Author: [email protected]

In April and May, two massive earthquakes in Nepal killed more than 8,400 people, injured 20,000 and reduced 300,000 houses to rubble. In March, Cyclone Pam destroyed homes, schools, infrastructure and livelihoods on the Pacific island of Vanuatu, affecting half the population, including 82,000 children. Both nations will take years to recover.

The number and severity of disasters is increasing (see ‘Catastrophic rise’). Annual global economic losses from geophysical, hydro-meteorological and climatological events could almost double from their 2005 levels by 2030 to exceed US$300 billion if the past decade’s trend continues. The figures may worsen as climate change, globalization, technological change, urbanization and political and economic instability put more people and assets at risk.

Improved disaster-risk management and resilience is essential for sustainable societies¹. But the science of natural hazards is too fragmented to influence policy effectively. Seismologists, for example, had long warned in specialist journals that Nepal’s Kathmandu region was due a large earthquake. Local politicians did not strengthen construction codes, reinforce old buildings or inform the population about potential risks. Had such measures been implemented — as they have in Japan, California and Chile — the death toll would have been lower (see ‘Three lessons yet to be learned’). Similarly, structures in flood-prone areas can be elevated; those in cyclone zones wind-proofed; and the public educated about such possibilities.

Sadly, hazard mitigation is not a vote-winner. It pits long-range investments against short-term political cycles — even though it is cheaper to prevent losses than to rebuild after them^{2, 3}. Reinforcing the levees of New Orleans, Louisiana, against hurricane storm surges would have cost ten times less than rebuilding neighbourhoods after Hurricane Katrina. It is more politically expedient to respond afterwards when constituents are demanding assistance. Public awareness of the scale of disaster risks is hindered by the breadth and complexity of research, spanning the natural, social and health sciences, law, humanities and engineering.

In March, governments met under the auspices of the United Nations in Sendai, Japan, to negotiate an international agreement to reverse the rising trend of disaster losses. Unlike previous voluntary agreements, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 has set measureable targets. One goal is to lower average death rates and economic losses in 2020–30 relative to 2005–15 (by what percentage is not specified).

For the Sendai agreement to succeed, an open and comprehensive source of vetted information on disaster-risk reduction is needed. It would provide evidence for monitoring progress towards the goals. We call on the scientific community to set up an international assessment process to feed such information into disaster policy and practice.

Splintered approach

The community of disaster-risk researchers is small and splintered into disciplines that are focused on single natural hazards. Only recently have seismologists worked with geodesists to determine how changes in Earth’s shape and gravity field apply loads to faults⁴. Disaster-medicine researchers rarely meet public-health professionals or read social-science journals⁵. Local or indigenous knowledge and the on-the-ground experiences of emergency managers and humanitarian agencies are often excluded.

Source: Munichre/Natcatservice

 

Governments need holistic solutions, not incremental proposals that solve one aspect but ignore wider ramifications. A move towards integrated disaster-risk research — bringing together disciplines to focus on particular problems and social needs — is filling this void⁶. But lack of a critical overview of what is known about disaster risk leaves politicians without guidance.

This is why early political efforts to reduce disaster losses foundered. The UN designated the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, and in 1999 created the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) to coordinate national efforts. In the absence of a legally binding treaty with targets, and consequences for not achieving them, UNISDR has been largely limited to promoting risk awareness and facilitating institutional development.

In 2005, some 168 countries signed up to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), pledging to reduce disaster losses by 2015. Again, this did not occur. Of the ten costliest disasters between 1980 and 2014, those that happened after the agreement were more than four times as expensive as those in the decade before. Increased vulnerability and exposure account for some of the increase — but not all.

At least 35 nations, including Colombia, Brazil and India, now include disaster risk and reduction in their development strategies. Most do not. Many financial donors view disasters as interruptions in development, not as risks that need to be managed. Disaster-risk-assessment reports are too broad to guide municipalities and nations. For example, UNISDR’s Global Assessment Reports or the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks reports provide global and thematic overviews, often consider risks qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and neglect the collective impacts of personal choices such as whether to purchase insurance or relocate⁷.

The Sendai framework calls on governments to do four things: understand disaster risk; strengthen risk governance to manage risks across all sectors; invest in risk-reduction measures that promote resilience; and enhance disaster preparedness and responses so that nations “build back better” in their recovery. It tasks research networks with focusing on the root causes of disasters and probable emergent risks; supporting action by local communities and authorities; and engaging policy-makers.

Review mechanism

A coherent science-based assessment process for disaster-risk reduction should be created to provide sound knowledge to inform decision-making, and to assist governments worldwide in setting policies and goals and to identify research gaps. By taking an integrated approach, such an assessment would go beyond previous proposals for international panels on natural hazards and disasters⁸.

Disaster-risk reports should identify what is known and where there are gaps in our knowledge. They must summarize information relevant to the Sendai targets. And they should examine the root causes of vulnerabilities and exposure, the potential socio-economic impacts of natural hazards and the ways to reduce (if not prevent) human and economic losses. Finally, such an assessment should provide a mechanism for knowledge transfer from research to practice, ensuring that the science is useful, usable and used⁹.

A high-level, transdisciplinary body of international experts in disaster-risk reduction should be established by national governments and international organizations dealing with disaster risks, with input from various sectors and civil society. Such a body would have the reach and influence — from local communities, businesses and governments — to raise people’s awareness. The same findings presented by an independent scientist or article would not.

