Brookings: Topics - Natural Disasters

Mitigating Natural Disasters, Promoting Development: The Sendai Dialogue and Disaster Risk Management in Asia

Fri, 10 May 2013 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 10, 2013
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011 (3/11) had both immediate and long-term consequences. Over 20,000 people lost their lives in the triple disaster, hundreds of thousands were displaced and the economic costs were the highest ever to result from a natural disaster. Since the disaster, however, both Japan and the international community have sought to learn from this tragedy by drawing lessons for preventing, responding to, and rebuilding after natural disasters. Specifically, the Government of Japan and the World Bank launched the Sendai Dialogue in October 2012 as a way to re-conceptualize the role of disaster risk management (DRM) in development strategies, emphasizing the importance of building resilience against natural disasters.

On May 10, the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies and the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement co-hosted a discussion featuring experts on natural disasters and disaster risk management from the United States and Asia. Panelists representing the private, public, and international sectors sought to refine some of the topics considered at the Sendai Dialogue. They identified the lessons learned from 3/11; how these lessons can be applied to overseas economic assistance programs, focusing on DRM; the specific challenges of disaster risk management among Asian countries; and how DRM can be integrated and mainstreamed into development assistance across different platforms.

Audio

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Management: Keeping a Proper Balance

Jibum Chung — Tue, 07 May 2013 12:16:00 -0400

Counter-terrorism strategies and tactics are rightly in the consciousness of officials and civilians in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. While preventing future attacks should be a leading priority for government at all levels, officials must take care not to focus only on the threat of terrorist attacks. Doing so could diminish the resources, preparation, and skills needed for management of other disasters, and therefore result in greater risk to the population.

Psychology of terrorism

The major characteristic of contemporary terrorism is its unexpectedness. The time and manner of attacks are unpredictable and catch targeted communities – normally innocent civilians – by surprise. In the past, targets of were often political and symbolic figures, not the general public, and the perpetrators proudly notified who they were and why they had acted. The purposes and targets of contemporary terrorism, on the other hand, are often very unclear. Terrorists attack innocent civilians indiscriminately without prior notification, making attacks more difficult to prevent.

Even though the physical damage from terror attacks is normally smaller than that from large natural disasters, the psychological damage of such terror attacks is significant. Early research performed by Paul Slovic and others in 1980s delved into this concept of psychological damage. Using psychometric methodologies, they defined several important characteristics of many different forms of risk. At that time, in the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant accident in 1979, their main research target was nuclear power plants. Slovic underlined the importance of psychological effects of risk stating that “despite the fact that not a single person died (in the TMI accident), … no other accident in our history has produced such costly societal impacts.”[1] Reminiscent of today’s terror attacks, they concluded that the nuclear risk is unknown, dread, uncontrollable, involuntary, and likely to affect future generations, so it has a very critical impact on the minds of the general public. Contemporary terrorism shares many of these characteristics: it is usually unknown, frightening, uncontrollable, involuntary, and also indiscriminately fatal to even children (future generations). It surely has significant psychological effects on people’s minds.

Terrorism and media

For the news media, terrorism is a very strong “product” which easily attracts a lot of viewers. Most media aggressively sell the product, terrorism, and help sow fear as people enthusiastically consume the product. In a seminal work on the “social amplification of risk,” Roger Kasperson and colleagues[2] described how the public perception of risk interacts with social and cultural systems (such as the media) and can be amplified during the information delivery process, sometimes resulting in “institutionalized fear.” This amplification process can eventually generate certain public behaviors, some negative and some positive, and may result in disruptions in society. Obviously, some risks are more likely to be amplified than others. Terrorism, because of its special characteristics, is easily amplified. Also, today’s social network communication technologies, such as Facebook and Twitter, can accelerate and strengthen the amplification process.

Thus, the media focus and public concerns create political pressure, and national emergency management policymakers prioritize counter–terrorism, or “civil defense,” over other forms of risk management, such as “civil protection” against all hazards including natural disasters.

Civil defense again?

Culturally and historically, “civil defense” is quite different from “civil protection.” Civil defense, “born out of wartime efforts to organize air-raid precautions, sheltering arrangements and alarms for non-combatants,” has military origins and focuses on protection against foreign military attacks.[3] Civil protection, on the other hand, has disaster origins and focuses on many forms of natural and man-made disasters and other public safety issues. In the Cold War era, civil defense against nuclear attack was the main objective of national emergency management in the United States. At that time, nuclear attack was an “institutionalized fear” made by media and government authorities. Many American homes and public buildings prepared nuclear fallout shelters, illustrating this fear very clearly.

Following the end of Cold War and recognition of the increasing trend of large man-made and natural disasters, “civil protection” gradually replaced the term “civil defense” in most countries. Civil protection focuses more on generic disasters than on the armed aggression, and administratively it is more decentralized than civil defense. In the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established in 1979. It was mainly a civil defense organization during the Cold War, but in the last two decades has worked to redirect some resources toward the management of various disasters (civil protection). James Witt, director of FEMA under President Clinton, clarified this change of direction. As the FEMA website explains, “the end of the Cold War also allowed Witt to redirect more of FEMA's limited resources from civil defense into disaster relief, recovery and mitigation programs.”[4] FEMA also introduced an “all hazards approach,” recognizing the many different kinds of disasters that may require mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

The September 11, 2001 terror attack dramatically changed the direction of emergency management in the United States. After the attack, the United States hastily constructed the Department of Homeland Security and downgraded FEMA, whose main duty was civil protection. This attracted criticism from some public administration experts that the U.S. government concentrated too much on terrorism, perhaps because of the “social amplification” of the risk in the wake of the attack, despite the many other critical risks facing U.S. citizens. Basically, the critics charged, the United States changed the direction of its emergency management from civil protection back to Cold War-style civil defense.

Balance collapsed in emergency management

The cost of that shift in priorities was on full display when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, easily destroying the weak levee system and submerging much of New Orleans under water. Federal and local governments’ mitigation, response and recovery to the Hurricane Katrina were mostly inadequate – resulting in the most severe disaster damage in U.S. history at that time. Due to budget cuts, the Army Corps of Engineers had been unable to strengthen the levee system protecting New Orleans. After the flooding and other damage occurred, the governments’ disaster situation awareness was poor. Communication among authorities and between authorities and civilians was broken. Assistance from the federal government was delayed and insufficient, and people died while awaiting rescue or other assistance. Critics also charged that too many government officials were not familiar with the “National Response Plan” which was implemented in December 2004 after 9/11 terrorist attack. Planning and training for large natural disasters were insufficient after the implementation of the plan. In short, too great a focus on counter-terrorism undermined capacities for natural disaster mitigation, response, and recovery in the post-9/11 United States.

This not only the case in the United States, however. The United Kingdom experienced a similar transition after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, in which suicide attacks by four home-grown terrorists killed 55 civilians. In response, the U.K. government introduced several measures such as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Critics said that some responses to the attacks were anti-liberal, militarizing, and centralizing, and were in the wrong direction from the viewpoint of an all hazards approach. The problem, as one observer wrote, was that “too great a focus on one type of threat and on institutional preparedness can divert attention away from other problematic areas and distance the public.”[5]

In South Korea, the provocations of North Korea can divert the direction of national emergency management. South Korea had been under a thorough civil defense-oriented culture since the end of the Korean War in 1953. All citizens, for example, must participate in compulsory civil defense training preparing for military attacks from North Korea, and there is a military service requirement for men.

