Embracing local capacity to deal with disasters

This is an English language version of an article published in Tia Sang magazine (in Vietnamese) on 06/10/2018 by Jason von Meding - original here

———————

Disasters reveal the best of human nature. Most people affected come together in genuine displays of solidarity when the safety and security of their family and community is threatened.

In the first two articles (here and here) in this series we have explored this underappreciated aspect of human behaviour in disasters - deep down, people are GOOD. In a disaster, we often see a temporary halt to hostilities between people that do not see eye to eye. A window of opportunity opens, where something better can be built - not just physically but socially.

At the core of this phenomenon that we observe in the aftermath of disasters is human connection and relationship. People by their very nature want to help each other. Despite what our economists might claim, we are not born to compete but to share. But the narratives that we routinely accept from our rulers (and the media that serves them) tell us the opposite - they position us against each other (for example the narrative that young people are entitled) and against the planet that sustains life (for example the narrative that the environment must be sacrificed in favour of economic development).

These popular narratives are a major barrier if we want individuals and communities to be safer and stronger against threats, and if we want to avoid decisions that lead to the creation of risk (discussed in the previous piece). If we accept negative stories about each other, we choose to believe a lie about who we are. We choose to underestimate what we are capable of.

The result is that we can mistakenly believe that we need to rely on someone else to “save” us, because we cannot be trusted to help each other; that we need someone to provide for us, because we do not share; that we need someone else to make decisions, because we are uneducated; that we need help, because we are helpless.

But this is not the truth. Communities in Vietnam and around the world - often those with deep set vulnerabilities - can be dynamic and strong and possess knowledge and skills that “experts” often undervalue and belittle.


Why is local capacity so important?

Communities and the individuals that inhabit them often face risk, both chronic (everyday vulnerabilities) and acute (triggered by rapid onset hazards). External development actors (for example the government of Vietnam) must come to terms with problems that are mostly defined by local socio-economic, political and environmental conditions.

If the people that will experience the impact of development decisions are not consulted in the first place, there will be a lack of trust between local people and the government. The Vietnamese government has made efforts to enhance participation of local communities in governance at commune level. This can lead to successful outcomes when participation actually breaks down inequalities, injustices and power disparities.

But if true participation is lacking, invariably it is the voice of the local community that is drowned out. A bureaucrat from outside and above cannot usually understand these local conditions - and how important embracing local capacity can be.

Capacities are the individual and collective knowledge, skills and resources that are shared and combined in a community. Tapping into local capacities can both help a community prevent disasters occurring, and help them to recover from disasters that do occur. In the research literature, we see many excellent examples of this approach elsewhere in Asia; Taiwan and the Philippines come to mind.

Research shows that an active, empowered and connected community is a resilient one. When people have access to resources and opportunities, and a sense of belonging, they thrive. Humans crave connection. Well being - physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual - is central to how a community can become stronger in the face of 21st Century threats.

When we look at how disaster impacts are increasing in Vietnam, and how more and more people are in need of assistance, it might appear that community capacities are decreasing. But the factors that make communities thrive have often just been forgotten or neglected for a time. The idol of economic development has for many become a universal measure of the success of a society - a position it never warranted - and well being has been overlooked. We cannot afford to continue this delusion.

We must also acknowledge that in large part BECAUSE of rapid economic development, inequality is increasing in Vietnam. All communities have derived some economic gains - this cannot be questioned - but these gains have been distributed unevenly and this contributes to a decline in well being, especially in marginalized communities.

The government is of course not intentionally creating additional disaster risk. But in trusting in the economic status quo and the current development paradigm, it ensures that the strongest economic actors prosper at the expense of others. Building wealth always comes at the expense of somebody, somewhere. And where wealth is being accumulated, people are becoming more vulnerable to disasters.


Working WITH communities, not FOR communities

In the most marginalized communities of Vietnam, the government response is often paternalistic - bureaucratic decisions are made with the intention of promoting the best interests of the dependent community - while autonomy, true community participation and ownership of the process is not part of the prescribed development pathway.

