They Contribute Little To Climate Change: Why Are Small Nations Paying Such A High Price?

(MENAFN- Khaleej Times) When devastating floods hit Nepal on August 26, the scale of the destruction quickly became clear. Around 7,500 homes were destroyed, at least 12 hydropower projects were damaged and preliminary losses reached $2.56 billion, nearly a fifth of the country's $14 billion annual government budget.

For a country with a small economy, a disaster of this scale can become much more than an emergency. It can affect power, tourism, transport, jobs and government spending at the same time.

Recommended For You

Nepal is only the latest example of a wider problem facing smaller and climate vulnerable nations around the world.

Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.

Many contribute little to the emissions driving climate change, yet their size, geography and limited resources mean a single disaster can erase years of development.

Why does size matter?

The cost of a disaster is not only about how many billions of dollars are lost. It is also about how large that loss is compared with the country's economy.

Small Island Developing States, or SIDS, are responsible for less than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to UN. Yet natural disasters can cause annual losses equivalent to between one and eight per cent of their GDP.

Many also depend heavily on a small number of industries. Tourism, for example, accounts for almost 30 per cent of GDP on average across SIDS.

This means one powerful storm can damage hotels, airports, roads and electricity networks while also stopping the flow of visitors the economy depends on.

Their small size can make the impact even more concentrated.

The UN says six of the 10 countries most at risk of losing the largest proportion of their produced capital in an extreme cyclone scenario are small island developing states.

Different countries, different dangers

The threat does not look the same everywhere. Nepal faces floods, landslides and risks linked to its rapidly changing mountain environment.

For low-lying island states, rising seas and coastal flooding can threaten homes, freshwater supplies and essential infrastructure.

Small states in the Caribbean and Pacific also face powerful cyclones that can damage a significant share of a country in a matter of hours.

In larger countries, a disaster may devastate one region while economic activity continues elsewhere. In a small nation, there may be far less distance between a local disaster and a national crisis.

So what needs to change?

The next catastrophe cannot always be prevented, but countries can reduce how much is destroyed. One of the biggest changes is to stop treating disaster preparation as something that begins when an emergency is already approaching.

Roads, hospitals, schools, power systems and homes being built today may still be in use decades from now. Planning them around future risks rather than only past weather patterns can make them less likely to fail during extreme events.

That could mean tougher building standards in cyclone-prone areas, stronger coastal protection, safer locations for critical infrastructure and electricity and water networks designed so that one damaged facility does not shut down an entire system.

Governments also need better information about where the greatest risks are before approving new development.

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction says investment in prevention remains inadequate in small island states, with much of the available funding still directed towards response and recovery.

Avoiding the rebuilding cycle

For small nations, repeated reconstruction can become one of the biggest problems.

A government rebuilds a road after a flood or cyclone, only for another extreme event to destroy it years later. The country then spends money replacing the same infrastructure instead of investing in new schools, hospitals or economic development.

The UN says adapting to climate change could cost Small Island Developing States between $22 billion and $26 billion every year or around 4 to 5 per cent of their GDP.

This is why resilience needs to become part of normal development planning rather than an additional expense considered after disaster strikes.

Protecting critical infrastructure, preparing communities, strengthening construction standards and planning development around future risks will not remove every threat. But they can determine whether the next extreme event remains a disaster or becomes a national catastrophe.

Nepal's floods have again shown how quickly years of investment can disappear.

For smaller nations facing rising seas, stronger storms, floods and other growing risks, the question is no longer only how to rebuild afterwards.

It is how much can be protected before the next disaster arrives.

ALSO READ

Nepal puts climate justice at centre of global pitch for flood aid 'Suffering for crime we didn't commit': Nepal seeks climate justice after flood disaster Nepal's young PM faces gravest test after flood catastrophe

MENAFN10092026000049011007ID1111650310