Become part of the world’s biggest dialogue experiment.

Find out how you can get involved
  1. Home
  2. Global

Then and Now: 25 years of disasters, responses, and risk management

A timeline of the evolving strategies to tackle storms, floods, and earthquakes.

A high wave hits a seawall in Tanohata village, Iwate Prefecture, Japan one of the areas hit hardest by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Kim Kyung-Hoon/REUTERS
A high wave hits a seawall in Tanohata village, Iwate Prefecture, Japan one of the areas hit hardest by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

A stitch in time saves nine. When it comes to disaster management, this has been proven correct time and time again. Investing beforehand in risk reduction – think flood defences, early warning systems, evacuation plans – minimises the damage, the loss of life, and the financial cost of the response after disaster strikes.

So why, if this is so obviously true, have humanitarians historically maintained a reactive approach, even when disasters are recurrent and predictable?

Money is certainly part of it. It’s hard to direct stretched resources towards problems that haven’t reached crisis points, and donors have tended to be more comfortable funding post-disaster response. But some have also argued that risk reduction is mission creep and falls more squarely within the development realm – humanitarians should stick to the business of saving lives and providing emergency aid (joining up the two is of course a wider debate).

But change could be afoot. As climate change threatens ever more frequent, powerful, and overlapping disasters, some organisations have begun to shift approach, putting more resources up front. Advances in data and forecasting, as well as the ability to communicate and act upon those forecasts, have allowed for these changes. Whether this move towards “anticipatory action” is just the latest example of preparedness and risk reduction regaining prominence in the humanitarian-development enterprise or a longer-lasting and more significant trend remains to be seen.

This timeline tracks the evolution of this shifting focus from managing disasters to managing risks – among states and within the aid sector, both in policy and in practice.

Hannah Stoddard contributed research and reporting.

Share this article

Hundreds of thousands of readers trust The New Humanitarian each month for quality journalism that contributes to more effective, accountable, and inclusive ways to improve the lives of people affected by crises.

Our award-winning stories inform policymakers and humanitarians, demand accountability and transparency from those meant to help people in need, and provide a platform for conversation and discussion with and among affected and marginalised people.

We’re able to continue doing this thanks to the support of our donors and readers like you who believe in the power of independent journalism. These contributions help keep our journalism free and accessible to all.

Show your support as we build the future of news media by becoming a member of The New Humanitarian. 

Become a member of The New Humanitarian

Support our journalism and become more involved in our community. Help us deliver informative, accessible, independent journalism that you can trust and provides accountability to the millions of people affected by crises worldwide.