Myanmar: More help now, please: How to tackle tomorrow's disasters

by John Holmes, first published by The Economist

Timing is everything. Nowhere is this truer than in humanitarian relief. When disaster strikes, delays can mean the difference between life and death. Timing, however, involves more than a stopwatch approach to emergencies. It also means looking forward- not only to identify the trends that will reshape the humanitarian landscape, but to harness the forces necessary to respond to them.

Any credible vision of the future must recognise that humanitarian needs are increasing. Climate change will be the main driver. Nine out of every ten disasters are now climate-related. Recorded disasters have doubled in number from 200 a year to more than 400 over the past two decades. In 2007 my offi ce at the un issued an unprecedented 15 funding appeals for sudden natural disasters, five more than the previous annual record; all but one resulted from climatic events.

So welcome to the "new normal" of extreme weather. Climate change may well exacerbate chronic hunger and malnutrition across much of the developing world. And it will almost certainly precipitate battles over resources.

No nation, rich or poor, is exempt from nature's destructive potential. But nature is not the real problem. We are. Be it through dangerously high emissions of greenhouse gases, depletion of essential resources or reckless urbanisation, we are creating a house of cards that could mean humanitarian catastrophe for millions. Too often we do not take the simple precautions that can reduce loss of life and livelihoods. Natural hazards need not automatically result in human calamity or erode years of development gains. From planting back mangrove trees to bicycle-and bullhorn early-warning systems, many of the most effective tools are about mobilising people, not expensive technology. Bangladesh has cut dramatically its disaster death-toll using such simple, cost-effective methods.

From planning and preparedness to financing, we need to act now if we are to reduce our vulnerability to hazards. And we need to act together. As we saw in Myanmar during cyclone Nargis, isolation is not an option when the scale of a disaster exceeds a government's ability to cope.

If climate change is the most fundamental factor, the global food crisis is the immediate problem. The knockon effects extend far beyond hunger to include child malnutrition, lower primary-school attendance and, not least, increased political instability. I fear that today's food crisis is but the opening act in a larger drama in which swathes of the developing world will suffer acutely. Within our children's lifetimes, how will we feed 50% more people while using 50% less carbon energy, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is imperative to avoid environmental chaos?

We must address the problem at its roots. A vital fi rst step is to bolster the yields of subsistence farmers by providing them with seed and fertiliser. In the longer term, we need a green revolution in every sense of the term: agriculturally productive, environmentally sustainable and economically profitable. Scaled-up financing for African agriculture, including investments in crop adaptation, topsoil preservation, drip irrigation-all this and more is urgently required.

Meanwhile, human conflicts will, like the poor, always be with us. Whereas wars between states are less frequent, internal conflicts-and the humanitarian consequences- show little sign of disappearing. In every global hotspot, humanitarians come armed only with principles, not guns. Unfortunately, respect for international humanitarian law, especially the responsibility to protect civilians, is in scarce supply. Humanitarians are being deliberately targeted. The ability to maintain a neutral humanitarian space, in which aid workers can operate safely and impartially, independent of political and military objectives, is under tremendous pressure.

In a post-September-11th world, this independence is a practical, life-saving necessity, not a naive humanitarian longing. Of course, humanitarian action is a necessary but insuffi cient response to suffering during confl icts. It cannot be a substitute for political solutions and should not serve as an excuse for their absence.

What is to be done? First, states must expend more effort and resources on these solutions. Second, politicians must respect humanitarian principles, while humanitarians themselves need to build more bridges with local actors to engender trust, the cornerstone of any aid effort. Third, we must create innovative partnerships with regional organisations, the private sector and the Islamic world to broaden the base for humanitarian support.

Above all, whether for conflicts or natural disasters, we need to mobilise more resources to meet rising demands and (legitimately) rising expectations. Our principles will be of little use without the money to back them up.