The mood of reconciliation that developed on the Korean Peninsula during the post-Cold War Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations (1998-2008) changed the direction of Korean emergency management policies, highlighted by the 2004 establishment of the South Korean National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) by the Roh Moo-hyun administration. Large disasters such as Typhoon Rusa in 2002 and the Daegu subway accident in 2004 demanded a comprehensive emergency management system that can manage the all types of hazards, not only a military attack by North Korea. South Korea is gradually replacing its civil defense culture with one of civil protection. The Lee Myung-bak administration (2008-2013) established the Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS) in 2008. MOPAS enlarged the scope of disaster management to include fostering a safety culture and anticipating future disasters induced by climate change. The Ministry has proposed civil protection strategies such as promoting public safety awareness, strengthening leadership of local governments, and promoting participation of private companies in disaster preparation and mitigation. Also, MOPAS pushed ahead several projects like the “Safe City” initiative that tries to enhance the safety level of local communities by encouraging the participation of various local stakeholders in preparation, mitigation, and response planning an activities. This means that the civil protection ideals and an all hazards approach were widely adopted as a government policy direction at that time.

However, the bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island by North Korean forces in November 2010, which was unexpected and resulted in four deaths, changed this trend back again. After the Yeonpyeong Island bombardment, most projects for disaster and safety management were canceled and delayed because the highest priority was placed on national defense against North Korea. To some extent, this mirrors the experiences of the United States after 2001 and the United Kingdom after 2005. Although the deaths by Yeonpyeong Island bombardment were relatively few compared 209 deaths in Typhoon Rusa and 192 deaths in the Daegu subway accident, the political impact on the Korean government was huge.

Keeping a balance in emergency management

Civil protection and an all hazards approach are vital to maintaining preparation and the best possible response to major natural and man-made disaster. But they can be weakened if governments focus too heavily on national security (including civil defense against terrorism). And that can result in the other large disasters. Keeping balance in emergency management planning, and implementing an all hazards approach are crucial to effect public administration in this area.

The United States is at risk from a diverse range of natural and man-made disasters. Climate change will produce historically strong hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy more and more frequently. There is a high possibility of large earthquakes and outbreaks of new pandemic diseases. As indicated by the recent Texas fertilizer plant explosion, man-made disasters can also have big impacts. To cite another area where civil protection should not be neglected, the number of road fatalities per one million inhabitants was 111 per million inhabitants – or, well over 30,000 individuals – in the United States in 2009. This rate is almost three times Japan’s rate of 45 fatalities per one million inhabitants, and higher than the European Union average of 70 fatalities per one million inhabitants.

How do we keep balance in emergency management? Though officials in democratic countries such as South Korea and the United States must respond to public opinion, approaches to emergency management should be decided neither by public opinion, which can be easily agitated by shocking incidents, nor by the news media which tend to follow sensational events. Although the number of casualties in the Boston terror attack was much smaller than Texas explosion, the psychological impact and news attractiveness of Boston were much higher. Indeed, the news of the Texas fertilizer plant explosion was almost swept away in an ocean of news about Boston. Instead, priorities in emergency management should be decided based on the scientific evidence, accurate statistics, and rational policy planning.

Counter-terrorism is necessary and obviously very important. Governments must take policy measures to prevent terrorism, but they should resist contributing to institutionalized fear. They must also remember that human beings are surrounded by a plethora of risks, many of which cause more physical damage than terrorism. Governments should prepare policy measures for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery for all hazards we can encounter, and should keep a balance based on sciences and accurate statistical data.

For this purpose, a number policy measures are appropriate. First, we need a clear cost-benefit analyses of the current policies in emergency management. According to research conducted by John Mueller and Mark G Stewart and published in 2011,[6] the United States has spent over $1.1 trillion on homeland security after 9/11; Mueller and Stewart evaluate the effectiveness of this massive spending as very low. If this money, or some of it, had been applied to other public safety areas, such as climate change mitigation or industrial safety management where the cost effectiveness is high, the United States could be a safer place.

Second, people should know what the real risks are. The well known risks such as traffic accidents, industrial accidents, and floods kill far more people in America than terrorism does. According to several psychological research studies, familiarity can reduce the level of the public’s risk perception. So, there is a much smaller sense of urgency about many of the risks that surround us every day. Science and statistics on risks, and governmental efforts to provide information and education about risks, can help individuals and local communities effectively increase their overall safety level.

[1] Slovic, P. “Perception of Risk,” Science, Vol. 236, No. 4799 (1987): 283.

[2] Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. and Emel, J. “Social Amplification of Risk: a Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis, 8(2), (1988): 177-187.

[3] Alexander, D. “From Civil Defense to Civil Protection--and Back Again,” Disaster Prevention Management, 11(3), (2002): 209.

[4] FEMA, about the agency, http://www.fema.gov/about-agency.

[5] O'Brien, G. “UK Emergency Preparedness: A Step in the Right Direction?” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 59, No. 2 (2006): 79.

[6] Mueller, J. and Stewart, M.G., Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Authors

Jibum Chung

Image Source: © Kim Kyung Hoon / Reuters

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 01 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400

Natural disasters can be deadly and devastating but their frequency, intensity and unpredictability teach us valuable lessons. A look back at 2012 shows that, all around the world, it was a year of “recurring disasters.” From the drought in Africa’s Sahel to Pakistan’s third consecutive year of widespread flooding to Hurricane Sandy, Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, examines the consequences and lessons of last year’s disasters.

Video

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Trends in Natural Disaster Response and the Role of Regional Organizations

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

April 22, 2013
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Global demographic trends suggest that more people are living in areas vulnerable to sudden-onset natural disasters even as scientists predict that the frequency and intensity of these disasters are likely to increase as a result of the effects of climate change. These trends, coupled with recent high-profile mega-disasters like Hurricane Sandy and the drought in the Sahel, are raising global awareness of the need to build the capacity of national governments, civil society organizations and international actors to prevent, respond to and recover from natural disasters. The Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement’s third annual Review of Natural Disasters outlines these major disasters in 2012 and key response opportunities, in particular the role of regional organizations. Although regional mechanisms are playing increasingly important roles in disasters, there has been remarkably little research on their role in disaster risk management.

On April 22, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement hosted the launch of its new report, “In the Neighborhood: The Growing Role of Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Management” and its Annual Review of Natural Disasters for 2012 “The Year of Recurring Disasters.” Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement introduced the Annual Review of 2012 and moderated a discussion about the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management. She was joined by Rosa Malango from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Ian O’Donnell from the Global Disaster Preparedness Center of the American Red Cross, and Cletus Springer, director of the department of sustainable development at the Organization for American States.

In Disaster Risk Management, A Gender-Sensitive Approach is Smart

Elizabeth Ferris — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

A gender-sensitive approach to disaster risk management is smart, because women not only are among those most affected by disasters, but they also play significant roles in disaster response and risk reduction. At our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll share these and other findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Why do we need to consider gender in disaster risk management? Women and girls are typically at greater risk from natural disasters than men—particularly in low-income countries and among the poor—and as a result, a natural disaster can exacerbate existing inequalities and can lead to new forms of discrimination.

At the same time, women play significant roles in all stages of disaster and climate risk management, often at the frontline as responders and by bringing valuable resources to disaster and climate risk reduction and recovery. Also, their critical role in the social and economic well-being of their communities makes it crucial for them to be active participants in disaster risk reduction, response and recovery efforts.

Yet, in practice, disaster risk management policies and processes throughout the world largely exclude the important work already being done by women.

Disaster risk reduction that delivers gender equality is a cost-effective win-win option for reducing vulnerability and sustaining the livelihoods of whole communities.