The main practical difficulties will be in incorporating the field’s diverse information and practices into an assessment, and demonstrating to policy-makers that it need not take a extreme event to cause catastrophic human consequences¹⁰. Government support for the process will be essential. Synergies must be found by combining and consolidating disaster-risk reduction efforts across UN institutions.

Disaster-risk management, climate change and sustainable development targets will need to be aligned. For example, there should be a coordinated assessment of the state of knowledge in disaster risk and its utility for supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Knowledge transfer will make community-based resilience efforts possible. Illuminating findings, best practices and state-of-the-art modelling must become part of the evidence-based strategy for disaster-risk reduction.

source: http://www.nature.com

THE METRO Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study of 2004 says that a 7.2-magnitude earthquake that will be generated by the 100-kilometer West Valley Fault will occur at any time. This will make Metro Manila the epicenter of this destructive earthquake, according to director Renato U. Solidum Jr. of the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs).

Defense Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin has emphasized that the Greater Metro Manila Area, including the adjacent regions of Central Luzon and Calabarzon (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon), comprising the economic, political, sociocultural and education hub of the Philippines and home to a third of its population, is transected by the West Valley Fault system.

This means that about 30 million people are residing or working in this crowded urbanized landscape. These people, composed of both ordinary citizens and civil and military personnel, will all be victims of the Big One.

This will present serious challenges to the response capability of both local and national governments because all their personnel will also be victims, and their facilities and equipment could be damaged or destroyed.

The Big One is projected to result in an intensity 8 earthquake that will produce widespread destruction, thousands of deaths and countless injuries. It is expected to bring down or damage the major bridges and other spans across the Pasig River and its many tributaries, creeks and esteros, which will physically separate and isolate the cities and communities in Metro Manila.

No power, phone service

The destructive ground shaking is expected to make roadways virtually impassable due to the toppling of giant billboards and utility poles. There will be no electrical power and landline communication and the cellular phone system will be seriously interrupted due to overloading of calls or text messages and damage to cell sites.

Monstrous traffic jams due to an expected blackout would result in road accidents if the Big One hits during an evening rush hour on a weekday.

Since the epicenter of the Big One will be the entire Metro Manila, everything located in the metropolis and the surrounding areas, and everyone living in all its barangays will be adversely affected.

Isolated

It must be emphasized that almost all of our communities have numerous utility poles. When these poles topple, entire communities and individual streets will be isolated.

Republic Act No. 10121, or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (PDRRM) law, provides that the barangays are the first responders in the community.

However, the widespread destruction and blockage of roads will delay responders even at the barangay level. This is due to the fact that the barangay first responders will also be victims and will have to care for their families, gather their emergency teams and consolidate their undamaged resources before they can actually respond.

Prepare, organize

Therefore, Phivolcs emphasizes that individuals and families in each and every barangay must be prepared for the Big One.

Citizens must develop their own plans and organize before the disaster strikes, lest they find themselves alone, confused and helpless as individuals, as separate families, as neighbors or as a community. Families residing on the same street or cluster of streets must be self-reliant and must not rely on help from government as a substitute for self-reliance and sustainability.

There is therefore, a need for the citizens themselves to organize a Family-based Street Level Disaster Preparedness Program (FSLDPP). This must be based on a bottom-up plan in support of the Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan.

Objectives of FSLDPP

Develop, train, equip and manage families as frontliners before and during emergencies.

Develop and institutionalize a culture of disaster preparedness among families and neighbors.

Develop and institutionalize collaborative planning programs among neighbors and community stakeholders.

The initial action in developing an FSLDPP is to organize each home and all the members of the household by assigning emergency tasks.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

* Locate safe areas and identify hazards in the house.

* Assign emergency duties for every member of the household.

* Stock 14 days of food, water and medicine.

* Organize a “go bag” with a personal emergency and first aid kit for each member of the family with three days of food, clothing and toiletries.

* Designate several assembly areas if there is a need to evacuate the home.

STREET LEVEL

* Locate, inform and organize assets residing in each street, like physicians, nurses, pharmacists, health workers, caregivers, physical therapists, midwives, first aid providers, engineers, teachers, boy scouts and girl scouts, faith-based individuals, and active, retired and reservist military personnel as well as police and fire service personnel.

Emergency brigades

These individuals will play vital roles in the FSLDPP when we organize among all the residents of the street functional emergency brigades, such as food and water, evacuation, search and rescue, security and traffic control, medical control and information control.

A bottom-up FSLDPP must be developed among the residents because every street is unique in terms of population density, profile and physical configuration.

The program must likewise identify facilities like barangay hall, police and fire stations, hospitals, churches, malls, groceries, sari-sari stores, drug stores, hardware stores, car repair shops, funeral homes and open spaces that will be useful sources of shelter, food, water and emergency equipment.

(Brig. Gen. Marcelo B. Javier Jr. [reserve] is a management specialist by profession. He has been a volunteer reservist of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Red Cross [PRC] since 1968. He is currently the commander of the Army’s 15th Infantry “Defender” Ready Reserve Division whose area of responsibility is Metro Manila. He is also the chair of the Disaster Management Service of PRC [Rizal chapter] and a trustee and executive director of Red Cross Muntinlupa.)