By Michael Grey MBE
"Unexpected" events in the shape of natural disasters come around with such regularity that they can hardly be so described. Green doom-mongers ascribe them all to "climate change", or even "global warming", and cast the blame at hateful mankind, although it is perfectly clear that these terrible events have occurred just as frequently down the ages.
If there is any real connection to human beings, it surely must be that in a less pressurised and more precautionary era, people would sensibly build their habitations on places less likely to flood, or be swept out to sea by tsunamis, than they are today. If you look at a century old track of hurricanes in the US Gulf, you will see that basically their variable tracks and frequency has altered very little.
However, a century ago the Gulf coast was not nearly so built up as it is today and there was a greater chance that a storm crossing the coast would be more likely to miss concentrations of people. Galveston, which had a population of 38,000, was all but swept away by the hurricane of 1900, but much of the coast was largely unpopulated at the time, so they were reckoned to be exceptionally unlucky. Today, as we saw after Hurricane Katrina had devastated New Orleans, we will be assailed by the environmentalists telling us it is all mankind's fault.
Terrible natural events do happen, and they happen very regularly, as people crowd along coastlines, or up the slopes of active volcanoes, or up and down fault lines prone to slippage and earthquakes.
One would think because of their frequency of these events and the increased frightfulness of the consequences, we would be rather better equipped to respond. Sure, there are noble volunteers who will quickly jet in with dogs trained to search for people in collapsed buildings and offer medical first aid.
As we saw with the recent storm that devastated the archipelago of Vanuatu, nearby nations with rather more resources are quick off the mark to pack off a Hercules transport or two with bottled water and even light but useful equipment like generators, along with a packed helicopter, to help clear up the wreckage. It is good to see and helps to repair our faith in mankind, but is only ever a fraction of what is really needed to make much of an impact in these major disasters.
Aircraft can only do so much, with the biggest around limited by their capacity, even if undamaged landing grounds can be found. It is ships that will make the difference, because only ships can lift the tonnage of supplies and plant that can start to put a damaged country back on its feet again.
Fortunate are those disaster-struck areas that have a US carrier task group or an amphibious force which happens to be within a few days steaming. These hugely expensive but immensely capable forces demonstrate, time after time, what ships can do in extremis, but it is usually only good fortune that has positioned such capable resources so close to the disaster. If luck does not smile on the stricken population, they may have to put up with something far less capable, a "sticking plaster" solution, rather than the heavy haulage that is needed.
It needn't be like this, with every "event" going through the same tortuous process, seemingly because they are so unexpected. Although we can be almost certain that in the east and western hemispheres, albeit at an irregular frequency, there will be periodic and massive natural disasters that will require international assistance. If we can agree on that (and who on Earth would argue?), perhaps we can think of equipping ourselves to be in a better position to provide more effective and appropriate assistance when these events occur.
The model for what a prompt and useful response is to these events is to be found with the US military and its Maritime Prepositioning Fleet, which is situated in strategic parts of the world against a military emergency. Fast merchant ships, many acquired second-hand and converted, are pre-loaded with military hardware and stores, so that they can be deployed, to merge with the necessary manpower, in the shortest possible time. Self-sufficient vessels, with Ro-Ro ramps, cranes and floating pontoons, to enable them to work in an offshore situation in the absence of a suitable port, could be a perfect model for a disaster relief ship.
Packed with the sort of equipment that is so very necessary in such situations, such as helicopters, cranes, earthmoving equipment, generators and fuel, water making equipment and medical supplies, these ships would make a real difference in the aftermath of a natural disaster. More than hospital ships, they would provide the first response, clearing the wreckage, providing the access that so often costs huge numbers of lives. Strategically situated within a few days steaming of notably vulnerable places, the supplies which could be packed into just one ship would amount to enormous numbers of aircraft loads.
How to organise and finance such a maritime emergency service? The service might be provided by re-allocating current aid provision, much of which is arguably inefficient and wasteful. It could be operated under United Nations and IMO colours, but managed by commercial ship managers, many of whom are more than capable of such a task. It might even incorporate a voluntary dimension, which would hit a lot of buttons these days. Or we can struggle on as we always have: ineffectually.