The recent havoc caused by typhoon Haiyan in central Philippines provides an example
of the grim reality of the impact of disasters in the Association of South-East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) region. This is personal to me as many of my relatives and friends
died and many more had their properties all washed away. You see, I was born in Tacloban
and grew up in the city. It pained me to see my 87-year-old grandmother, a veteran
of many typhoons, struggling to survive amid the stench of death and destruction.
No doubt, the President of the Philippines was prompted to echo the need to strengthen
the framework of cooperation in managing disasters among the ASEAN countries, being
one of the best approaches to address urgent issues and to build resilience.
Needless to say, many efforts have already been initiated and continued in reducing
the vulnerability of the region to the risk of disasters in the context of sustainable
development. This includes the establishment of the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management
(ACDM) in 2003, which the ASEAN body elevated to a full-fledged committee. The ASEAN
also promulgated the Agreement on Disaster Management and Response (AADMER) which
is a legal instrument that binds all member countries in promoting regional cooperation
and collaboration so as to lessen disaster losses and having a joint emergency response
to disasters. This document is a manifestation of the commitment of the ASEAN to the
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 supported by 168 countries (1).
Many observers, including the Secretary-General of the ASEAN, believe that the tipping
point in the vigorous supranational policy approach on disaster management was instigated
by the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster in 2004. The scale of the devastation of the
tsunami was so massive that people, not only from the region, but even those from
beyond, realized that disasters are realities that could strike anytime, anywhere.
ASEAN's rhetoric was hinged on six Rs – reduce disaster risks, rebound quickly, reinvigorate
leadership, renovate the plan, respond better, and revive the ASEAN's sense of community.
Many of these narratives have been echoed time and time again. This echo gets louder
as disaster strikes. What is thought provoking in this rhetoric is the idea of constant
reflection; thus, the key terms – ‘renovate’, ‘reinvigorate’, ‘better response’, and
‘revive’. If there is a constant need for changing interventions and approaches, does
this mean that previous actions have remained insufficient?
This is probably the main impetus to push the discussions in the ASEAN and go beyond
the level of consensus building and move vigorously away from rhetoric and pronouncements.
As urgent actions are required in disasters, readily available resources and decisions
should be at the disposal at the supranational level. This beckons for the need to
have a strong coordinating body that can easily deploy immediate interventions at
any geographical location. A substantial amount of relief fund should be readily available
for immediate disposal and disbursement anywhere. This would wean away the region
from too much reliance on donors that normally arrive after the critical period of
search and rescue phase and comes in with their own philosophies and approaches. A
cooperative framework would definitely benefit the countries that need most help,
which apparently are the countries most affected by disasters. A good framework is
also imperative for a regional relief fund to make it substantially sufficient to
be significant in delivering impact.
A supranational framework and body would, however, face many challenges, as ASEAN
countries are diverse in many different ways. The ASEAN, however, is cognizant of
the disparities in economic and financial capabilities of the countries necessary
to build and sustain the activities in building disaster management capabilities.
To bring the lesser-equipped countries on par with the others, the organization included
in their 2009–2015 strategic framework the assistance of countries such as Cambodia,
Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam in enhancing their capabilities in disaster responses,
and search and rescue by organizing training courses and workshop; provision of support
through equipment and infrastructure for search and rescue and disaster responses;
and providing more capacity building in disaster management and emergency response.
History has shown that time and time again, the ASEAN region will see more disasters.
The region is prone to numerous hazards, big and small, that result in the accumulation
of many losses of lives and properties. Its geographical location makes it vulnerable
being placed in between two big oceans – the Pacific and Indian oceans – resulting
in many typhoons, floods, landslides, and storm surges. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and
volcanic eruptions are common occurrences as the region lies in between a number of
tectonic plates. There are also forest fires and a number of much-publicized epidemics
such as SARS, H1N1, and H9N7 that have caused havoc and hardships among the populations
affected (2). MERS and the Ebola virus are a major scare as they pose threats to the
region given the number of ASEAN migrant workers in the affected parts of the world.
According to the report of the ASEAN Disaster Risk Management Initiative (2), from
1970 to 2009 there were 1,211 reported disasters that comprised floods (36%), cyclonic
storms (32%), earthquakes and tsunami (9%), epidemics (8%), landslides (7%), volcanic
eruptions (4%), droughts (3%), and forest fires (1%). There were 414,927 deaths out
of these reported disasters. The economic impact of all these disasters is so immense
affecting the personal level to the regional level. There is also erosion of the health
system, which renders governments unable to cope with the massive and quick rise of
health needs of the population.
For example, the recent Haiyan disaster in the Philippines on 8 November 2013 resulted
in more than 6,000 deaths, with 1,700 still missing, and 27,000 injured. The devastation
has affected 14 million people, including some 5 million children. A total of 3.9
million people were forced from their homes. The United Nations and aid groups called
to raise US$791 million to assist those affected (3). Reports show that the impact
of the typhoon would have been minimized had there been better management of the risks
prior, during and after the typhoon. Deaths were mostly due to the surge of water
as people were caught unaware (4).
The ASEAN region also faces the challenges of ‘emerging’ disasters. These new ‘forms’
undoubtedly beg for a cooperative approach. For example, Malaysia Airlines Flight
370 may have directly affected few lives; however, its psychological impact on tourists
and travelers was quite significant. The search for the plane and the people on board
was an example why a multi-country effort was essential. Then Malaysia Airlines Flight
17 was another ‘global disaster’ that provided an impetus for a strong ASEAN stand.
Albeit political, a unified voice of 10 countries with its innocent citizens killed
can push swift actions at the international level. The same is true with political
conflicts that resemble disaster scenarios such as the riots in Vietnam against Chinese
nationals, the civil strife in Thailand, insurgency in southern Philippines, and the
minority issues in Myanmar where political solutions become imperative.
Nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima may become a major issue in the
future as countries such as Vietnam are planning four power reactors with the Philippines,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand having research reactors (5). Obviously,
a meltdown in China would directly affect the ASEAN. Oils spills, pollution, and poisoning
of water systems from factories and mines, maritime piracy, and drug abuse should
not be discounted.
Most of all, the impact of climate change should be seriously factored in as a transnational
issue. As temperature increases sea level rises and drastic weather becomes more frequent
resulting in more calamities (2). This trend is being observed in the region, which
already showed massive effects on coastal populations, densely populated places, and
the agricultural economy that populations are dependent on.
Yet, time and time again, we always see hope amid all this misery. Economies rebound
and the populations recover despite the upheaval brought about by the havoc of calamities.
Resilience is always a good story and is shown to be an enduring phenomenon. No matter
how long the impact affects the populace, they become survivors and not victims; they
pick up the pieces and move on with their lives. Yes, resilience is an area that is
never focused on. Not even in the field of disaster research. This is why research
becomes imperative and should be a major component of the approach in a unified disaster
management framework. Documentation and research should be central in a supranational
effort, as there is much learning that is yet to be discovered.
There are no arguments that counter the need for a strong and firm cooperative ASEAN
effort in developing resilience against disasters – vulnerability is high, disasters
are getting stronger and more frequent, and uniting small countries is prudent in
pooling resources. An ASEAN disaster body with a strong mandate from the member governments
in the context of an integrated ASEAN may be the impetus toward innovative and novel
approaches in disaster preparedness and prevention and in cooperating to protect civilians.
This might be the answer to the chaos that transpired during the Haiyan disaster in
the Philippines. Hopefully, my grandmother would live to see the fruition of immediate
and rapid responses during calamities. She already had enough with 87 years of disasters.
And time is of the essence.