Responses to the Christchurch and Nepal Earthquakes
This page details the short-term and long-term responses to both the Christchurch earthquake 2011 and the Nepal earthquake 2015, highlighting the differences in disaster management capabilities between a High-Income Country (HIC) and a Low-Income Country (LIC).
Christchurch Earthquake 2011 Responses
Short-term Responses
The immediate response to the Christchurch earthquake was swift and well-coordinated:
- $7 million in international aid was received
- The Red Cross supplied aid workers
- 300 Australian police were flown in to assist
- 30,000 people were provided with chemical toilets
Highlight: The rapid deployment of international aid and personnel demonstrates the advantages of being a well-connected HIC in disaster response.
Long-term Responses
The long-term recovery efforts in Christchurch were comprehensive and well-funded:
- The government provided temporary housing for displaced residents
- 10,000 affordable homes were constructed
- Water and sewage services were restored within 6 months
- The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was created to organize rebuilding efforts
- This authority was given the power to change planning laws and regulations to facilitate reconstruction
Example: The creation of a dedicated recovery authority with special powers illustrates the systematic approach taken by New Zealand in managing the long-term aftermath of the earthquake.
Nepal Earthquake 2015 Responses
Short-term Responses
The immediate response to the Nepal earthquake faced more challenges:
- Search and rescue teams arrived quickly from the UK and India
- Half a million tents were issued to the homeless
- Helicopters rescued many people caught in avalanches on Mt. Everest
Quote: "Helicopter visited epicentre area 24 hours after initial tremor," indicating delays in reaching some of the most affected areas.
Long-term Responses
The long-term recovery in Nepal has been slower and faced more obstacles:
- 7,000 schools needed to be rebuilt or repaired
- The UK provided £73 million in aid, while China contributed $1 billion
- Stricter building regulations were planned for implementation
Challenges in Nepal's Response
Several factors hindered the effectiveness of Nepal's earthquake response:
- Responses were generally slow
- Three years after the earthquake, only 13.7% of buildings had been rebuilt
- Emergency responses were limited due to poor equipment
- As an LIC, Nepal lacked finances reserved for natural disasters
- The prevalence of unreinforced brick masonry led to widespread building collapses
Highlight: The contrast between Nepal's and Christchurch's responses underscores the significant impact that a country's economic status and preparedness can have on disaster recovery.
This comparison of the Christchurch earthquake 2011 responses and the Nepal earthquake 2015 short term long term responses clearly illustrates the disparities in disaster management capabilities between HICs and LICs. It emphasizes the need for improved global cooperation in disaster preparedness and response, particularly for vulnerable nations.