—Margareta Wahlström, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction

The effective and meaningful participation of women in policymaking, programming and implementation is crucial to increasing success in all phases of disaster risk management. This participation, combined with timely and adequate attention to the gender aspects of disasters and climate change, can in turn lead to greater gender equality and strengthen the resilience of entire communities.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Hyungwon Kang / Reuters

The Hazard of Wildfires

Elizabeth Ferris — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Wildfires have been widespread in recent years, and are becoming a greater hazard, due to climate change and urban sprawl. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Wildfires—defined by the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) as "uncontrolled burning fires, usually in wild lands, which can cause damage to forestry, agriculture, infrastructure and buildings"—have been a widespread phenomenon in recent years. The map below shows the number of observed fire occurrence readings from combined remote sensing products from 1996 to 2007¹.

¹ Data from MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) and ATSR (Along Track Scanning Radiometer). From Max A. Moritz, M.A. Parisian, E. Batillori, M.A. Krawchuk, J. Van Dorn, D.J. Ganz and K. Hayhoe, Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity, Ecosphere, June 2012, Volume 3, no. 6, Art. 49, p. 11., www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/ES11-00345.1

While these fires have not resulted in a large number of fatalities, their economic impact has been significant:

In the future, wildfires will be of even greater concern, due to the growth of urban sprawl and the effects of climate change. As more people begin to live in residential areas that border undeveloped wildland vegetation, the risk of destroyed homes and fatalities from wildfires increases. And a hotter and drier climate in many parts of the world, fuelled by global warming, provides more favorable conditions for wildfires—which, in turn, leads to loss of forest and forest degradation that drives further climate change.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Handout . / Reuters

How Effective Are Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management?

Elizabeth Ferris — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disaster risk reduction and management, but how effective are they? Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disasters, there has been remarkably little research on their role in disaster risk management. In an effort to address this gap, Daniel Petz and I examined thirteen regional organizations, to see how they stack up against one another according to 17 indicators of effectiveness.

Here are our results (a glossary of acronyms appears at the end of this blog post):

As you can see above, the landscape of regional organizations is complex and diverse.

In most regions, governments and other actors see value in working together to prevent disasters and—to a lesser extent—to respond to disasters occurring in their respective regions. At the same time, regional organizations have worked out different mechanisms for encouraging collaboration, including frameworks for disaster risk reduction, regional military protocols, joint training exercises and regional insurance schemes. Also, technical cooperation mechanisms—such as early warning systems—have been established, but few regional bodies provide ways of channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

*Here are the acronyms for key terms we used above:

DRM = disaster risk management
DRR = disaster risk reduction
DM = disaster management

CCA = climate change adaptation
IDRL = international disaster response laws, rules and principles

and for the regional organizations we studied:

ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AU = African Union
CAN = Andean Community of Nations
CARICOM = Caribbean Community
CoE = Council of Europe
ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States
EU = European Union
LAS = League of Arab States
OAS = Organization of American States
SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SADC = Southern African Development Community
SICA = Central American Integration System
SPC = Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Hurricanes, Typhoons and Floods: Recurring Disasters in 2012

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Hurricanes Sandy and Irene, typhoons in the Philippines, and floods in Pakistan are striking recent examples of recurring natural disasters. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

After reviewing natural disasters in 2012, I was struck by the fact the several of the largest disasters of that year were preceded by similar events in 2011. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy followed on the heels of Irene on the U.S. East Coast; another destructive typhoon wreaked havoc in the southern Philippines, and Pakistan was hit by floods for a third consecutive year.

These recurring disasters were significant in terms of lives lost and numbers of people displaced...

... in terms of economic cost...

... and due to the sheer numbers of people who were impacted.

Recurring disasters undermine the resilience of affected individuals and communities, and call for long-term solutions that address livelihood issues and the welfare of those displaced. In addition, these disasters highlight the need for increased commitment to, and investment in, disaster risk reduction.

Implementing sound disaster (and displacement) policies can go a long way in mitigating the effects of recurring disasters, and in fostering the development of more resilient societies.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Adrees Latif / Reuters

The Impacts of Natural Disasters in 2012: A Look at Fatalities and Affected Population

Elizabeth Ferris — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

In this post, I examine the impact of natural disasters in 2012 in terms of fatalities and affected population. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll be sharing with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While by most accounts, 2012 was an "average" year for natural disasters, millions were still affected worldwide.

2012 did not experience any mega-disasters, and death rates in 2012 were down to about a tenth of the decade's yearly average. According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines had the most fatalities—with 1,901—followed by a cold wave in Europe early this year:

In addition to fatalities, according to the EM-DAT data, some 106 million people were affected by disasters in 2012—many of whom were internally displaced—down considerably from the 209 million that were affected in 2011:

These numbers notwithstanding, 2012 is notable in that several of the biggest disasters last year were preceded by similar events in 2011. Examples include Hurricane Sandy in the wake of Hurricane Irene in the U.S., Typhoon Bopha on the heels Tropical Storm Washi in the Philippines, and floods for the third straight year in Pakistan.

As we will see in tomorrow's blog post, these "recurring disasters" can have a devastating impact on a community's resilience and raise important questions for policymakers.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Erik de Castro / Reuters

Recurring Disasters: Are We Learning Lessons?

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:00:00 -0400

For the past three years, we’ve compiled an annual review of natural disasters, highlighting not only overall trends for the year but drawing out lessons to prepare for future disasters. Given the fact that the frequency, intensity and unpredictability of natural disasters is expected to increase as a result of climate change, it is more important than ever that we learn from the past.

In looking back at 2012, we were struck by the ‘recurring disasters’ which occurred in different parts of the world. Hurricane Irene hit the northeastern United States in 2011 and then a little over a year later, Hurricane Sandy hit the same area. Typhoon Washi/Sendong in the Philippines was followed a year later by the deadly Typhoon Bopha/Pablo. And Pakistan experienced its third straight year of widespread flooding. When recurring disasters strike the same communities – communities which haven’t yet recovered from the previous disaster – the results can be devastating. The resilience of affected individuals and communities is undermined. Particularly when the communities are poor and marginalized (who tend to be more affected by disasters in any case), it can be hard to muster the energy and the resources to start over again. The devastation caused by recurring disasters in 2012 highlights the need for increased commitment and investment in disaster risk reduction. But we also know that it’s always easier to mobilize support for responding to a disaster than for taking measures to reduce the risk of future ones.

Statistically, 2012 was an ‘average’ year for disasters without the mega-disasters we saw in 2010 (Haiti) or 2011 (Japan). The deadliest disaster of 2012 was Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines; the most expensive disaster was Hurricane Sandy in the US and Caribbean; and the disaster which affected the most people was the drought/food crisis in the Sahel region.

In this year’s review, we also looked at the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management – which is part of a larger research project we’re undertaking. Regional organizations seem to be playing an increasingly important role in the complex world of disaster risk management but have received very little attention. Regional organizations, we found, come in many sizes and shapes and they are involved in different kinds of work with disasters. For example, we found that all regions have developed framework agreements on disaster risk reduction or response. In most regions technical cooperation mechanisms – such as early warning systems – have been established. But few regional bodies provide the means for channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

We also looked at one particular type of disaster – wildfires. As evident in Australia, Russia and the United States, wildfires can destroy large swathes of forest. And yet, wildfires are not very significant in the overall scheme of disasters (with only 156 wildfire disasters reported over the past decade resulting in only 0.07 percent of global disaster fatalities.) But the combination of urban sprawl and a hotter and drier climate because of climate change in many parts of the world make it likely that we’ll see more wildfires in the future.

