By Patsy Lewis
Patsy Lewis is a Senior Fellow at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, at the Mona, Jamaica Campus of the University of the West Indies.
Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s unfortunate comment that while Trinidad was prepared to help its neighbours affected by hurricane Tomas, it must also get something out of its efforts, gives us pause to consider our regional response to disasters, as they threaten to be a constant feature of our reality. As a result of climate change, hurricanes appear to be affecting the Caribbean region with greater frequency and intensity. In some cases the same countries are subjected to repeated attacks before recovering from previous assaults. Haiti provides the most poignant instance of this, suffering from four hurricanes and tropical storms between August and September in 2008 and a devastating earthquake in January and taking a buffeting from hurricane Tomas as I write. Grenada, which is supposedly outside of the hurricane belt, also provides an example of being struck in 2004 by Ivan and again by Emily the following year. Tomas’ strike against St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Haiti, threatening others along its path, suggests that the region may increasingly be faced with having to fashion multiple responses at the same time.
The cost of disasters, especially of growing magnitude as can now be expected, is usually beyond what an individual country can bear. Nor can the countries continue to rely on international assistance in post-disaster situations as there are competing events around the world. These developments underscore the importance of a formal regional response as the first line of defence (outside of the national). This response has to be both at the level of raising finances to help in post-disaster reconstruction as well as in mobilizing human and financial resources. The strengthening of the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency and the establishment of the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility which seeks to spread the risk of insurance to disaster across the region are important in strengthening the region’s response. This, however, must be supplemented by a fund to underwrite recovery. This raises the thorny question of how this fund should be financed, but the debate should start from the acceptance of the need for such a fund.
PM Bissessar’s comment invites reflection on how states in the region engage with one another as well as the region’s response to aid in general and in the specific context of a disaster. Supporters of PM Bissessar who assert that there is oftentimes self-interest in the delivery of aid are not wrong. Donor assistance, even in response to disasters, is frequently directed at opening up spaces for the penetration of the private sectors of the particular donor country; and donor assistance is heavily weighted in favour of consultants and technical expertise from outside. The common assumption made in response to a disaster, is of a lack of resources internally to address some of the technical assessment and reconstruction work required. The heavy reliance on imported expertise ends up marginalizing local human resources at a time when jobs are scarce and an intimate understanding of the society is important in devising a relevant local response. The reality is that a lot of so-called aid money gets spent on the high costs of external expertise.
Governments tend to take a back seat to aid donors partly because disasters disrupt life at all levels including the government whose administrative structures are overwhelmed. To shift control over the rebuilding process to the beneficiary countries requires some forward thinking at both national and regional levels. At the national level an inventory of resident expertise is important and would help in pulling together the technical expertise so important in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In addition, local disaster agencies can be oriented to include response to disasters in other states, taking account of the kind of expertise required and the ways in which it can be mobilized. It may also help to have a register of volunteers, both at the level of the individual and organizations, especially as the latter may need to allow employees to take time off from work to assist in rebuilding efforts. This process should also be replicated at the regional level, with the establishment of a regional data bank of expertise and
volunteers across the region and in the diaspora.
Disasters also provide the opportunity for intervention in policy by donor countries and organizations which seize the opportunity to push through ‘reforms’ which countries might have been hesitant in completing: tax reform; price controls; public sector restructuring are some examples. The resilience of countries to exercise some sovereignty over their reconstruction efforts would be greatly strengthened by a more concerted regional response. Also, the region needs to be able to say no to some types of aid. There must be some dignity left to countries facing disaster. My instinctive response in Trinidad and Tobago’s case in light of Prime Minister Bissessar’s comment is to say no thank you to her offer. While it makes sense to think of post-disaster aid first in terms of human resources and materials, and in that sense PM Bissesar’s focus on what material assistance Trinidad can offer before supplementing this with monetary aid is perfectly understandable, the particular way in which she framed her response is deeply problematic. Jamaica has a long tradition of providing aid in kind to Caribbean neighbours in post-disaster situations. The Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) and Jamaica Defence Force (JDP) have particular expertise in this. This is done with no fanfare and cost assessing. Further, the regional response to Grenada in the aftermath of hurricane Ivan was exemplary. Even more memorable than the formal government responses was the response of ordinary people across the Caribbean, particularly in Trinidad and Tobago, who reached out to friends, acquaintances and strangers at a personal level. Fortunately, that has been the true spirit of giving that has characterized Caribbean response to disasters of their neighbours and in many cases family.
It would be a mistake to let this generosity of spirit be overshadowed by PM Bissessar’s ill considered position, but it is difficult to let it pass without comment. The most obvious observation is that Trinidad and Tobago’s relationship with the region is not a one-sided affair. Trinidad and Tobago benefits from the trading arrangements within CARICOM more than any other country, with the region absorbing 65% of its exports in 2009, while Trinidad and Tobago’s imports from the region account for a mere 3.2% of regional imports. Trinidadian companies have also made major inroads into the services sector across the region, primarily in banking and insurance. This is not an argument to say that Trinidad and Tobago owes the region anything. What it does underline, however, is the region’s importance to Trinidad and Tobago. I am sure that most of the major political and private sector actors in Trinidad are aware of this. PM Bissessar’s comment suggests a lack of experience in foreign affairs and sensitivity to regional realities. This is unfortunate as there has been widespread goodwill towards her throughout the region which she is in danger of squandering. Maybe she can act quickly to gain back some of this goodwill. This requires a good dose of humility and a willingness to understand the regional dynamic and Trinidad and Tobago’s place in it.