This is why “development” does not benefit everyone equally. Projects should not be proposed FOR marginalized communities but WITH them. This is the way to empower and strengthen. It is actually a great opportunity. Projects can build upon the capacity of communities to contribute - this can ensure appropriateness, long-term sustainability and stakeholder buy-in.

In a 2017 research project that we carried out in Dong Hoi, we investigated how urban flooding impacted schools in the city and how different stakeholders could practically contribute to making schools safer and ensuring that the education of children is not disrupted when a flood occurs.

Dong Hoi has suffered extensively from storms and floods in the past - and 2016 was particularly devastating. The floods in October of 2016 led to the deaths of 7 students in Dong Hoi, and extensively damaged school supplies and equipment. Local schools fell behind by several weeks compared to the national schedule. There were also severe socio-economic impacts on the community more broadly.

Our research highlighted why it is important to involve different groups and individuals in the process of preventing disasters. In our project, we talked to not only school administrators and those implementing government policy, but to students, parents and teachers. What we found was that even the people most at risk in Dong Hoi were able to leverage their capacities to lessen the impact of flooding.

In this example, schools plays an essential role in the life of a community. Not only do they facilitate the education of children and youth, but they are a social gathering place. They help to create connection and belonging between families.

In Dong Hoi, we found that the local community was able to mobilise support for post-disaster relief after the 2016 flooding before any other aid arrived. This mirrors the evidence from around the world, that shows that communities are first responders.

"Last year when our family did some charity work after the flood, some of the people we visited were 90 and 87 years old. When we visited them, they hugged us and cried.” [Parent, Dong My Primary School]

The community was able to support each other. We heard about families that shared their homes and their resources until they were able to recover. People were genuinely concerned for each other, confirming what we already know about human kindness.

Communities do act in solidarity. But many will ask, what is the role of government in all of this?

There are certainly improvements that can be made from a government perspective. It is essential that communication and coordination between different levels of the government and school stakeholders (administrators, teachers and parents) is improved. This alongside policy measures that promote the reduction of everyday vulnerabilities would go a long way.

But a conversation about vulnerability takes us back to questioning the economic status quo - in which inequality only increases - and which those in power are not interested in challenging.

While we wrestle with this - what we might call potential “system change” - and hold the government accountable for its policy decision within an admittedly flawed framework, communities can and do take action. Spontaneous initiatives continue to emerge from collectives of people with shared vision and values.

This action needs to be supported. One of the best things that the government can do is to locate these community-led initiatives, provide whatever resources are requested, and simply get out of the way.

Hurricane Harvey one year after: inequalities in Houston as the root causes of disaster

This is a post by Giuseppe Forino (University of Newcastle) and Tien Le Thuy Du (University of Houston) originally published on 6 September in Italian and English on Sismografie, the section on hazards and disasters of Italian blog Lavoro Culturale.

Hurricane Harvey hit Texas on 25 August 2017. It was the country’s first major hurricane since Wilma hit Florida in October 2005 and the first major hurricane to strike southern Texas since Celia in 1970. Hurricane Harvey became the second-most costly hurricane to hit the U.S. mainland since 1900, with over $125 billion of damages and loss. In the weeks who followed, hurricanes Irma and Maria unfortunately left death and destruction among Caribbean countries and islands, including Barbuda, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. One year later, how is the recovery going in Houston, largely affected by Harvey? As mass media coverage and information about disaster-prone places decrease few weeks after the disaster, we wanted to know something more about the current conditions of people affected by Harvey.

One of the houses hit by Harvey, now abandoned and for lease, in East Houston. Photo by Giuseppe Forino.

Therefore, in August 2018 we met Magdalene*, one of the thousands of people living into African American and Latinx communities of East Houston, still struggling with the recovery after Harvey. We were introduced to Magdalene by the research team of Roberto Barrios (Southern Illinois University Carbondale), anthropologist with over 15 years of research experience in post-disaster contexts in North and Central America. Along these years, his work has been devoted to investigate not just how recovery worked in the affected areas but also how neoliberal institutional approaches to recovery contributed to worsen the impacts of hazards and to further increase the vulnerability of people.

