The government estimates that Hurricane Joaquin caused $100 million worth of damage last year to our southern islands. Restoration is ongoing. We now face the cost of recovery from the damage caused by Hurricane Matthew. It was a Category 4 storm when it hit the northwestern Bahamas. New Providence and Andros felt its full effect first, followed by the Berry Islands and Grand Bahama. Prime Minister Perry Christie has said the cost of Matthew will be multiple times that of Joaquin. There is a simple reason for that. Matthew hit more developed and densely populated areas than last year's storm.
If this damage is four or more times the damage of Joaquin, The Bahamas will have a difficult time getting back to normal. Christie has made several comments regarding creating a hurricane fund and a bond issue to seemingly help pay for Matthew's damage.
It would benefit the country if the prime minister would flesh out his idea in a written communication to Parliament, so that we are all clear on his intentions. It has been somewhat difficult understanding exactly what he means to do based on his remarks in the days following this storm.
While it is important to find money to help Bahamians here and now, the experience of the past two years indicates that we need as a country to create a permanent hurricane fund to pay for damage caused by tropical cyclones going forward.
Climate change has raised sea temperatures. Warm oceans fuel hurricanes. Concern surrounding the deleterious effects of climate change led countries last year to the Paris agreement, which seeks to prevent the global temperature from rising two degrees Celsius.
It is unclear if we have merely been unlucky these past two years or if we are in a new phase where our islands are more likely to be hit by stronger storms. Taking into consideration a possible increased threat, the government would be wise to set up a hurricane fund with an initial capital injection and future contributions. A small percentage of national budget expenditure could be added to it each year going forward.
That amount could be one percent or two percent, or whatever experts think is reasonable to ensure the fund grows and is capable of providing the money needed when storms hit and cause damage.
The key here would be that the government must show discipline and not touch the money for other reasons. The National Insurance Fund is supposed to be our social safety net. However, over the years successive governments have used it as the "government building fund". They have erected buildings for the state, which on paper are investments, but in truth are not.
Yes, these are hard times. We are in recession and the unemployment rate is high. But if we have money for the annual carnival party, if we have money for all the ministerial travel that is taking place, if we have money to pay all the foreign consultants to tell us things we already know, then surely we have money to set aside for the natural disasters.
As the prime minister has raised the hurricane funding issue we hope he is open to creative thinking on this problem.
While Matthew has been bad, what if a Category 5 storm had hit the entire archipelago from Inagua to Grand Bahama? How much would that recovery cost? Where would we find the money? Would we be able to borrow enough to restore our islands? We must plan ahead through investing our own money in taking care of ourselves now and in to the future.
Let's not wait for a bigger one to hit.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