Finally, we looked at the gender dimensions of natural disasters. Natural disasters and climate change often exacerbate existing inequalities and discriminations, including those that are gender-based and can lead to new forms of discrimination. But women are not just victims; they play significant roles in disaster risk management. They are often at the frontline when disasters occur and they bring valuable resources to risk reduction and recovery efforts. When they are able to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, their families, and their communities, women have much to offer.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Lucas Jackson / Reuters

A Comparative Analysis of U.S. and Japan Foreign Aid Policies for Disaster Reduction

Goshi Tsukamoto — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

The international community faces a variety of challenges caused by population growth, environmental problems, and an increase in the frequency of natural disasters in the last half century. In many parts of the world, calamities such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, storm surges, and tsunamis have caused a number of tragedies by creating socio-economic disorder, sometimes leading to unprecedented physical and human disruption.

Relatively well-governed countries have sufficient capabilities for rapid reaction and long-term recovery efforts, and are able to build resilience against adverse situations in their societies. Unfortunately, however, in a number of developing countries adequate social institutions and infrastructure have not been established to deal with such situations due to political, economic or historical factors. These regions remain relatively vulnerable to natural catastrophes, and their people are outside the circle of prosperity. [1]

In the global context, as described in 2011 in the initial Policy Framework document from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), providing assistance in disaster-stricken areas is a fundamental expression of common humanity, representing a visible manifestation of a common belief that is both morally right and strategically sound. [2] While nation states must take the primary responsibility for dealing with their own catastrophes, it is essential for the international community to help others help themselves, based on partnerships.[3] Large-scale disasters in developing countries inevitably cause enormous damage with wide-ranging and long-lasting effects, often eventually resulting in the deterioration of society as a whole. In relation to disaster reduction efforts in developing countries, the significance of international technical and financial cooperation is now shared as a global consensus. In fact, emergency relief and disaster reduction, particularly in developing countries, have become a main focus of international cooperation.[4] Donors have committed themselves to lending life-saving humanitarian assistance through rapid response to emergencies in poorer countries and sharing lessons and technologies to support adequate preparation for disasters. These new techniques and practices are expected to be institutionalized in recipient societies over the long term.

[1] They are more likely to suffer from extremely serious damage from natural disasters and may even be displaced nationally and internationally in some cases. It should also be noted that people in these nations additionally tend to suffer from secondary effects such as a deterioration in sanitary conditions and food shortages, which may last a long time.

[2] United States Agency for International Development, USAID Policy Framework, 2011-2015, p. 2; accessed February 26, 2013, http://transition.usaid.gov/policy/USAID_PolicyFramework.PDF.

[3] Looking at past catastrophic natural disasters, the international community has recognized the importance of disaster reduction and promoted international cooperation in and with vulnerable countries.

[4] In fact, numerous countermeasures against natural phenomena have been designed and implemented.

Downloads

Download the full paper

Authors

Goshi Tsukamoto

Image Source: © Kena Betancur / Reuters

Creating New Norms? The Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement

Jane McAdam — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's Note: This article was originally published by APMEN.

In October last year, the Norwegian and Swiss governments launched the Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement. It aims to build a consensus on key principles and elements regarding the protection of persons displaced across borders in the context of natural disasters that sets the agenda for future action at domestic, regional and international levels. It marks a tentative first step towards international policymaking in this field.

The direct genesis of the Nansen Initiative was a joint pledge that Norway and Switzerland made at UNHCR’s Ministerial meeting in December 2011 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Refugee Convention and the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Throughout 2011, UNHCR had spearheaded efforts to get States to agree to the formulation of a global guiding framework on displacement relating to climate change and natural disasters. It had hoped that most States would make pledges to that effect at the December 2011 meeting. However, only five States did (Norway, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Germany and Mexico).

It became very clear that States wanted to retain control over any developments in the protection space, and were prepared only to take tentative steps (if any at all). The Nansen Initiative, which will be operational from 2013 to 2015, is designed to promote a bottom-up approach to the issue.

First, a series of sub-regional consultations will be conducted to gather more information about the varying challenges faced – as well as good practices adopted – in different parts of the world. They will focus on the various phases of displacement: preparedness prior to displacement, protection and assistance during displacement, and solutions following displacement. The first consultation is to be held in the South Pacific in May this year. In identifying standards of treatment and good practices relating to cross-border displacement in the context of natural disasters, the meeting will also focus on issues of particular pertinence in the Pacific, such as customary land laws, the protection of cultural heritage and identity, and the impacts of increased urbanization.

Secondly, through a global dialogue, the Nansen Initiative hopes to develop a non-binding "Protection Agenda" based on three pillars: international cooperation and solidarity; standards for the treatment of affected people regarding admission, stay, status; and operational responses, including funding mechanisms and responsibilities of international humanitarian and development actors. It is envisaged that the Protection Agenda will serve as "a framework for further normative, institutional and operational development at different levels."

While the Initiative’s approach may be criticized as too tentative, it seems to be the only feasible strategy at this point in time. As its Envoy, Professor Walter Kälin, explained at the first Consultative Committee meeting, an absence of sufficient knowledge about what happens on the ground would make it difficult at this stage to draft a set of guiding principles adequately reflecting realities, and there was of course the practical obstacle, namely "the difficulty of getting governments on board with the idea of producing a normative framework right away."

Although the Nansen Initiative is State-led, there is a strong emphasis on its being an open, dynamic, and inclusive process that will actively involve non-State stakeholders. It is co-chaired by Norway and Switzerland and overseen by a Steering Group including Australia, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Germany, Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines. The composition of the Steering Group aims to ensure adequate and balanced representation from the Global North and South. A Consultative Committee comprised of representatives from relevant international organizations, NGOs, think tanks and academics informs and supports the process. The Envoy of the Chairmanship represents the Initiative and provide strategic advice, while a small Secretariat in Geneva provides logistical support.

The Nansen Initiative’s substantive focus is on disaster-induced cross-border displacement. It adopts the definition of disaster used by the UN’s humanitarian community: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Importantly, rather than conceptualizing a disaster as an event, the emphasis is instead on its consequences – the coping capacity of those affected. This is particularly important given the Initiative’s focus on both sudden-onset disasters (defined as hydro-meteorological hazards such as flooding, windstorms or mudslides, and geophysical hazards including earthquakes, tsunamis or volcano eruptions) and slow-onset disasters (defined as environmental degradation processes such as droughts and desertification, increased salinization, rising sea levels or thawing of permafrost). While the concept of a slow-onset disaster seems counterintuitive if one thinks of a disaster as an event that happens (like a flood or landslide), it makes sense when a disaster denotes diminished coping capacity.

However, slow-onset disasters only come within the ambit of the Initiative in their end phase (i.e. when droughts or rising sea levels create life-threatening situations), since this is when their effects may be very similar to those of sudden-onset disasters. The Initiative emphasizes that the relevant distinction should not be the character of the disaster but rather whether it triggers displacement understood as forced movement of persons as opposed to voluntary migration. In my view, this sits uncomfortably with scenarios where migration is a rational and desirable form of adaptation, such as in some small island States. Arguably, the greatest challenge lies in responding to the impacts of slower processes which pose risks to the sustainability of certain human settlements over the longer term. Without any sustained examination of what it means for migration to be a form of adaptation, it is inevitable that protection gaps will remain. It is crucial that the existence of the Initiative is not used as an excuse to delay policy development in these areas.

Of course, it remains to be seen precisely how States involved in the Initiative will conceptualize displacement and disasters, especially once the sub-regional consultations have highlighted the challenges faced in specific contexts (including in small island States). Could the idea of a creeping disaster be one way of incorporating anticipatory movement as a protection response? As the Initiative has already acknowledged, the legal challenge will be to identify the tipping point where the basically voluntary movement of persons turns into forced movement. Since, operationally, there may be considerable overlap between the two, it will be necessary to ensure that people displaced as a result of slow-onset disasters also receive protection and assistance.