In his last book, Governing Affect: Neoliberalism and Disaster Reconstruction, Barrios focuses on the role of affect in shaping the ways people assign meanings to disasters and assess the impacts of governmentality (through planning, reconstruction, and policies) on their life. With the support of a National Science Foundation grant, Barrios is continuing his work by studying social after-effects of hurricane Harvey together with his research team, composed of two University of Houston anthropology students, Irene Martinez and Mayra Sierra, and one SIUC student, Grace Vargas.

Disaster response and recovery in the US, as New Orleans and Puerto Rico have also demonstrated, have always been based on the discrimination and segregation of the most disadvantaged or marginalized groups. Harvey has been praised as an equal-opportunity disaster that would not leave the poor behind. However, its recovery is replicating and exacerbating inequalities already existing in Houston, one of the most unequal and segregating cities in the United States.

The US Census Bureau calculated that 19.3% of families live below the poverty level, higher than the US average value of 11.3%. This rate has increased in the past five years, particularly among African American and Latinx neighbourhoods. The unequal distribution of and access to resources and opportunities – housing, healthcare, public facilities, education, safe environment – persists between majority white and higher income neighbourhoods and low income African American and Latinx people.

As it has already been written by the disaster scholar Ilan Kelman on this blog right after Harvey, also Roberto Barrios and his team are convinced that Harvey and its recovery highlight everyday spatial and social segregation in Houston, nourished by land use and development malpractices. “Houston – he says – is a city that floods by design. Collusion between real estate developers and local government have made existing flood control codes ineffective. Hurricane Harvey’s floods were primarily a political economic disaster, not a natural one”. 

Indeed, the rapid urban development in Houston has been accompanied by building decisions favouring developers and construction corporations rather than by an equal and sustainable urban planning. This further increased vulnerability of people already living into areas at higher flood risk.

One of the damaged houses. Photo by Giuseppe Forino.

Hurricane Harvey hit neighbourhoods that were already struggling with ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities, or those people who were in higher flood risk areas. As found by a survey reported on the New York Times (August 2018), 27% of Latinx people in Texans whose homes were badly damaged declared that those homes remained unsafe to live in, compared to 20% of African American and 11% of white people. Nowadays, those people who were already financially in need, vulnerable or marginalized, are facing longer recovery timelines. 

Harvey hit thousands of people with no home insurance, no assets or savings to be put into recovery, no transportation options alternative to flooded cars. Federal disaster response—including an underfunded National Flood Insurance Program— mainly support homeowners, those who either rent or live in public housing find even fewer options.

According to Roberto Barrios, the Harvey-affected neighbourhood of East Houston has been long chronically neglected of its drainage systems on the part of the City Government: “East Houston has always been “invisible” in the gaze of many Houstonians, even as it is considered the site of waste dumps and hazardous material storage that serves most of the city. In Harvey’s aftermath, media attention has focused on more affluent parts of the city that were also flooded catastrophically, but has continued a long tradition of underserving this historically marginalized minority area”.

Therefore, there is need to raise voices of the affected people such as Magdalene. Magdalene is deeply rooted in the community. She lives in East Houston since almost 40 years ago and is very active in the long-standing informal network created in East Houston to support the people most in need. We met her in early August. Too hot to walk around, Magdalene instead took a drive with us and Barrios’ research team into the neighbourhood where she has lived almost 40 years. She brought hands up to her chest and marked the height of the floodwater released by Harvey into her house. During Harvey, she spent one day and one night on her living room table, before rescuers arrived.

In front of many houses unusable furniture wait to be trashed. Photo by Giuseppe Forino.

She can tell you almost everything about each house in the neighbourhood, including a meticulous description of damages suffered by each family after the hurricane. She showed us the landscape of broken windows, scaffolding, doors locked with wood planks or temporary curtains, trashed furniture. A few houses have never been opened since the hurricane, and the devastation can be observed from outside. Other houses have been repaired with personal savings, but several houses will never be repaired. As East Houston is an undervalued neighbourhood, people are receiving fewer dollars on average for recovery, or have no compensation to recover as they cannot afford increasing insurance costs of thousands of dollars.

