Are We Just Rebuilding Risks under The Build Back Better slogan?
Right after a disaster, the air is full of dust and big promises, too. Leaders, aid groups, and planners often repeat one hopeful line: “Build Back Better.” It sounds like we will recover, improve, and come back stronger..The question arises 'Are We Just Rebuilding Risks under The Build Back Better slogan?'
But once the debris is removed and rebuilding begins, a serious problem can appear. In the hurry to return to normal life, we may miss the chance to truly fix what went wrong. Instead of making places safer, we often end up rebuilding the same weak systems and the same dangers that led to the disaster in the first place.
The concept of Build Back Better (BBB) was formally enshrined in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), adopted by UN member states to guide humanity through an era of increasing climate and seismic instability. The framework envisions recovery not merely as a return to the status quo, but as a critical window of opportunity to correct the structural and social vulnerabilities of the past. In theory, it means that a city flattened by an earthquake should rise again with wider roads, earthquake-resistant engineering, and zoned open spaces.
However, the reality on the ground often tells a different story. The primary enemy of resilience is political and economic time. For a displaced family living in a temporary shelter, or a government bleeding GDP every day a business district is closed, "better" is a luxury; "fast" is a necessity. This urgency creates a fertile ground for the "reconstruction paradox".
When speed becomes the primary metric of success, reconstruction policy is frequently bypassed or diluted. We saw glimpses of this in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake in 2015 and, more recently, in parts of Turkey. The pressure to house thousands of homeless citizens can force local municipalities to approve construction on the same liquefaction-prone soil, using similar cost-cutting materials, and often employing the same lack of oversight that led to the initial collapse. We are rebuilding the buildings, yes, but we are also rebuilding the vulnerability.
This paradox is exacerbated by the economics of aid. International grants often come with strict timelines. Money needs to be "spent" within fiscal cycles, leading to turnkey projects that prioritize visibility over viability. A housing complex built in six months looks like a victory on a donor's report, even if it lacks the deep-foundation retrofitting required for the next century's seismic events.
Furthermore, true resilience requires difficult conversations that few are willing to have during a crisis. It requires rezoning i.e. telling a community that has lived on a riverbank or a fault line for generations that they cannot return to their ancestral plots. It requires enforcing stricter, more expensive building codes in regions where poverty already makes basic housing unaffordable. Implementing a robust reconstruction policy that strictly adheres to the Sendai Framework often means delaying the homecoming of survivors. It is a political gamble that few leaders are willing to take.
So, how do we break the cycle? The answer lies in pre-disaster planning. "Building Back Better" cannot be an improvisation plan drafted while the fires are still burning; it must be a blueprint agreed upon during peacetime. Cities need pre-approved reconstruction plans that identify safe zones and pre-negotiated contracts for resilient materials. We need insurance models that payout not just for replacement, but for upgrades, incentivizing the "better" in the slogan.
Until we decouple recovery from the frantic need for speed, our cities remain in a loop of destruction and resurrection. We must realize that returning to "normal" is a failure if "normal" was the problem in the first place. If we do not heed the lessons of the rubble, we are not building back better; we are simply setting the stage for the next tragedy.
#SendaiFramework #BuildBackBetter #Reconstruction Policy
Are We Just Rebuilding Risks under The Build Back Better slogan?
Right after a disaster, the air is full of dust and big promises, too. Leaders, aid groups, and planners often repeat one hopeful line: “Build Back Better.” It sounds like we will recover, improve, and come back stronger..The question arises 'Are We Just Rebuilding Risks under The Build Back Better slogan?'
But once the debris is removed and rebuilding begins, a serious problem can appear. In the hurry to return to normal life, we may miss the chance to truly fix what went wrong. Instead of making places safer, we often end up rebuilding the same weak systems and the same dangers that led to the disaster in the first place.
The concept of Build Back Better (BBB) was formally enshrined in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), adopted by UN member states to guide humanity through an era of increasing climate and seismic instability. The framework envisions recovery not merely as a return to the status quo, but as a critical window of opportunity to correct the structural and social vulnerabilities of the past. In theory, it means that a city flattened by an earthquake should rise again with wider roads, earthquake-resistant engineering, and zoned open spaces.
However, the reality on the ground often tells a different story. The primary enemy of resilience is political and economic time. For a displaced family living in a temporary shelter, or a government bleeding GDP every day a business district is closed, "better" is a luxury; "fast" is a necessity. This urgency creates a fertile ground for the "reconstruction paradox".
When speed becomes the primary metric of success, reconstruction policy is frequently bypassed or diluted. We saw glimpses of this in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake in 2015 and, more recently, in parts of Turkey. The pressure to house thousands of homeless citizens can force local municipalities to approve construction on the same liquefaction-prone soil, using similar cost-cutting materials, and often employing the same lack of oversight that led to the initial collapse. We are rebuilding the buildings, yes, but we are also rebuilding the vulnerability.
This paradox is exacerbated by the economics of aid. International grants often come with strict timelines. Money needs to be "spent" within fiscal cycles, leading to turnkey projects that prioritize visibility over viability. A housing complex built in six months looks like a victory on a donor's report, even if it lacks the deep-foundation retrofitting required for the next century's seismic events.
Furthermore, true resilience requires difficult conversations that few are willing to have during a crisis. It requires rezoning i.e. telling a community that has lived on a riverbank or a fault line for generations that they cannot return to their ancestral plots. It requires enforcing stricter, more expensive building codes in regions where poverty already makes basic housing unaffordable. Implementing a robust reconstruction policy that strictly adheres to the Sendai Framework often means delaying the homecoming of survivors. It is a political gamble that few leaders are willing to take.
So, how do we break the cycle? The answer lies in pre-disaster planning. "Building Back Better" cannot be an improvisation plan drafted while the fires are still burning; it must be a blueprint agreed upon during peacetime. Cities need pre-approved reconstruction plans that identify safe zones and pre-negotiated contracts for resilient materials. We need insurance models that payout not just for replacement, but for upgrades, incentivizing the "better" in the slogan.
Until we decouple recovery from the frantic need for speed, our cities remain in a loop of destruction and resurrection. We must realize that returning to "normal" is a failure if "normal" was the problem in the first place. If we do not heed the lessons of the rubble, we are not building back better; we are simply setting the stage for the next tragedy.
#SendaiFramework #BuildBackBetter #Reconstruction Policy
