** Floods in Kinshasa: the political response to a natural and social disaster **
The shock of events in Kinshasa during the last weekend highlighted the urgency of an underlying crisis: that of the vulnerability of certain regions in front of increasingly frequent climatic hazards. This Wednesday, April 16, Prime Minister Judith Suminwa will appear before the National Assembly to respond to the concerns of deputies in terms of tragic floods which caused human and material losses. But beyond the simple government intervention, this raises a series of crucial questions concerning urban planning, risk management and the ability of institutions to adequately respond to environmental crises.
The floods in question are not only the result of isolated torrential rains. They are part of a more global context of rapid and often anarchic urbanization of the Reunion capital. According to the statistics of the World Bank, almost 70 % of the urban population of the Democratic Republic of Congo lives in Kinshasa, and a 2022 report revealed that the region was experiencing population growth of 3.10 % per year. This rampant urbanization is accompanied by an increasing waterproofing of soils, lack of adequate drainage infrastructure, and constructions often made in violation of safety standards.
During the plenary, in response to the pressing requests of the deputies, we expect announcements going beyond immediate rescue solutions. The president of the National Assembly, Vital Kamerhe, himself called on the need to establish a humanitarian intervention plan. However, such an approach may well be only a symbolic response if it is not accompanied by deep structural reforms.
Historical data show that Kinshasa is not unrelated to such disasters. The 2017 and 2019 floods had already aroused similar concerns, with calls for action that remained without lasting response. In comparison, other African cities like Kigali in Rwanda, which recently invested in resilient climate infrastructure, have managed to alleviate the disastrous effects of torrential rains. It would therefore be relevant to Kinshasa decision -makers to take example from these models of success in flood management.
It is also crucial to mention that floods do not affect the entire population equally; Precarious districts are suffering full of the consequences of natural disasters because of their location and their socio-economic vulnerability. The parliamentarians of Kinshasa, by presenting their concerns, give a voice to these exposed minorities. However, the question arises: what efforts will the government be implementing to ensure fair and lasting assistance for the most affected populations?
In addition, the initiative to summon all the sectoral ministers during the plenary of April 16 suggests a collaborative dynamic. In particular, finance and budget ministries will have to justify reduced investments in infrastructure and prevention. Indeed, budgetary allowances with drainage infrastructure and early alert systems remain low given the magnitude of the table described by elected officials. To illustrate this deficiency, a 2021 report from the NGO Human Rights Watch revealed that less than 10% of public allowances were assigned to the management of natural disasters.
To conclude, the summons of Prime Minister Suminwa to the National Assembly may well be a turning point in the management of the environmental crisis in Kinshasa. However, this opportunity should not only be perceived as a means of meeting immediate demand – assistance to victims – but must be the opportunity for a paradigm change in urban policy and preparation in the face of disasters. The path to follow requires a unified vision, sincere financial commitments, and concrete actions to prevent these human tragedies from becoming recurring fatality. The resilience of the Congolese capital in the face of climate change depends on it.