Some families are already leaving the neighbourhood. Magdalene says that the price of the houses drastically collapsed. Houses with previously average value of 80,000 dollars can now be bought at 20,000 dollars. Speculators are now coming around, offering residents less than 20,000 dollars for the damaged houses. Later they sold them at more than 100,000 dollars for newcomers. Real estate’s posts for renting and selling at a ridiculously discounted rate are gradually showing up. Developers took advantage of people’s misfortune. Insurance companies took opportunity to force people to buy higher insurance.

One of the many trailers that are utilized still now as temporary housing. Photo by Giuseppe Forino.

Regulations to access to funds allocated by FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government agency by US intervening in case of disasters across the country) are always unfavourable to marginalized people or those with no insurance such as in East Houston. This makes these people ineligible to any funding support program. Compared to “richer” neighbourhoods, they had no alternative immediate support, such as trailers for temporary stay. Some of them have already built unstable elevated mobile homes because they are scared of future flooding. Perpetual trauma with rain will follow for the rest of their life.

Hurricane Harvey just mirrored and exacerbated social and economic inequalities shaping the everyday society in Houston. Looking at the stories of the people who are most vulnerable when a disaster occurs reveals, once again, disaster as a political construction, deriving from historical paths of environmental and social injustice.

* Magdalene is a fake name to ensure her anonimity. The neighbourhood of East Houston has not been identified too, and it has been generally referred as East Houston. We warmly thank Magdalene for the time spent with us, Grace, Mayra and Irene for their kindness, and Roberto for giving consent to access to his research.

Beyond “Managing” Disasters - Reduce and Stop Creating Risk!

This is an English language version of an article published in Tia Sang magazine (in Vietnamese) on 29/08/2018 by Jason von Meding - original here

———————

So far in 2018, over 75 people have been killed or are missing in Vietnam as a result of so-called “natural disasters”. The loss of life is devastating, and affected communities are further disrupted and disadvantaged by damage to housing, agriculture, infrastructure and services.

In the remaining months of the year, Vietnam will likely be affected by several more destructive typhoons. Last year almost 400 people died from disasters in a very extreme season - and people are wondering if this is a sign of a new, terrible normal.

In the first article in this series, we explored why the term “natural disaster” is inaccurate and misleading. Disasters are always socially and politically charged.

The Vietnamese public therefore deserves to have access to information about the human decisions that led them to this point. But this often remains hidden from view. People have been conditioned to see disasters as events to be managed, rather than manifestations of social and economic injustice.

It is important to confront this danger of concentrating on “managing disasters”, while failing to deal with root causes or trying to prevent disasters from from happening in the first place. Perhaps our best attempts to “manage” disasters have been misguided all along.

From Disaster Management to Risk Reduction
The Vietnamese government adopts a command and control approach to dealing with disasters. Decisions are made in a bureaucratic fashion and implemented at all levels.

There is a certain strength to this approach, in its consistency and uniformity. But it means that the focus is also on disasters as isolated events rather than long-term processes. The ability of communities to participate is often overlooked. It is a traditional strategy that we see it in many emergency and disaster management agencies around the world.

Governments often adopt management approaches that could be called “top-down” or “bottom-up”, or some combination of the two, with regards to disasters. Disasters are “managed” either by the state, or by communities. But this “management” approach to disasters belies a shared ideology.

In a “management” framing, the disaster “event” is something to be battled against. Often, “combat agencies” respond to emergencies and disasters. The focus is on protecting people from the hazard. Disasters are construed only as a public security and safety risk. In a bottom-up approach, communities ready themselves to respond to and manage disasters themselves.

In both of these cases, the social, political, economic and environmental root causes of disasters are prone to being ignored.

If a command and control response to emergency keeps the focus completely on the external threat, local communities are sometimes neglected. Meanwhile, when a community organises itself and taps into its own capacities, there is value created and resilience built - but it can still be all about “management.”

Both approaches fall into the trap of blaming nature for disaster impacts. You only have to look at the media coverage of recent disasters in Vietnam - devastation is attributed to nature; to typhoons, storms, floods and landslides.

