Exposing Exposure
Jerry Velasquez
1) A non-zero-sum game
The three editions of the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) note an increasing and unmitigated trend of economic losses due to disasters, both direct and indirect. Despite these losses, there is still cause for celebration – for certain sub-regions, deaths caused by hazards such as typhoons, floods and landslides are decreasing – proof positive that development yields positive gains if invested in reducing vulnerability of people and communities.
However, GAR also hints that the same development model, when not focused in building resilience, also drives the creation of new risks, by exacerbating hazards, creating vulnerabilities and widening exposure.
The result of this development model that both reduces and creates risks is a net increase in risks, because in many parts of the world the pace that we are reducing vulnerability cannot cope with the accelerated increase in exposure. It is obvious therefore that a long-term positive net increase in risk will result in risk accumulation over time.
Because of the socio-political history of disaster risk management, the reduction of mortality has been well appreciated and still remains the main preoccupation of many communities and nations alike. On the other hand, the increasing accumulation of risks and its resulting increase in economic losses, although has started to cause alarm, have not yet mobilized enough widespread mitigating actions.
It is also obvious that as human exposure increases, and as nations and communities get better at reducing vulnerability, reaching the last quintile of losses with such programmes as “zero-casualty” will lead to efforts of increasing costs. Increased intensity and unpredictability of hazards also contribute to this trend of increasing costs of reducing vulnerability due to the need for new technologies and equipment. Having said this, there is some evidence that more generic efforts to reduce structural vulnerability, such as social protection schemes, are able to reduce the number of affected populations by disasters at reduced costs.
The models and approaches promoted through the Hyogo Framework for Action or HFA1 and the follow-up by its disaster risk reduction (DRR) community of practice has been proven as effective means of dealing with vulnerability reduction, and thus with further concerted efforts, resources and time, could possibly deal with most of the existing stock of risks. The present models however, have not sufficiently dealt with, and most likely not be able to deal with, exposure reduction and the subsequent economic losses it creates – meaning that the existing models are not sufficiently able to arrest the creation of future risks.
Our shared challenges therefore are two-fold – first is to expand the existing model of the HFA and its community of practice to deal with the existing stock of risks mainly through accelerated efforts to reduce vulnerability, at acceptable costs. Second would be to explore new models that would arrest the creation of new and future risks, mainly through reduction of socio-economic exposure.
2) Scaling up vulnerability reduction
So what would be the best approach to both deal with the existing stock of risks and focus on scaling up vulnerability reduction? A couple of possible approaches would be to use the existing governance mechanisms that are already in place, but promote a fast track approach to DRR; and to engage the development community to set targets and expand existing efforts at reducing structural vulnerabilities such as social protection to cover disaster specific vulnerabilities. Although not comprehensive, these can exemplify the DRR “acceleration” needed to deal with the huge stock of accumulated risks through vulnerability reduction.
2.1) Fast track risk reduction
Considering the increasing patterns of risks, and for the least capable and left behind countries, it is necessary to promote a fast-track approach to disaster risk reduction. Fast tracking or leap frogging DRR does not mean taking short cuts, but instead means being more explicit, expanding existing approaches, and practices to ensure that activities are not only effective, but also affordable.
For example, improved governance measures, strategies and structures, including legislation, policies, frameworks, decentralization of authorities and capacities, increased accountability, adaptive and inclusive governance, along with changing governance structures where necessary, are vital elements in addressing rising disaster risks. Legislation related to disaster risk reduction and management should therefore address underlying risk factors in order to be effective, and development plans should provide instructive guidance on identifying and mitigating disaster risks.
However, discrepancies between intended results of policies and actual achievements on the ground are common. In this respect, being more explicit by promoting well-informed implementation of practical and local actions (through “how to do DRR” guidance) may be more appropriate solutions rather than putting too much attention on bureaucratic delays in the conversion of “intent to action.” Increased involvement of communities through improved social opportunities and democratic processes would empower them to influence decisions. Responsibility, incentives and accountability at all levels of government must therefore be clearly defined and institutionalized.
2.2) Set targets and expand social protection
Setting targets to reduce vulnerabilities with specifically identified economic and social interventions ensure that investment attains visible and measurable results. For example, GAR 2009 noted that expanding social protection initiatives and creating social “safety nets” for times of crisis provide particular value with added political dividends. These strategies should be embraced as catalysts to motivate specific development objectives, and for creating further investment opportunities.
However, existing social protection schemes still target only structural vulnerability and although it is often evident that disasters hold back the success of these programmes, there have been no known examples when these programmes also address specific vulnerabilities, for example by expanding conditional cash transfer programmes to also promote family preparedness to disasters, in addition to promoting basic education and health programmes.
