By Dionísio Babo Soares
During a recent visit to India, I had the opportunity to meet with experts from the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure in New Delhi. The discussions extended well beyond technical considerations, evolving into a strategic reflection of particular relevance for countries such as Timor-Leste, where the development trajectory remains deeply dependent on the strength and reliability of national infrastructure.
From those exchanges emerged a widely consolidated understanding within the international community: resilience to natural disasters can no longer be viewed solely through an environmental or humanitarian lens. It is increasingly recognised as a structural pillar of economic planning, fiscal sustainability, and long-term national security.
This reality is especially evident in the context of Timor-Leste. Natural disasters are no longer sporadic events; they have become a recurring structural burden, persistently undermining development gains.
Estimates indicate annual losses of approximately USD 57 million —roughly 3 per cent of non-oil GDP— due to floods, landslides, coastal erosion, seismic risks, and other extreme events. For a young state committed to institutional consolidation and infrastructure reconstruction after decades of conflict, such losses are not merely abstract macroeconomic indicators. They translate into delayed school construction, constrained health investments, and unrealised economic opportunities.
Climate change exacerbates vulnerabilities already rooted in the country’s geography. Episodes of extreme rainfall trigger landslides in tectonically sensitive terrain, isolating communities and disrupting road networks essential to territorial cohesion and market access. At the same time, the country’s extensive coastline—where much of the population and economic infrastructure is concentrated—faces rising sea levels, accelerated erosion, and increasingly intense storms. Roads collapse, bridges require repeated rehabilitation, ports experience operational disruptions, and rebuilt homes remain exposed to the same hazards.
Data from the UNESCAP Risk and Resilience Portal estimates direct annual losses exceeding USD 31 million. When indirect impacts — such as prolonged droughts, agricultural disruptions, and economic effects on value chains and public revenues — are included, total annual losses approach USD 57 million. The devastation caused by Cyclone Seroja in 2021 made this exposure particularly visible, with damages assessed at approximately USD 245 million —equivalent to about 14.5 per cent of non-oil GDP at the time— the event demonstrated how a single extreme event can compromise years of accumulated progress in a matter of days.
These figures reveal an unequivocal reality: the country’s vulnerability is not incidental; it is structural—and it demands structural responses.
It was precisely this dimension that stood out in the discussions held in New Delhi. The consensus among experts was clear: decisions made today in planning and investment will determine whether future disasters remain temporary disruptions or escalate into prolonged national crises.
Too often, developing countries rebuild damaged infrastructure according to standards designed for past climatic conditions, disregarding scientific projections that point toward more intense and unpredictable scenarios. This cycle of destruction and reconstruction represents a silent but persistent drain on public budgets. In Timor-Leste, where infrastructure expansion is indispensable for economic diversification, territorial connectivity, and social inclusion, persisting in such an approach would mean embedding vulnerability into the very process of development.
The central lesson is straightforward: risk assessment must be integrated from the outset of the planning cycle. Resilience cannot be an afterthought introduced only after failure. Climate and disaster risk must guide strategic planning, technical design, financing decisions, operation, and maintenance.
For Timor-Leste, this implies undertaking a comprehensive national assessment of critical infrastructure —roads, bridges, ports, schools, hospitals, and energy supply systems— against climate projections for the coming decades. A risk-informed approach would enable scarce public resources to be directed toward investments capable of withstanding increasingly complex threats.
It is equally important to recognise that Timor-Leste does not face these challenges in isolation. Small states and developing countries face similar constraints: limited fiscal space, rapid urbanisation, high climate vulnerability, and growing infrastructure needs. International cooperation platforms focused on resilience offer concrete opportunities to share technical standards, specialised expertise, and comparative experiences—reducing learning costs and strengthening national capacity.
Particularly relevant is the integration of traditional infrastructure with nature-based solutions. Mangroves reduce wave energy and protect coastal zones; vegetation stabilises vulnerable slopes; and sustainable watershed management mitigates flooding. Timor-Leste possesses valuable experience in this area, including customary mechanisms such as Tara Bandu. Integrating local knowledge with modern science is not merely culturally significant: it is a strategic choice that enhances effectiveness and sustainability.
The economic argument for resilience is compelling. In a context of gradually declining petroleum revenues and increasing pressure on the Petroleum Fund, recurrent disaster-related losses represent a growing fiscal vulnerability. Every dollar spent on reconstruction is a dollar not invested in education, healthcare, or job creation.
Investing proactively in resilience is not an additional expense—it is an expression of economic prudence and sound governance. Resilient infrastructure protects lives, reduces macroeconomic uncertainty, strengthens investor confidence, and expands sovereignty in development choices.
Timor-Leste thus stands at a strategic crossroads. It can perpetuate cycles of repeated reconstruction, or it can establish resilience as a central pillar of its national strategy. The estimated annual losses should not be regarded as inevitable consequences of geography, but rather as a signal that priorities can, and must, evolve.
The experience in New Delhi reinforced a clear conclusion: the scientific evidence is robust, technical solutions exist, and international cooperation instruments are available. Integrating disaster risk management into national planning is no longer a distant aspiration; it has become an immediate strategic necessity.
While the country cannot eliminate natural hazards, it can decisively reduce their impact. The choice made today will determine whether disasters continue to impede national progress or whether infrastructure will sustainably support economic growth, territorial cohesion, and the gains achieved since the Restoration of Independence.
* This article reflects a personal perspective. The data cited are based on publicly available information at the time of writing and remain subject to updates by the competent authorities.
