Disaster Relief Needs Disaster Relief

When you look at the images of devastation from natural disasters, the levels of death, misery and destruction are heartrending. You’d think we just might prioritize avoidance strategies – the cure is always vastly more expensive than prevention – and understand that after the crippling strike has passed and the waters subside, or the fires are extinguished, or the shaking has stopped, or the fierce winds dissipated, even after the “big clean-up,” the damage will linger, often for years.

Prevention? As with the lessons of Hurricane Katrina, underbuilt, under-designed or simply unbuilt infrastructure is often begging for trouble. Earthquakes easily topple subpar bridges and dams. Raging waters do as well. Uncleared forest debris furnishes the kindling that explodes a lightening strike, an errant cigarette butt or a careless campfire into an inferno with the potential to take out thousands of acres of otherwise pristine greenbelts, unleashing massive earth-moving erosion when the next rains come. Uncontrolled toxic waste depositories stand ready to spread their poison when waters exceed expectations, now pretty routine.

And pretending that global warming is not “our fault” and a problem we cannot address without imposing too many business burdens is an unparalleled crime against humanity that will cost us trillions of hard dollars. So many natural disasters, particularly the intensity of such natural disasters, are rather directly attributed to this selfish man-made problem.

Even political violence. Climate change has fomented the droughts in the Middle East, decimating farmers and their families denied help by their governments, empowering radical groups like al Qaeda and ISIS as the last resort of desperate people. Climate change forced the issue. Hurricanes and wildfires in the United States have never been more fierce in recorded history. Climate change accelerated and intensified the pain.

But the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina and, most recently and particularly, Maria (Puerto Rico still does not have full electrical power restored) provide one more great lesson about the impact of natural disasters: after the lives are saved, the immediate dangers pass, the devastation often will take a very, very long time to reverse. Infrastructure. Businesses. Homes. Life. We cost our society billions, if not trillions, of unnecessary expenditures by being reactive following a natural disaster rather than being proactive in preventing or minimizing the expected devastation. But, we are still not so good even in our reactive efforts.

Sometimes, we fail to ask the big question when we believe we should rebuild: should we rebuild in regions likely to face another comparable natural disaster? Especially where we are witnessing a repeat performance? Would it be better to pay cash to relocate victims to safer planes? And if they do not want to move, what are the consequences to those who make such a decision? No insurance? Government aid limited to rescue efforts? How do we decide? How do we implement?

After the immediate crisis needs are addressed, the second part of disaster relief, one where we fall woefully short when the tragedy no longer dominates the headlines, is how we rebuild where it is appropriate, who pays for that effort and how the lives of those impacted survive the transition back to normalcy. We need to rethink, from the ground up, our response to natural disasters, particularly given the frequency of those events. Government and charitable efforts.

Clearly, “rapid response efforts are crucial, but according to the nonprofit Center for Disaster Philanthropy, they too often signal the end of the line. Around 70% of the money and resources donated after a disaster goes to immediate response efforts, but in reality, recovery requires a long-term investment. Just 5% of money raised after a disaster goes toward extended recovery and rebuilding efforts, which is often where residents find themselves at a loss for aid.

“Over the past several years, the CDP has worked to educate corporate donors, philanthropies, and the broader public about effective disaster response strategies (its Disaster Philanthropy Playbook, released in 2016, is a good primer). Now, a coalition of nonprofits–the disaster relief and recovery organization All Hands and Hearts-Smart Response, Good360, and Global Citizen–have teamed up to get individual and corporate donors alike to pledge to follow a more thoughtful pattern of post-disaster action…

“The pledge, says All Hands and Hearts co-founder Petra Nemcova, ‘is very simple, but could create significant ripple effects.’ The Resilient Response pledge outlines a framework for the most effective ways of delivering immediate and long-term aid. It centers around six pillars:

• Proactive: Philanthropists and nonprofits should begin planning before a disaster strikes to maximize efficacy.
• Needs-based: Community needs should be at the center of every action taken and donation made, and aid organizations should listen to what the on-the-ground priorities are before acting.
• Immediate & Long-term: Disaster response should address immediate and long-term needs, staying in communities until the work is done, not just until the news cycle wraps up.
• Resilience-focused: Recovery work should focus on helping communities build back with stronger infrastructure and systems.
• Transparent: Donors and nonprofits need to be up-front about the actions they plan to take and their commitments, and hold themselves accountable to deliver on promises.
• Educational: As aid workers and deliverers learn what works in disaster response, they should educate the public and their networks about how to donate and respond most effectively.

“These six pillars are meant to guide organizations toward amending some of the shortcomings of the current disaster response system. For one thing: There needs to be an overhaul in the way that the delivery of goods and resources is managed. As CEO of Good360, a nonprofit that works with over 400 large companies to encourage them to donate excess goods, rather than destroying them, Howard Sherman has a lot of experience overseeing how and when resources are allocated. And in the disaster recovery sector, it’s often not done well. Around 60% of the material goods that arrive in disaster-struck region end up in landfill. ‘Often, it’s the wrong goods at the wrong time,’ Sherman says…

“Some companies, Sherman says, start sending rebuilding supplies immediately after a disaster strikes, but those materials overwhelm aid workers and take up space in crucial distribution centers; delivery of those resources should be timed to when the community and residents are ready to actually undertake rebuilding efforts. Often, according to the recovery curve, that’s three or four months after the disaster hits.

“Which leads to another issue: correcting lack of sustained engagement. The vast majority of resources are sent to an affected area within two months of a disaster.” FastCompany.com, September 20^th. For a nation built on competence and ingenuity, anticipating the future rather than being controlled by it, we seem to have fallen into bad habits like “kicking the can down the road,” giving tax cuts when very necessary government programs die from lack of funding and turning human misery into political theater. We can and must change.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I find it quite incomprehensible how much common sense has left the building we call the United States of America.