Authors

Jane McAdam

Publication: Asian-Pacific Migration and Environment Network

Image Source: © NASA NASA / Reuters

Energy Security in Northeast Asia: A Pivotal Moment for the U.S.-Japan Alliance

Shoichi Itoh — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Two years have passed since the Great East Japan (Tohoku) Earthquake devastated northeastern Japan and the subsequent meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant shook the world. The government, then led by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), proved unable to revive the ailing economy (the problems of which pre-dated the earthquake), and also made no clear-cut decision on a new energy policy for Japan. Faced with popular opinion and public demonstrations against nuclear power but faced with a high energy economy, the DPJ administration’s equivocal stance on nuclear power generation remained unchanged. As Japan’s nuclear reactors shut down after Fukushima, Japan once again found itself a resource-poor country whose energy security is seriously affected by international surroundings.

The DPJ suffered its own virtual meltdown in the December 2012 lower house election, suffering incessant intra-party strife and a complete lack of leadership as a ruling party; it won only 57 seats in the election, compared to the 231 it held before. Its ambiguously anti-nuclear stance in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster did not help it with voters as the more pro-nuclear Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) scored a landslide comeback victory, increasing its seats from 118 to 294 and recapturing the Prime Minister’s office, which it had lost in 2009.

At the U.S.-Japan summit in Washington, D.C. on February 22, 2013, new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe asked President Barack Obama to approve liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to Japan at an early date, as this is an important way for Japan to reduce fuel costs which increased sharply after the Great East Japan earthquake. According to a press release by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, President Obama noted that the export licensing issue was still under review, but he is aware of the importance of Japan as a U.S. ally. Prime Minister Abe also pledged to conduct a zero-based review of the previous administration’s policy of exploring a possible phase-out of all nuclear reactors by 2030, and noted that he intends to formulate responsible energy policies with a view toward working with the United States at various levels in international nuclear cooperation. Besides nuclear power, bilateral cooperation on development of clean energy and climate change issues were highlighted. The two leaders basically agreed that their governments would continue to work on Japan’s prospective participation in the TPP on the condition that they recognized both countries would have bilateral trade sensitivities.

Amid this broad range of issues, energy security is a key issue that the United States and Japan must emphasize in reconsolidating and broadening their alliance beyond mere bilateral issues. The construction of a U.S.-Japan energy security alliance based on the two pillars of nuclear power generation in Japan, and exports of U.S. LNG to Japan, could be used as a model for reducing volatility in energy markets and even helping to ensure geopolitical stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nuclear Power as a lynchpin of the alliance

Given rapid changes in the international energy landscape, Tokyo can not waste any more time in clarifying its post-Fukushima energy strategy. Japan is the world’s third biggest oil consumer and tops the list of LNG importers; it depends almost completely on imports to meet its hydrocarbon consumption needs. The rapid increase of LNG imports following the post-Fukushima nuclear reactor shutdowns led to dramatic increases in natural gas prices in Asia. LNG import prices in Asia are indexed to oil prices, but do not benefit from the trend of decreasing prices elsewhere―including North America―that is a feature of the shale gas revolution. Therefore, in Asia imported gas prices basically hover at high rates in accordance with high oil prices while in North America gas prices are set competitively as supplies come from numerous domestic sources.

Therefore, the energy policy choices Tokyo makes will have major consequences not just for the domestic economy, but also for international energy markets. Given its extremely low energy self-sufficiency rate of four percent (without nuclear power), Japan’s policy options for ensuring its future energy security are limited.

Simply put, Japan must restart nuclear reactors, and it must also introduce and enforce stricter safety regulations. In order to do so, the government must make a clear political decision to end the endless ideological and emotional debate about nuclear power. The “mythification” of nuclear safety before Fukushima was an important lesson the whole population obviously learned from the tragedy; people will and should now be more skeptical. Some activists argue that nuclear reactors should restart only after their “perfect safety” can be assured; obviously, it is an illusion to think that humankind could ever create perfect safely in its literal sense. However cautious we may be; complete mastery over nature, science, and the future is not possible. Only strong political leadership can put an end to this pointless debate; the government should identify, at the earliest stage and in light of international experience, a set of yardsticks to satisfy legal requirements for nuclear restarts even if we must recognize that it will be a learn-by-doing process. This is Japan’s inescapable responsibility for its own economic life, the U.S.-Japan alliance, and the international community.

Postponing nuclear reactor restarts have drained Japan’s national wealth considerably. It became a trade-deficit nation for the first time in more than three decades. A major factor in this development is the jump in LNG imports due to replacement of nuclear power generation by gas-fired thermal plants. Imports grew from 70 million tons from 2010 to 78.5 million tons in 2011 and 87.3 million tons in 2012 – an increase of almost 25 percent in two years. However, during the same period, the total value of LNG purchases increased by more than 70 percent from about 3.5 trillion yen in 2010 to 6 trillion yen in 2012 due to the sharp increases in LNG prices per million Btu (British thermal unit) destined for Japan: the average LNG import prices for Japan increased by about 55 percent from approximately $11 per million Btu in 2010 to approximately $17 per million Btu in 2012. The increase in Japan’s LNG imports accounted for the predominant chunk of its trade deficit of about 6.9 trillion yen in 2012. Nuclear restarts would result in huge savings in domestic fuel costs. Moreover, it would help stabilize the global LNG markets; the Northeast Asian natural gas market is most seriously affected with Japan consuming about one-thirds of the world’s LNG demand.

It also must be emphasized that Japan’s nuclear future will directly affect the range of U.S.-Japan cooperation which goes by far beyond mere energy issues. The Japanese and U.S. nuclear industries have developed as “twin brothers” for more than a half century. Today, Hitachi and GE, as well as Toshiba and Westinghouse, have nuclear power joint ventures. Japanese nuclear vendors have made significant contributions to make up for the declining of the nuclear industry in the United States after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, by developing high-tech nuclear products for civilian use and producing a large number of the world’s top-class engineers.

A phase-out of nuclear power in Japan would also have an adverse impact on the global non-proliferation regime. While shale gas causes natural gas prices to remain low, there is increased uncertainty in the United States about introducing new nuclear power plants. Ironically, this has increased the importance of sustaining high standards for nuclear technologies against the background of diffusion of nuclear power for civilian use in the world. This diffusion is irreversible, regardless of U.S. and Japanese domestic nuclear policies, in order to meet drastic rises in energy demand in emerging economies. The loss of Japanese nuclear vendors’ international competitiveness would jeopardize the bilateral alliance’s presence in global nuclear markets, which would in turn weaken Washington’s and Tokyo’s voices in the future non-proliferation regime. Japan needs to rediscover its role as one of the most serious advocates for reinforcement of global efforts on non-proliferation.

Maintaining a certain amount of nuclear power in the energy mix is also important from a climate change perspective. Tokyo must realistically readjust the over-ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels that was announced by then-DPJ Prime Minister Hatoyama at the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in September 2009, which received little support from the domestic business community. But Japan should continue to play its own roles to combat climate change as long as a principle of fairness of international burden-sharing is guaranteed. A nuclear restart is an indispensable way to reduce a certain amount of GHG emissions, given that too many uncertainties await dramatic expansion of renewable sources in the energy mix at least in the foreseeable future, due in part to high costs.