Scaling up social protection programmes to address both structural and specific disaster vulnerabilities of disadvantaged groups in hazard-prone areas can be affordable, and could be a basis for proceeding with efforts to provide not only minimum needs in the context of disaster risk and vulnerability. Specific measures can include expanding supplementary incomes or in-kind transfer programmes, food-for-work programmes, rural employment guarantee schemes and labor-intensive public works programmes for those people most affected.
3) Tackling Exposure, Economic Losses and Future Risks
Many of the achievements in vulnerability reduction were derived from benefits of development, however, in addition to maximizing the positive aspects of development for reducing human vulnerability to disasters, much more also needs to be done to arrest the growing exposure of people and assets to hazards, which may also be caused by development. Doing this may require a new governance approach, as it will likely engage more the development sector, both public and private.
There are many contributing factors to this trend of increasing exposure, but a few primary conditions have been considered because of significant opportunities to manage them for multiple benefits. They address particularly the issues of direct proximity to hazard (through spatial and land-use planning, financial investment in disaster risk management and post-disaster recovery), reliance on assets that are close to hazards (global supply chain management), the creation of new hazards in previously safe locations (climate change and ecosystem management), or generic to all issues above (removing barriers and engaging new stakeholders, building social demand for exposure reduction, and improving accountability). Only a few of these issues will be explored here.
3.1) Land use, urban and spatial planning
Fast growing cities and urban areas of the world are engines of growth and wealth accumulation. This growth has positive results in social improvements, cultural, educational and other positive impacts. On the other hand, evidence demonstrates that fast economic growth, combined with fast population expansion in urban areas, also increases disaster vulnerability and exposure.
For example, HSBC in early 2012 noted in a report that Asia will continue demonstrating extremely strong growth rates and those with large populations will overtake Western powerhouses. The HSBC 2050 list of 30 top economies (change in rank from 2010) has 9 out of 30 countries from Asia, with the greatest projected growths in the Philippines (+27), Malaysia (+17) and Pakistan (+14). The report concludes that there are two ways economies can grow; either add more people to the production line via growth in the working population, or make each individual more productive. In the case of Asian economies, more people gets added to the production line, with the population in the Philippines expected to increase by 70% on the next 40 years. Considering that the Philippines and Pakistan are also two countries that are highly vulnerable and exposed to hazards that trigger disasters, the question remains where would most of these new economic activities be located in the future.
The world is steadily becoming more urban, and although the level of urbanization is far higher in the developed world, the annual ‘urbanization rate’ is much faster in the developing world. Not surprisingly, the primary urban agglomerations with the highest concentrations of people and economic activity mostly overlap with the areas of extreme or high risk related to disasters such as coastal areas, along rivers and in flood plains.
GAR 2009 notes that poor urban governance drives urban risks. For example, safe land is in short supply driven by growing informal settlements, slums, and squatters, which in turn have limited infrastructure and services exacerbating disaster risks. Cities’ commercial, industrial and residential locations prove to be livelihood center for urban poor, who left with no choice but to settle on dangerous locations subject to natural or man-made hazards.
The challenges relate to answering the questions of what factors motivate or influence decisions to invest in DRM, and more specifically, to what extent can risk-related information gathered from land-use and development planning be used in an expanded professional environment to inform investment decisions enhanced by the inclusion of DRM values?
3.2) Global supply chain management
Another driver of disaster exposure is the increasing risks of supply chain disruptions caused by disasters as already explored in GAR 2013. Driven by trade and investment liberalization and continued cost reduction pressures from customers, businesses have been extending their activities worldwide; in the process of doing so, they are also expanding their exposure to disaster risks. Disasters caused by hazards are one cause of disruptions to supply chains, even when the disaster may occur in another part of the world from where its impact is eventually felt. This is now understood as having the potential for serious economic impacts on another country’s economy.
The challenges here would relate to how to adapt some of the widely used supply chain management strategies that also compound disaster risks such as “just-in-time” practice and “lean supply” chain management, which require more frequent and precisely timed deliveries of supplies, increasing efficiency models in business increase the level of interdependence between firms but correspondingly raise the chances of a supply chain disruption. It is interesting that resiliency concepts such as redundancy and “thick” supply lines, also contradict modern efficiency models in business. Another approach would be to improve Business Continuity Planning within businesses, both large multi-national companies and SMEs.
3.3) Ecosystems management
Ecosystem services support human life and provide the basic materials for economies, such as food, fuel and clean water. Demand for ecosystem services from rapidly growing economies and populations, and the perceived low economic value attributed to these services, have led to the increased use of natural resources and the creation of new hazards. GAR 2009 have shown an example in Peru, where the opening of new roads down the eastern slopes of the Andes and into the central jungle in order to extend the agricultural frontier, has led to a notable increase in the number of reported landslide disasters in that region since the1980s.
