove a commonly-held belief in disaster risk reduction. Natural hazards become more catastrophic in the developing world. In the developed world, they cause physical damage, but don’t necessarily become a serious ‘human problem’.
It seems that we are still averse to the idea of emergency evacuation. We try to avoid this essential step at any cost, largely because of fear that homes will be robbed if left unattended. Yes, that does happen.
Nearly 120 homes were reported burgled during the recent floods. However, we understand that it not only increases the risk of death, but makes relief extremely complex and cumbersome when people don’t evacuate. What made matters so arduous during the recent floods was the decision of those affected to stay put. Relief efforts could have been uncomplicated if evacuations were done at the right time. This is one key area where we were behind Parisians. They evacuated threatened areas at the right time. When water levels rose, all those who would have been victims were in safety zones. So there was no need of ‘distributing relief ’.
[pullquote]While insurance is not a panacea to all woes, nothing can beat its efficacy in addressing the economic impact of natural disasters. This isn’t just at the top level. It is more apt at the ground level[/pullquote]
The key word is ‘preparation’. This magic word decides which natural hazards turn into disasters. And how prepared are we, nearly 12 years following a major disaster of the times?
About two years ago, in the aftermath of the Meeriyabedda tragedy, I wrote: “Landslides are mostly natural phenomena, but the possibility escalates with human action. They are usually related to instabilities in slopes. Landslide causes include geological factors, morphological factors, physical factors and multiple factors associated with human activity. They are factors that made the slope vulnerable to failure, that predispose the slope to becoming unstable. Finally, the landslide is initiated by a trigger – ‘the last straw’.
What triggered the two-kilometre Meeriyabedda landslide is still unknown, but some causes are apparent. Excavation, loading, land use (e.g.:construction of roads, houses etc.), poor water management, mining, quarrying, vibration, water leakage, deforestation, land use pattern and pollution all contribute to increasing landslide risks. Not that we could have avoided it all. Still, the residents should have been properly warned against living in an area with most of these factors.
Meeriyabedda apparently has not drawn adequate attention of the authorities. This is strange. At least two previous landslides have taken place in the vicinity. In 2006, five houses were damaged. The residents have been asked to leave, according to the District Secretary. Only 30 families have obliged. Primarily, it is the obligation of the residents to move, when alternative land is provided. Still, that does not negate
the responsibility of the government. Why didn’t anybody monitor the movements? How come nobody noticed the presence of many families against the warning? The authorities should answer these questions.
It is unfortunate that I have to repeat these words. What improvements have taken place between the two incidents? Did we learn a single lesson from Meeriyabedda? Could we apply knowledge gained to prevent a similar disaster? No. We were as much prepared (or not) when the Aranayake landslide took place two years later – taking more lives and causing greater damage. Then there is the recovery. Apart from preparedness, which is essential, only one solution will ease the economic burden. It is called insurance. This brilliant mechanism was invented to mitigate disaster risks, at a time a ship had less than half a chance of returning to the port it set sail from.
While insurance is not a panacea to all woes, nothing can beat its efficacy in addressing the economic impact of natural disasters. This isn’t just at the top level. It is more apt at the ground level. Take the 2011 floods in Sri Lanka that caused unprecedented damage to agri businesses. It happened just before harvesting. Nearly 4,500 families saw the instant plunge of months of their hard work in Batticaloa only – the worst-affected district. They were only a fraction of the total 48,500 families in Batticaloa that lost their livelihood. The displaced returned to their damaged houses when the water receded, but it’s difficult to restores livelihoods. Purging and rescheduling agri loan instalments are bad practices, no doubt, but persistence will lead to default and even farmer suicides. When a farming family loses their source of income, it is simply impossible to make a loan installment.
Insurance is the only solution. Mandatory insurance many not be suitable for a liberalised economy, but a compromise may be found. Insurance components can be added to agro loan schemes. Insurance can also be made compulsory when approving construction. While risk is not eliminated, sharing it with others is consolation. If natural disasters at increasing frequency and magnitude were the norm, a stronger, systematic and planned economy makes a huge difference. While everybody gets hit, the most prepared will survive. Natural disasters are not levellers. They are more like Darwinian tools that ensure only the fittest survive.