|
Cuba's success in minimising loss of life during
Hurricane Michelle
The Guardian (London) - Socialism and
storms: Cuba's success in minimising loss of life
during Hurricane Michelle highlights the social
dimension of coping with natural disasters
Ben Wisner
Hurricane Michelle was a category 3 storm. It hit
land at the Bay of Pigs on Cuba's southern coast,
where the ill-fated CIA-backed invasion failed
decades ago, with winds of 216km/hr. The storm
travelled north across the island, damaging 22,400
homes and destroying 2,800. It damaged agriculture,
industry and infrastructure in five provinces in the
western half of the island, as well as Havana. It
was the worst hurricane to hit Cuba since 1944.
But only five deaths have so far been reported: four
from the collapse of structures and one drowning. By
contrast, when Michelle traveled through Central
America in a weaker form, 10 people died and another
26 are listed ives were lost in Central America
during
hurricane Mitch, a disaster whose fatal effects
could have been largely prevented. How did Cuba save
lives? The most important factor seems to be timely
evacuation. Roughly 700,000 people were evacuated
out of Cuba's 11m population. This is quite a feat
given Cuba's dilapidated fleet of vehicles, fuel
shortage and poor road system. It was possible only
because of advance preparations and planning, a
cadre of local personnel, trust in warnings given
and cooperation with the Red Cross.
In Havana the electricity was turned off to avoid
deaths or injuries from electrocution, and the tap
water supply was turned off in case of possible
contamination. Reports say that Havana's population
was advised to store water and food, and that they
largely complied. They also helped clear debris
which could have become dangerous if lifted by
strong winds from streets. Cuban state television
broadcasts included references to the 1932 hurricane
that had killed more than 3,000.
These preparations point to an effective risk
communication system, a historical memory of past
disasters actively encouraged by the authorities,
neighbourhood-based organisations capable of
mobilising labour and trust on the part of the
general population.
Havana is a city of 2m with a history of deaths due
to hurricanes. In
1844, 500 lost their lives in Havana. In 1866 the
death toll in the city was 600 and in 1944 there
were 330 fatalities and 269 collapsed buildings. But
2001 was not the first time that preparations had
saved lives. In 1996 some historic buildings were
destroyed due to hurricane Lili, but no one died.
Does socialism help? In 1978 I published a letter in
the journal Disasters calling for a systematic
comparison of socialist and non-socialist countries'
success in mitigating the human impacts of extreme
natural events. I contrasted the small loss of life
from drowning or subsequent disease during large
floods in the Red river delta of Vietnam with the
estimated huge loss of life calculated by the US
military planners when they were preparing to bomb
the Red river's levees and dikes. I suggested
researchers look carefully at preparedness,
mitigation and recovery in socialist countries such
as China, Cuba, the USSR, Somalia and Mozambique.
Today three of these countries no longer claim to be
socialist; indeed, Somalia is arguably still without
a viable central government following years of civil
war, and some consider Mozambique to be a ward of
overseas donors. I still believe that my 1978
question is relevant to disas ter research. It is
not ideological but practical. If further systematic
comparative study shows that public expenditure on
human needs (healthcare, education, public housing,
utility subsidies for low income people) and
infrastructure does save lives in extreme events,
this is an important finding. I don't care whether
it's called socialism or good governance.
Comparisons shouldn't necessarily be among so-called
communist states (contemporary or historical studies)
and so-called capitalist ones.
Indeed, city by city comparisons might also be very
revealing. The ideological orientation of the
national government may not be the most important
factor.
The systematic study would require a careful and
precise definition of the elements one is looking
for. These are mostly likely to include
self-help and citizen-based social protection at the
neighbourhood level, trust between the authorities
and the population, investment in basic needs and
social capital such as the training of neighbourhood
activists, investment in capable and transparently
operating government institutions for prevention and
mitigation of disaster risk, investment in
scientific capacity such as Havana's weather
institute and public health services, an effective
risk communication system and institutionalised
historical memory of disasters.
Cuba may not have all of these and it may not be
socialism that has
provided Cuba with the ability to save lives in
hurricanes. It may be more complicated than that.
I'd hypothesise that more people die of
hypothermia each year in Scotland than in Finland as
rate of population in an age group.
This is not because Finland is socialist, but
because of the kinds of public spending priorities
in Finland associated with European social-democracy
rather than the minimalist welfare apparatus left in
Britain since the assault on the welfare state began
in the early 80s.
Whatever the reasons, Cuba has lessons for the rest
of us. What a shame it is officially excluded from
the Organisation of American States, and will not be
represented at the upcoming Hemispheric Disaster
Risk Reduction conference, where experts from the
other states will talk about how to save lives.
Dr Ben Wisner is a disaster expert from Oberlin
College, Ohio, and a visiting research fellow at the
Development Studies Institute, LSE.
|