The challenge here is promoting the recognition of the value of disaster regulation ecosystem services, improving the efficiency of use of natural resources, and promoting good land-use management.
3.4) Remove barriers and engage new stakeholders to reduce exposure to disasters
Experience demonstrates that there are examples where methods of land-use planning, ecosystem management and disaster recovery have been deployed with the intention of reducing risks but barriers still remain, forestalling further investment. It would be highly beneficial to seek additional means and other collaborative interests to broaden the commitments to safer public environments. For example, both the World Trade Organization and the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol focuses on removing barriers as a cost-effective approach in achieving their common goals. Financial incentives provide other means to influence private sector investments, such as by insurance pricing and coverage, credit rating, and market and stock prices.
There is also a need to engage new stakeholders, particularly those involved in decision-making, planning and investment. This includes engaging other sectors and priority areas that are key to sustainable development, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. These expanded relationships should strive to address the combined impacts noted above.
If this is pursued, then a new governance model may also be looked into to improve the management of disaster risks from a development perspective.
3.5) Build social demand for disaster risk reduction
There is a need to build social demand for addressing vulnerability and also for reducing exposure to hazards. Populations remain hesitant to expect or even demand accountability towards the reduction of disaster exposure. There is evidence that there has been more attention directed on holding officials accountable for reducing vulnerability rather than reducing exposure. It is a notable accomplishment that now more people and communities voice their expectations to government officials to provide timely warning and enable evacuation when hazards threaten local communities. It is now timely for a similar commitment to be generated to mobilize efforts that can reduce people’s exposure to hazards that could potentially lead to disasters in the future.
A greater challenge would be how to build both the social demand for improving vulnerability, but more importantly, for reducing exposure to hazards. Some strategies for the future may include promoting participation from communities and local governments for encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in disaster risk reduction decision-making. The meteoric rise of social media across the world offers tremendous opportunities for future accountability in DRR. The availability of the latest “Web 2.0” technologies and the nearly universal access for some variety of modern communications throughout societies will enable citizens to become more involved and conversant with developing circumstances. More importantly easy access to this technology allows people to express collective views and able to work with new capabilities to introduce changed possibilities.
3.6) Improve accountability by improving responsibility and ownership for reducing risks
It is essential that Governments assume full ownership and guiding responsibility for disaster risk reduction as a part of an inclusive and sustainable development strategy. This is exemplified by one of the champions of building disaster resilience at the local level in the Philippines, Governor Joey Sarte Salceda of Albay Province. He has adopted pragmatic approach to reducing risks of disasters for his people and communities. It focuses on reducing exposure first, and then proceeds to improving vulnerabilities, both on a continuous basis. Explaining his policy, Governor Salceda notes that “people have the basic right to the capacity toad apt; relief, recovery and rehabilitation are essentially compensation [penalty] of the State for failing to reduce exposure and to increase capacity. No [need for] evacuation if [the] vulnerable is relocated. No rescue, if evacuated. No rehabilitation, if homes are built safely. The more disasters, the higher the rights of the vulnerable, [and] the higher the duties of the State.”
There are different approaches that can be pursued in them any cultural contexts of the world. However, there is a visible trend indicating that the responsibilities for DRR are becoming more decentralized as provinces and municipalities become key stakeholders engaging in risk governance. While accountability in reducing vulnerabilities is improving, there is still a need to improve the breadth of ownership required for reducing exposure of people and assets to hazards.
4) Approaching HFA2
The above leaves us with a choice on how best to approachHFA2. It may be the case that dealing with the existing accumulated risks may require all of our concerted efforts for the next 10 years to address properly, which would mean that an extension of the HFA in an “accelerated mode” would suffice. However, this would never address the future accumulation of risks and economic losses. To address these, we need a new approach that would squarely deepen the work on reducing future exposure to hazards.
A more critical discussion needs to happen with thePost-2015 development agenda community. The present intersection between that community and those of the HFA2, widely discussed to be the concept of “resilience” is usually taken as dealing only with vulnerability – both reducing it and increasing capabilities, but not exposure, due to its “all shocks” approach.
There is a need therefore to advocate with them that “resilience” that does not reduce future exposure, will yield neither a resilient people, nor a resilient planet.
Manuel Alcantara Abinales
Thanks Jerry. Magandang balik-balikan ito habang lumalala ang sitwasyon namin dito sa Banaba. Kaya lang, pang high level governmental governance ito, hahanapin ko pa dito ang kakayanin ng mga tulad namin sa Buklod Tao ang "swak" na papel namin.