LNG as a fuel to increase Japan’s burden-sharing

Increases of LNG exports from the United States to Japan will become a new way to strengthen the alliance, and the impacts extend beyond energy. Undoubtedly, Japan would benefit from prospective participation in the TPP, and co-designing the future framework of economic rules in the Asia-Pacific region would also reinforce the bilateral alliance. TPP membership for Japan would remove a potential obstacle to increase LNG exports from the lower 48 states. According to the U.S. Natural Gas Law, LNG exports to non-FTA trade partners must be authorized by the Department of Energy on a case-by-case basis (Japan has imported LNG from Alaska since 1969.) However, the meaning of increasing LNG supplies to Japan should be emphasized in a wider context, entailing geostrategic importance besides the economic benefits of improving the U.S. international balance of payments. LNG imports from the United States will beef up Japan’s economic muscle, better allowing it to play the role of the main “bridgehead” of the U.S. strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region. With sound economic growth, Japan can be expected to contribute more to burden-sharing as it will be able to increase its budgets for defense, economic aid to developing countries, and many other issues that benefit the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Even if Tokyo decides in principle to restart nuclear reactors, both the political and technical processes will take some time. Public support will have to be nurtured in a step-by-step manner. This means that increased access to economically competitive LNG supplies remains urgent. As late as February 2013, Japan paid approximately five times more than the U.S. Henry Hub price per million Btu (British thermal unit), on average, for LNG purchases. Although of the price of future imports of LNG from North America remains uncertain, it is generally estimated that the final cost of LNG from the lower 48 states―including liquefaction costs, transportation fees, and other costs―are still lower than the average price of Japan’s current LNG imports.

Aside from the price issue, securing new LNG supply routes from North America is also important to ensure the safety of Japan’s seaborne hydrocarbon transportation. Currently, approximately 80 percent of crude oil and 30 percent of LNG destined for Japan cut across the East China Sea, where Sino-Japanese tension is simmering.

Toward a joint architecture for Asian-Pacific energy security

Against the background of the shale revolution, there are rising expectations about “energy independence” in the United States, which is thought not only to boost the domestic economy with cheap energy prices and reduce vulnerability to international oil prices, but also to increase policy options for U.S. diplomacy. The ongoing debate about diplomatic implications of U.S. energy independence within the next decade by and large tends to focus on the question of how it would affect the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. However, a blueprint for placing energy independence in the context of the so-called U.S. “pivot to Asia” has yet to emerge. New roles and functions for the U.S.-Japan alliance should be designed in the context of U.S. energy independence. Today in Northeast Asia, the energy security environment is rapidly changing with impending new challenges for the U.S.-Japan alliance to tackle.

First, the rise of China with its surging energy demand has raised concerns about its impact on the global energy market. According to estimates published by the International Energy Agency in its November 2012 World Energy Outlook 2012, China is forecasted to account for more than half of increases in global oil demand by 2030; its dependence on imported oil will increase from 54 percent in 2011 to 77 percent in 2030. Likewise, China is projected to account for about 28 percent of increases in global demand for natural gas with its import dependence to rise from 14 percent in 2010 to 44 percent in 2030. Its impact on global oil prices and thus on the growth of the world economy would be considerable. Furthermore, Beijing’s anxiety about ensuring stable access to energy resources may stimulate the expansion of Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy’s power projection capabilities, as a means to increase and secure access to overseas oil and natural gas supplies.

The deepening of China’s economic interdependence with both the United States and Japan is unstoppable in the foreseeable future. Steady growth of the Chinese economy, which requires finding a solution to the upsurge in China’s energy demand, is of great significance to the United States and Japan. In this regard, the two allies should explore possibilities for strengthening cooperation with China in a number of areas, especially energy efficiency, clean energy, and nuclear power generation. Outside (or uninformed) observers of Sino-Japanese relations tend to be overwhelmed by the contemporary geopolitical dispute and rising nationalism that fill the headlines, and overlook the fact that Beijing and Tokyo have developed extensive cooperation in the energy sector, including on energy conservation and clean energy technologies, for more than three decades. Japan can share its rich experiences in energy and environmental projects in China with the United States to capitalize on the recent success of Sino-U.S. clean energy cooperation. Beyond the business benefits, such collaboration could have invaluable political implications. If the three biggest energy consumers in the world could find a joint flagship project it could help create a new international framework for engaging China.

From the standpoint of reducing hydrocarbon consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S.-Japan “nuclear twins” should pursue nuclear cooperation with China, which has 18 nuclear power plants currently in operation. The nuclear stakes in China are about to get much bigger: there are about 30 reactors under construction and more than 50 in the planning stage. This expansion is of global importance. Successful growth in nuclear power generation would reduce China’s hydrocarbon consumption and GHG emissions, and operational safety of the plants amidst such a rush of construction is an obvious concern.

Secondly, Russia has devoted every effort to enhance its presence in the Asia-Pacific region, taking advantage of hosting the 2012 APEC Summit in Vladivostok last September. Moscow is anxious to accelerate the development of untapped hydrocarbon resources in the eastern regions of the country as a way to gain new business opportunities while enhancing its geopolitical influence in Northeast Asia. The 4700 km crude oil pipeline from Eastern Siberia to the Pacific Ocean (ESPO) was completed in December 2012. Russia currently exports about 0.6 million barrels per day by the ESPO pipeline, but aims to increase the volume as much as possible.

The U.S. shale gas revolution came as a harsh blow to Moscow, given that Russia is frustrated by the gradual decreases of its natural gas exports to Europe as consumption there declines and the EU seeks diversification of natural gas supply routes. The Sakhalin-2 is the only LNG project in Russia, as of today, with a maximum capacity of exporting 9.6 million tons per year; a new LNG plant in Vladivostok is in the planning stages. In recent months Russia has aggressively approached Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea to strengthen partnerships in oil and gas sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States already has a bastion in the energy landscape of Northeast Asia, with ExxonMobil as the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project. The destination of natural gas exports from the project has remained undecided due to conflicts of interest between ExxonMobil and Russia’s state-owned gas company, Gazprom, which has monopolized Russia’s natural gas exports to date. Yet, while President Putin has recently disclosed a plan to liberalize the natural gas export market, the state-owned oil company, Rosneft, has galvanized itself to find new foreign partners. It has expanded agreements with ExxonMobil, addressing new oil and gas projects in Russia’s Far Eastern and Arctic regions, and has acquired a stake in Exxon’s gas project in Alaska.

However, Russia does not yet seem to have emerged as a factor in the U.S. pivot to Asia. Especially since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the demise of the Soviet military threat in the Asia-Pacific, Washington’s approach to Russia has been overwhelmingly Euro-centric. Russia’s aggressive move to the Asia-Pacific region in the energy sector should be taken into account, when we imagine diplomatic implications of U.S. energy independence for this region. Obviously, one of the impetuses of Russia’s rapid move to the east is Moscow’s concern about the rise of China. Notwithstanding the economic benefit of the drastic increase in oil trade volumes with China, voices among the Russian power elite are gradually emerging to alarm that Russia might become a “resource appendage” to its neighboring geopolitical rival. It should be noted, however, that increasing hydrocarbon exports from Russia’s eastern regions would also be one of the ways in which the impact of China’s explosive energy needs upon the global energy market can be reduced peacefully. U.S. and Japanese policymakers should consider this point when they discuss Russia’s role as a big energy supplier in the context of energy security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Energy security in the Asia-Pacific region entails numerous uncertainties in both energy markets and geopolitical dynamism. The robust U.S.-Japan alliance must be anchored in solving energy challenges, but this requires clarification of Tokyo’s post-Fukushima energy policies including an internationally responsible political decision on restarting Japan’s nuclear power plants. Wisdom and long-term perspectives are needed to reduce the economic and security costs of ensuring regional stability in the years to come. It is high time for the United States and Japan to begin to design a roadmap for an international framework of energy security in which other regional key players such as China and Russia are effectively engaged.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, or any other organization.