As long as we try to manage disasters, even using the latest frameworks or technology, we will not deal with the real reasons that people live at risk.

There have been major shifts in scientific research and public discourse in the past two decades. From “disaster management” has emerged “disaster risk management”. This has humanised the field to some degree and moved away from an event specific management idea to a long-term view of how risk occurs in society.

In the 2000’s, some scholars shifted to a language of “disaster risk reduction”. The idea is that by working to reduce the vulnerability of the communities most affected by disasters, we reduce the potential impact of disasters on them.

What does it take to reduce risk?
In the first article in the series, we discussed how we often fail to consider the capacity of communities affected by disaster. Vietnamese society is strong and resilient. Families and individuals are connected and engaged in acts of solidarity - in the best of times of course - but especially in the worst of times.

Communities often do not fully understand their own potential to inspire change, to organise, to make themselves stronger together. Under threat of disaster, they are routinely convinced to focus on the hazard as the problem, rather than on the challenges they face daily.

This is achieved through societal conditioning - disaster myths and misleading language are powerful tools to disempower communities. Narratives of “natural disaster” keep the focus away from issues that may lead people to question the status quo. Away from discovering their own political power.

It takes an activated community to reduce risk. The state can intervene through the funding and implementation of structural and non-structural measures. Policy change can indeed be significant. But progressive policy change so often follows a fundamental shift in the expectations of a society. And these expectations are formed in the experience of everyday life.

Believing that a better world is possible is the first step in making that world. We need to critique and learn from the past in order to clearly see the opportunities of the present when they arise. And we need to be ready to act.

Despite efforts of the government, many Vietnamese people live with acute everyday risk. The more marginalised and isolated individuals and groups are, the greater their risk. This is because marginalisation leads to losing access to the resources and social connections that can reduce vulnerability. 

And an alarming truth is that many disaster affected people believe that it is just their fate to be victimised.

But it is not their fate. If they are victims then they are the victims of poor development; greed, exploitation, corruption and abuses of power. They are the victims of discrimination and marginalisation in society. They are the victims of historical injustice and sometimes simply circumstance. By struggling for change in their day to day conditions, people can reduce their risk of being affected by disaster.

Reducing risk is essential in the vision of a more free, just and equal world. Simply undertaking a process of “disaster risk reduction” inevitably challenges structural injustice in society. Many victories have indeed been won. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction gave the issue global prominence and made nation states accountable.

But while gains have been made by people becoming less vulnerable, another aspect of risk has been largely ignored. That is the fact that while we have been busy reducing existing risk (or trying to), development has taken place that has created new risk and resulted in a more risky world overall.

Future generations demand that we stop “creating risk”
Most people on the planet are now aware that our very existence is becoming fragile and tenuous. We see daily headlines that herald impending doom and destruction. The planet is warming with unprecedented speed. So much of life’s diversity is becoming extinct or endangered. The oceans are dying. The Northern hemisphere has literally been on fire.

All of this damage should be understood by looking at the relationship between humans and our complex and intrinsically beautiful planet earth. Since the industrial revolution, man has sought to tame and utilise nature. We have reduced something wonderful and sustaining to a collection of resources to plunder.

The brutal truth is this - the planet that we call home can no longer regenerate and keep up with our rampant consumption. We have overstepped many ecological boundaries and we cannot be sure of what the consequences will be.

And all of this rapid development has not brought equality, freedom and happiness. On the contrary, wealth inequality continues to deepen and we see unprecedented forced displacement of people within and across borders. And this is before climate change really bites.

In this context, it is important that we strongly oppose the continuation of the systems of exploitation and oppression that have got us into such a planetary and humanitarian mess.

Disaster risk is “created” when we continue in the same development paradigm, in search of economic growth above all else. People are exploited, displaced, forced to the margins. Living and breathing communities are reduced to a labour force that can be discarded at will.

Look at the Laos dam disaster a few weeks ago. Similar to much dam development in South East Asia, local communities did not benefit significantly from the project - benefits were mostly reserved for private and state actors - but local people bore the terrible cost of disaster.

