In the Caribbean, where nature’s destructive power is never a distant memory, governments often seem ill-equipped and under-prepared for the consequences of hurricanes, earthquakes, fires and floods. Grenada has taken years to recover from the devastation of Ivan, Haiti is still emerging from the aftermath of the Port-au-Prince quake, and despite our bad experiences with various inundations and breached sea defences, few Guyanese will feel confident that we are well-set to handle comparable crises.
Increasingly, however, it seems that many other countries (however developed, and whatever the prevailing political rhetoric) are just as susceptible to the incompetence that many of us assume is a local or regional phenomenon. In 2005, the mismanagement of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the wake of Hurricane Katrina would not have been out of place in the most backward third world nation. Nor would the President’s cluelessness. Even though Bush declared a state of emergency for Louisiana two days before the hurricane struck land, FEMA was totally unprepared for what followed. And yet, not only was President Bush oblivious to the widespread suffering and displacement of the poor (and overwhelmingly black) residents of New Orleans, he even publicly congratulated the head of FEMA for doing a “heck of a job.”
Many critics attribute FEMA’s dismal performance to the low calibre of several appointments made by the Bush White House, but the Obama administration’s failure to manage the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last year suggests there is always an embarrassing gap between the official, sophisticated spin and less flattering realities on the ground, or in the sea. This syndrome is hardly limited to the United States. After the tsunami in Japan, nearly every assurance provided by the government was subject to important qualifications the following day. Subsequent disclosures also revealed that reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant were not nearly as well monitored, or maintained, as Japan’s longstanding reputation for efficiency would suggest. (A report released earlier this week indicates that more than 30 reactors in the United States have had similar problems with backup generators during the last eight years.)
Similar stories can be found throughout Europe and Asia. In fact in Myanmar the government was so sensitive to its failure to respond to cyclone Nargis that it even prosecuted a local comedian who dared to criticize its relief efforts in front of foreign media. (The comedian is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for “crimes” resulting from this criticism.) But even peaceful, democratic countries with well-funded emergency services often find themselves at a loss when faced with a sudden crisis. Today, after a week of hesitation, the provincial government of Manitoba, Canada will decide whether to proceed with a controlled breach of a dike alongside the Assiniboine River. Record water levels have forced the authorities to consider creating a flood that will likely engulf 150 homes, in the hope that this will relieve pressure elsewhere in the river and spare hundreds of other homes.
When interviewed by national radio, residents in the proposed floodplain were quick to point out that they had not yet been told how high to place the sandbags around their properties, nor how much insurance coverage would be provided for water damage, nor whether the financial responsibility for rebuilding would ultimately be taken up by the provincial or federal government. Furthermore, despite heroic eleventh-hour efforts to survey the area and predict the results of the proposed breach, there remain serious doubts as to whether a controlled flood is necessary, or practical.
Exhausted by the anxiety of waiting to hear whether his land would be flooded, one local farmer told a newspaper: “Promises made at election time or during crisis are usually two different things when it’s all said and done. Whether these promises come or not, we don’t know. We’re just so tired now, and I don’t know which way to go.” The same complaint could have been made by tens of thousands of people in half a dozen developed countries during the last few years.
Natural disasters are, by definition, unforeseeable; but an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure. Better levees would have averted much of the worst damage when Katrina struck New Orleans; Japan could have placed its power plants further inland (and away from earthquake fault-lines); and deep-water drilling could have been better regulated in the Gulf. We should not discount the need to maintain sea defences (squatters and other hindrances notwithstanding) and undertake other necessary measures before we find ourselves in a crisis. The absence of disasters nearly always breeds complacency; budgets are slashed and worst-case scenarios dismissed, until the chance for preventive maintenance has passed. But none of that should obscure the fact that the worst time to prepare for a storm is when the clouds have already gathered.
