Kathmandu, Nepal. 11:56am. 25th April. Life changes forever.
Ground shakes, buildings fall.
People run. Voices everywhere.
And the greatest quake since 1934 commences, with a Magnitude of 7.8 MMS.
Horror everywhere.
Residents shook, wept, screamed.
How can something so harrowing be over within a matter of minutes?
Seconds tick by. Minutes. Hours. Days.
And slowly, Nepal begins to rebuild. To recover.
But with irreversible damage.
Loved ones lost.
Homes destroyed.
Lives wrecked.
The impact this earthquake had on Nepal as a whole changed the world.
Has it changed the world's perspective of aid, of how to help? Should we provide short-term, or long-term aid? This is the question humanitarian response teams have been asking for years. Short-term aid provides water, medical supplies, food, shelter and warmth to those affected. It alleviates their pain, albeit only temporarily – it is a way to cope.
A way to deal with the life-changing disasters they have witnessed. A shoulder to cry on, ears to listen. Aid workers can alter a situation immensely.
But is short-term aid alone the answer? Should we not be looking to long-term solutions, and attempting to mitigate the problem? Yes, it is only natural to want to help. As human beings, we are naturally altruistic.
So, when a disaster of any form occurs, as daughters, sons, parents, teachers, but ultimately people – our instinctive reaction is to do anything we possibly can to help. And in terms of the Nepal earthquake, this meant flooding aid charities with tins of food, blankets, bedding, soft toys. However, not all help given to charities and volunteers is useful. Often food becomes out of date before it can be sent to the appropriate areas. Clothes and toys cannot always be vacuum-packed; second hand goods are difficult to distribute in the aftermath of a disaster – it is more use for organisations to find and distribute goods themselves, as they are aware of an area's needs more than you.
The relief efforts of various countries in the aftermath were helpful; but not enough. Sadly, somewhat inadequate. Teams failed to co-operate their efforts with each other;
Long-term aid, however, is difficult to plan too. Often, it seems an area needs primarily short-term solutions in order to survive; the daily struggle can often be too great. But people need to see past the immediate damage, and instead look for practical answers.
People of Nepal during the immiediate aftermath of the quake. Source: www.georgianjournal.ge
Map showing the location and Epicentre. Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Communication needs to drastically improve – both within short-term and long-term aid. Poor communication can often lead to what is known as the second disaster - an influx of volunteers wanting to help immediately, who lack the knowledge/coordination to implement long-term, sustainable solutions - well-meaning, but unprepared.
Claire Bennett, writing for the Guardian on 27th April, sums this up perfectly:
'What Nepal needs right now is not another untrained bystander, however much her heart is hurting. Nepal has one international airport for the entire country, which has itself sustained damage. That airport needs to be used for emergency supplies, immediate aid for the victims, and qualified, professional relief workers. My trip back to commiserate with loved ones can wait a few weeks.'
There are many factors contributing towards managing natural disasters; whether to provide food, water and shelter; should we educate governments? Local people? Should we firstly look towards long-term, sustainable solutions? Mitigation? Education? Environment? Infrastructure? It is an endless cycle – and arguably, each factor is of equal importance. They are interchangeable – it is up to us to decide which factor is prioritised – which changes depending on the nature of the disaster.
Significant changes are needed in terms of aid given to countries in the aftermath of natural disasters. The Nepal earthquake has been no exception, with devastating consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for reading and I hope you've enjoyed my first post.
- Sophie