Authors

Shoichi Itoh

Earthquake, Tsunami, Meltdown - The Triple Disaster's Impact on Japan, Impact on the World

Elizabeth Ferris and Mireya Solís — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Two years ago today, a devastating 9.0 earthquake struck Japan’s east coast, followed minutes later by a massive tsunami with 100 foot waves. Japan’s legendary investment in earthquake-resistant design meant that only about 100 people died in the earthquake itself although almost 20,000 people lost their lives in the tsunami. The economic destruction of the "Triple Disaster" was massive: 138,000 buildings were destroyed and $360 billion in economic losses were incurred. This was the most expensive disaster in human history. Japanese response to the earthquake and tsunami was rapid, effective and life-saving. Some 465,000 people were evacuated after the disaster. But it was the meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant – the world’s worst global nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986 – which caused the most fear and provoked the greatest criticism of the Japanese government’s response.

The Triple Disaster had effects on Japan and on the world.

The economic, political, and social consequences of the Triple Disaster have changed Japan in fundamental ways. The uprooting of entire communities and the large infrastructural losses produced immediate disruptions in Japan’s extensive supply networks. These in turn caused dramatic drops in industrial production that imposed a toll not only on Japan’s economy, but also on the many other countries linked through these production networks. While Japanese companies creatively restored the supply chains in just a few months, the shutdown of the nuclear reactors has had far more damaging long-term economic consequences. Since 3/11 only two nuclear reactors have restarted operations, and the Japanese government has had to resort to large increases in oil imports to make for the gap in electricity supply. Consequently, since 3/11 Japan has experienced record trade deficits, in the order of $78 billion in 2012.

The social and political aftereffects of 3/11 are also formidable. A large citizen movement calling for the abolition of nuclear power in Japan developed in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. The enactment of more exacting safety standards and the development of new patterns of government regulation and monitoring of the nuclear industry have emerged as key topics in the national political debate. On a more positive note, the Triple Disaster also revealed Japan’s most valuable asset: the strength of its civil society. The world watched in awe as Japanese citizens who had lost everything, immediately sprung to help one another. The dignity, creativity, and orderly response of the Japanese population to this mega disaster is indeed the best measure of Japan’s potential. And just as a previous natural disaster, the Kobe earthquake of 1995, helped spur the NGO movement in Japan, March 11, 2011 has seen has seen the activation of scores of non-profit groups and the consolidation of a culture of volunteerism.

However, the reconstruction challenges remain daunting for Japan. Hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced, the quality of the nuclear cleanup continues to raise concerns, and the financial cost of rebuilding the Tohoku region is staggering (in its latest stimulus budget, the Abe government slated $18 billion dollars for this purpose). Japan’s energy future is also uncertain as the government has yet to issue a long-term strategy that clarifies the role of nuclear power in the country’s energy mix.

The effects of the Japanese disaster went far beyond Japan, of course. It served as a warning that even developed, well-prepared countries are not immune from terrifying disasters. It illustrated the extremely high economic costs of disasters occurring in developed countries and the vulnerabilities that come with urbanization and coastal settlement. It served as a wakeup call to the world that unanticipated disasters (or "black swans") happen and that those engaged in contingency planning need to be prepared for much more devastating disasters. Internationally, the fallout of the Fukushima meltdowns for the future of nuclear energy has been mixed. While immediately after the accident some governments announced plans to phase out of nuclear energy, others have continued their nuclear planning (although it’s probably true that all nuclear plants worldwide looked more seriously at their safeguard mechanisms in light of Fukushima). Japan’s tragedy has also led to a re-energizing of investing in disaster risk reduction strategies.

In October 2012, the Japanese government and the World Bank co-hosted the Sendai Dialogue to highlight the lessons learned from the disasters and to adopt comprehensive guidance for reducing risk in other parts of the world. To continue the learning of lessons from Japan for disaster risk management in Asia, we are organizing a day-long conference at Brookings on May 10, 2013 to examine the lessons from March 11, 2011, the challenges of disaster risk management in Asia and, more broadly, strategies for mainstreaming disaster risk management in development assistance. We hope in a small way to contribute to continued learning from Japan’s tragedy and to prevent further tragedies resulting from similar disasters which occur elsewhere.

Authors

A Review of Natural Disasters in 2012: Foreword

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

It is with great pleasure that I introduce this report, The Year of Recurring Disasters: A Review of Natural Disasters in 2012, by the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement. For nearly a decade, the Project has made important contributions in highlighting the human rights of communities affected by natural disasters. This Review is intended to deepen the understanding of current trends in disasters and international disaster response.

As the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, I have witnessed the destruction and suffering caused by natural disasters first-hand. During my mission to Sudan last year, I came away with a strong impression of how slow-onset disasters such as drought and desertification interface with conflict and together cause the displacement of millions of people. Predictions are that climate change will only increase the stresses on many societies. And within societies, it is usually those who are most vulnerable, such as displaced persons, women, children and the elderly, who suffer the worst consequences. A human rights approach to disasters is of the utmost importance as it puts the focus of disaster planning and response on those who are the most vulnerable.

This Review provides an overview of natural disasters occurring in 2012 and of the international humanitarian community’s responses. The authors examine the important, emerging role of regional organizations in preparing for and managing disasters. The report examines the hazard of wildfires with a particular focus on how trends such as urban growth and climate change impact their occurrence. The Review closes with analysis of the intersection between natural disasters and gender, looking at the different ways that disasters affect men and women and emphasizing the importance of women’s participation in disaster risk management.

Over the past decade, there has been increased awareness of the human rights dimensions of natural disaster response. Notably, the Operational Guidelines on the Protection of Persons in Situations of Natural Disasters, adopted by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, offer concrete guidance to agencies. The revision of those Guidelines in 2010 further strengthened this guidance by, among other things, highlighting the need to adopt disaster risk reduction strategies which take human rights issues into consideration.

I hope that by contributing to a deeper understanding of natural disasters and their impact, this study will help us to prevent natural hazards from becoming disasters and to be better prepared once a disaster strikes.

Sincerely,

Chaloka Beyani
UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons
Co-Director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement

« Executive Summary

Introduction »

Downloads

The Year of Recurring Disasters: A Review of Natural Disasters in 2012

The Year of Recurring Disasters: A Review of Natural Disasters in 2012

Elizabeth Ferris, Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

In this report, Elizabeth Ferris, Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark examine four topics: disasters in 2012, with a focus on recurring disasters; the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management; wildfires; and the important role of women in disaster risk management.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Elizabeth Ferris discusses the impacts of natural disasters in 2012 in this four-part video series based on her report.

Download Media

Below are some of the highlights from this year’s review.

