For one horrific week, the havoc in the Philippines wreaked by Typhoon Haiyan kept help from reaching survivors. The storm, the strongest ever recorded, took out bridges, clogged roads, and paralyzed seaports and airports, turning one of the most vulnerable regions of this 7,000-island nation into a scrapheap. Thousands of Filipinos are dead. More than four million are homeless. And millions have lost the means to support their families.
It didn’t have to be this bad.
Today, in the areas hit hardest, Oxfam and other aid organizations are providing water, sanitation, and other basics to meet the needs of survivors. In the weeks ahead we will be racing against the clock, along with the government of the Philippines and others, to prevent a second wave of death from disease and malnutrition. While the mission of saving lives and restoring communities continues, we must ask ourselves: Is this working?
The answer is no.
Lives and resources are being needlessly lost: the world’s system of disaster response is outdated.
From Haiti’s earthquake and Pakistan’s floods in 2010 to the Horn of Africa’s crippling drought and famine in 2011, disasters are overwhelming the aid world’s ability to respond.
Between 1987-2007, major natural disasters became four times as common worldwide. Climate change is a key reason. Since 1993, more than 530,000 people have died as a direct result of 15,000 extreme weather events. Financial losses amounted to more than $2.5 trillion.
During the coming decade, catastrophes like Typhoon Haiyan will cause billions of dollars in damage in poor countries, kill many thousands of people, and require at least $1 trillion in public humanitarian aid. Organizations like Oxfam and major donor countries must face the truth: in our current model, demand for disaster response is outstripping supply.
The solution won’t be found in bigger international relief organizations or in airdropping more supplies onto island nations. Swooping in with outside solutions that shouldering aside citizens, discounting local knowledge, and treating whole nations like helpless children is not the answer.
In most places, in most cases, governments and citizens in affected countries can develop workable strategies to deal with emergencies. The role of outside aid groups should be to invest in vulnerable countries, so that local and national institutions have the resources and expertise in place to safeguard their people. The global community must have the commitment and foresight to make these investments early—before disaster strikes.
In 2010, the global response to Haiti’s earthquake was enormous. But evaluations exposed tragic shortcomings in how humanitarian aid was provided: outsiders descended in droves and the response overlooked existing civil society systems, as well as the views and abilities of Haitians. What could have been an opportunity to rebuild and strengthen the country was squandered.
Every evaluation of major humanitarian crises in the last 10 years has found much the same thing.









