The Importance of Prevention: Lessons from Haiti...

The tragedy occurring in Haiti as a result of the devastating earthquake is absolutely heartbreaking. No one deserves such a fate and my heart goes out to the millions that have been adversely impacted by the disaster. Moreover, the outpouring of support coming from around the world is somewhat inspiring.

But you are going to have to forgive my forthcoming cynicism.

As inspiring and necessary as the support is, I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach as soon as the media started publishing all sorts of stories about the rapid deployment of disaster relief complemented by a series of politically-opportunistic photo ops. This is both typical and frustrating, but not my main point of contention. My greater concern is how the world approaches Haiti and its disaster, and more broadly, how we approach the prevention of disasters.

(I will preface this by saying I am by no means an expert on Haiti nor an expert on international development, but have a relatively decent grasp of both subjects). Haiti has been falling apart for decades, if not centuries. Even prior to the disaster, it was among the most impoverished countries in the world with outrageously high rates of infant mortality and disease. A series of brutal dictatorships, coups and interference from influential foreign powers have left the country in political ruin for years and consistently ranks near the top of the world's most corrupt countries. There is very little money for the majority of citizens and the physical infrastructure (roads, well-built houses, emergency services) throughout the country is awful.

And how has the world helped? Some countries have thrown money at them and expected great things, although the success of purely financial foreign aid is far from high. Basically, we turn a blind eye.

But when the country physically starts to fall apart, we run in like the white knight without even thinking about it. Governments throughout the world are pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in support and sending in their militaries to help out as soon as possible. Different workplaces are collecting money to donate and even professional sports leagues like the NHL are reaching into their pockets to help out. I just walked by a booth at Trent where a bake sale is being put on the help quake victims. Again, this is touching and it is nice to see all sorts of people helping out.

But there is only so much help all of this can do right now. Much of the aid can't even get into the country at this point and some donation groups have even been swindling the folks who have trusted them with their money.

As great as all the support is, it could have been considerably more effective if used to prevent much of the devastation rather than clean it up. True, as a friend pointed out to me, you can't predict the future. But natural disasters often wreak similar havoc. The damage may not have been much more different had it been a massive hurricane or flood.

The infrastructure is particularly important. A reporter on the CBC was comparing the damage to that seen in L'Aquila, Italy recently from another strong earthquake. But unlike there, where the buildings were modestly strong and emergency services could easily get to the sites, Haiti's buildings are weak and domestic emergency services essentially non-existent.

And I want to make it clear that when I say support, I do not just mean money. Money has been thrown at Haiti for years, but that doesn't go very far when it is given to a corrupt regime, or coming with strings attached. Indeed, development practices are tricky things, but surely something could have been done to create stable infrastructure several years ago.

Moreover, the amount of support coming in from members of the public is important, but how many of these people really cared about Haiti prior to the quake? Would they have been as willing to stand in the halls selling baked goods if you told them the proceeds might one day prevent such a high level of devastation? Or does the actual event have to take place before people care?

I should also make it clear that my use of prevention is to describe preventing such a high level of devastation. Indeed, you can't prevent an earthquake, and with one of such magnitude, there is inevitably going to be damage, but the amount of damage could have been reduced significantly.

The problem with only helping out once the damage is done is that it is often considerably less effective overall. And it is more expensive. How much do you think it'll really cost to return Haiti to its former self prior to the quake? And how expensive has the entire disaster relief effort been? It certainly isn't cheap and it certainly isn't any cheaper than what might have been needed to prevent such tragedy.

So why is this appearing in an environmentally-related blog?

Because if the climate scientists are right, natural disasters are going to get more frequent and more powerful as the planet warms. True, climate change won't influence earthquakes, but as I said earlier, natural disasters often wreak havoc in a similar fashion. How many more Haitis could we prevent over the next 100 years if we thought about this properly and invested in prevention rather than the clean up?

More broadly, our entire approach to climate change and the environment is centred around this phenomenon. We spend years trying to figure out where to put our waste rather thinking about how to reduce the production of it. If we don't do enough to prevent the damages we're bringing upon ourselves, we could all be screwed. After all, there comes a point when it's impossible to clean up.