The year of recurring disasters. We refer to 2012 as the ‘year of recurring disasters’ as several of the year’s disasters that had the most of fatalities, economic damages and/or number of people affected were similar to those occurring the previous year (Typhoons Bopha and Washi in the Philippines, Hurricanes Sandy and Irene in the Caribbean/US, and three years of widespread flooding in Pakistan). In the absence of a generally accepted definition, this report defines a recurring disaster as “the recurrence of a single natural hazard in the same geographic region within a one-year period.” This report seeks to draw some lessons for humanitarian actors and policy makers from recurring disasters in 2011 and 2012.
What we learn from recurring disasters. Recurring disasters have severe negative effects on human development by undermining the resilience of affected individuals and communities. Resolving livelihood issues as well as finding durable solutions for those displaced by disasters are core components of successful disaster recovery. The devastation caused by recurring disasters in 2012 also highlights the need for increased commitment and investment in disaster risk reduction. The implementation of sound disaster (and displacement) laws and policies can play an important role in mitigating the negative effects of recurring disasters and can contribute to the development of more resilient societies.
Statistically, 2012 was an ‘average’ year. There were no mega-disasters during the year that caused massive loss of life as in 2010 (Haiti earthquake) and 2011 (Great Japan earthquake and tsunami). In comparison with the annual averages over the past decade, fatalities in 2012 were far below average and the amount of economic losses was close to the ten-year average. Data on the number of disasters is mixed, with disaster databases showing both above and below average numbers for 2012. The deadliest disaster of 2012 was Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines; the most expensive disaster was Hurricane Sandy in the US and Caribbean; and the disaster affecting the most people was the drought/food crisis in the Sahel region.
While overall humanitarian funding in 2012 was stable, funding for natural disasters dropped. After several years of mega-disasters and consequent high funding for disaster response, international humanitarian disaster funding dipped to the relatively low level witnessed in 2009. Meanwhile, overall humanitarian funding was fairly stable due to ongoing conflicts and complex emergencies. The disaster responses receiving the most humanitarian disaster funding in 2012 were the response to the drought/food crisis in the Sahel and the flood response and post-flood early recovery activities in Pakistan.
Regional organizations play an increasing and diverse role in disaster risk management. The landscape of regional organizations is complex and diverse, reflecting differences among and within regions. In most regions, governments and other actors see value in working together to prevent disasters and, to a lesser extent, to respond to disasters occurring in the region. In several important cases, international organizations have supported the development of strong regional initiatives. While there are few binding regional instruments in disaster risk management, regional organizations have worked out different mechanisms for encouraging collaboration, including frameworks for disaster risk reduction, regional military protocols, joint training exercises and regional insurance schemes.
Wildfires are more often hazards than disasters. While globally there are hundreds of thousands of wildfires each year, most of them are not considered “disasters” as they do not threaten human health, lives or livelihoods. There were 156 wildfire disasters reported over the 2000-2011 period, making up only 3.39 percent of all natural disasters recorded during that period. The 780 fatalities from wildfires recorded by the international disaster database make up 0.07 percent of global disaster fatalities during the period.
- The growth of urban sprawl and climate change are major factors in changing wildfire risks. Because of an array of factors more and more people are living in areas where residential housing borders undeveloped wildland vegetation, called the wildland-urban interface. In the US, for example, this has led to a massive increase in the number of houses destroyed every year by wildfires as well as a massive rise in fire suppression costs.
- A hotter and drier climate in many parts of the world, fuelled by global warming, will lead to more favorable conditions for wildfires, while increased precipitation or desertification in other regions might actually decrease wildfire risk. On the other side of the equation, forests and wildlands absorb and store major quantities of carbon dioxide. Loss of forest and forest degradation – in which wildfires play an important role – contributes as much as 17 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions each year, a quantity higher than emissions from global transport. Burning forests are thus major drivers of climate change.
A gender-sensitive approach to disaster risk management is a smart approach. The gender dimensions of natural disasters have gained increasing recognition at the international level since the 1990s. It is now generally recognized that women are typically at greater risk from natural hazards than men, particularly in low-income countries and among the poor, and that they often also face particular protection risks in the period following a disaster. Indeed, natural disasters and climate change often exacerbate existing inequalities and discrimination, including those that are gender-based, and can lead to new forms of discrimination. However, it is also important to recognize that women play significant roles in all stages of disaster and climate risk management; they are often at the frontline as responders and bring valuable resources to risk reduction and recovery efforts. Yet, in practice, disaster risk management policies and processes throughout the world largely exclude the important work already being done by women. We argue that the effective and meaningful participation of women in policy-making, programming and implementation is crucial to increasing the success of disaster risk management in all phases. This participation, combined with timely and adequate attention to the gendered aspects of disasters and climate change, can in turn lead to greater gender equality and strengthen the resilience of entire communities.

Download the full report » (PDF)

Downloads

The Year of Recurring Disasters: A Review of Natural Disasters in 2012

Video

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris
Daniel Petz
Chareen Stark

It Only Takes a Spark: The Hazards of Wildfires

Elizabeth Ferris, Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

While there are different definitions of wildfires, it is generally agreed that wildfires, whether accidentally or deliberately caused by human beings, originate outside of densely populated human settlements and that humans lose control over how the fires burn, at least for a period of time.

Compared to other kinds of hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods or storms, where humans have little influence on the onset of the hazard, humans are directly implicated in causing wildfires. For example, in the US in 2011, of 74,126 recorded wildfires, 63,877 or 86.2 percent of fires were caused by humans. The way in which a wildfire spreads depends on a set of factors, including topography, weather (with dry and hot conditions usually favoring the onset of fires and wind determining their spread) and fuel (the material available for the fire to burn).

More than most other hazards, human action can not only mitigate the effects of wildfires but can intervene to prevent its onset and spread. While humans stand little chance of stopping floods or landslides once they have begun, many countries have become quite adept at successfully fighting wildfires, meaning that the hazard often can be controlled before it causes a disaster. Forests and grasslands can be burned proactively to prevent uncontrolled burning. Forest areas can be cleared of dry fuel to prevent fires from starting.

Even though they are often harmful to humans, naturally occurring wildfires play an important ecological role. The process of burning returns nutrients to the soil, destroys dead or decaying matter and can also rid forests of both disease-ridden plants and insects which harm the forest ecosystem.

The Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2010 Global Forest Resource Assessment reports that an average of 64 countries, representing 60 percent of the global forest area, reported 487,000 vegetation fires per year during the period 2003-2007. The list was topped by Mozambique, the United States, Madagascar, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Spain, Argentina and Hungary, all of which reported an average of more than 10,000 fires per year. The low number of reporting countries shows that on global levels, serious data and reporting gaps on wildfires exist.

In terms of the surface area burned by wildfires (including forested and non-forested areas), data from 78 countries, representing 63 percent of the global forest area, reveal that an average of just under 60 million hectares (148 million acres) of land was burned per year during the 2003-2007 period, an area approximately the size of Ukraine. The largest areas burnt were reported by Cameroon, Mali, Botswana, Chad, Namibia, United States, Ghana, Canada, Mongolia and Senegal.

While globally there are a large number of wildfires, a large majority of them do not cause disasters as they do not threaten human health, lives and livelihoods. The International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), which only records disasters of a certain size, reports 156 wildfire disasters in the 2000-2011 period, making up only 3.39 percent of all natural disasters recorded in the database during that decade. The 780 fatalities from wildfires that the database records make up 0.07 percent of global disaster fatalities during the period. This is still more than the number killed by volcanoes (0.05 percent), but far below the number of deaths caused by earthquakes (responsible for 63.5 percent of fatalities), storms (16 percent), extreme temperatures (13.46 percent), floods (6.2 percent) and drought.

To get a better picture of the scope of and challenges caused by wildfires, this chapter looks in more depth at some of the major wildfire disasters in recent years.

(Source: EM-DAT - The International Disaster Database, accessed 9 October 2012, www.emdat.be/)

Download the full chapter » (PDF)

« Chapter 2: Assessing the Work of Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Management

Chapter 4 - Disaster Risk Management: A Gender-Sensitive Approach is a Smart Approach »

Downloads

Chapter 3 - It Only Takes a Spark: The Hazards of Wildfires

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris
Daniel Petz
Chareen Stark