Stopping disaster risk creation means opposing poor development decisions. It means confronting social injustice. It means thinking deeply about overconsumption and environmental degradation as something that affects us all - and then educating others. Finally it means discovering our political power and mobilising for a better world.

UON Disaster Research Updates

So much has happened over the last few months - it is time for a post to mention some of the highlights! If I miss anything that you would like to add, please let me know.


New grants: 

1. Council on Australia Latin America Relations (COALAR): Disaster Resilience Education Capacity Building in Latin America - The project establishes partnerships between UON and Universidad Diego Portales, Universidad Javeriana and Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. This project will build regional capacity, share knowledge and create synergy in disaster resilience and risk reduction education/research. CI - Dr Sittimont Kanjanabootra. Project Personnel, A/P Gajendran, A/P Mackee, A/P Brewer, Dr von Meding, Dr Giggins and Dr Ahmed.

2. Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN): Understanding the opportunities and challenges of compliance to safe building codes for disaster resilience in South Asia - the cases of Bangladesh and Nepal - This project will explore the opportunities and challenges to compliance of safe building codes for disaster resilience in South Asia, focusing on two countries of the region, Bangladesh and Nepal. UON will partner with the University of Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Tribhuvan University (Nepal). CI - Dr Ifte Ahmed. Project Personnel, A/P Gajendran,  A/P Brewer, Dr Maund and Dr von Meding. 

3. SABE Research Impact Acceleration Grant: Resilience and Resistance in the Upper Hunter Valley - This project will engage directly with communities in the Upper Hunter Valley (primarily Muswellbrook and Singleton) around themes of resilience and resistance in the post-carbon future of the region. Focussing on issues of resilience, post-industrialisation, land rehabilitation and social equity, we will host a series of events in partnership with Upper Hunter communities that are under threat; a community workshop, a public seminar and a research exhibition including creative practice and traditional research. CI - Dr Jason von Meding. Project Personnel, Prof Chapman,  A/P Brewer, Dr Tucker.

Science journalism:

In Vietnam poverty and poor development, not just floods, kill the most marginalised, The Conversation, Jason von Meding & Hang Thai

Religion is not the only reason Rohingyas are being forced out of Myanmar, The Conversation, Giuseppe Forino, Jason von Meding & Thomas Johnson

Vietnam’s typhoon disaster highlights the plight of its poorest people, The Conversation, Chinh Luu & Jason von Meding

Show Up, Stand Up and Step Up: Bold Action in the Wake of Storms, Common Dreams, Jason von Meding & Heidi Harmon

Why natural disasters aren't all that natural, openDemocracy, Ksenia Chmutina, Jason von Meding, JC Gaillard & Lee Bosher


In the media:

Jason on BBC World Service and Morning Marketplace Report speaking about vested interests in Myanmar.

Jason speaks about Typhoon Doksuri on 2ser radio, Sydney, 21st Sept.

Jason interviewed by Aya Bayrawy at the Associated Press for this article about the Rohingya, 21st Sept. 

Jason on 2ser radio, Sydney, discussing the Rohingya, 18th Sept. 

Jason on WMNF, Florida, to discuss the political aspect of the recent hurricanes to strike the US, 14th Sept. 

Jason on 3 CR radio Melbourne talking about the Rohingya crisis, 13th Sept. 

Grenfell Tower fire exposes the injustice of disasters

Jason von Meding, University of Newcastle; Giuseppe Forino, University of Newcastle; J.C. Gaillard, and Ksenia Chmutina, Loughborough University

Decades of gentrification in London and other European cities (including Paris, Barcelona, Rome and Istanbul) have enacted a form of social cleansing. This has pushed away low-income and marginal residents, divided the rich from the poor, and generated inequalities among citizens.

The Hammersmith area, where the Grenfell Tower is located, has been gentrified. This previously working-class area has been transformed into a vibrant middle-class neighbourhood. Just a few residential social housing tower blocks remain.

As a cosmetic measure, the Grenfell Tower was refurbished in 2014. The choice of cladding material that appeared to fuel the fire is now subject to scrutiny, but with no understanding of the social dimensions of the building’s design regulation and safety measures.

Repeated warnings from the Grenfell Tower residents that this was a disaster waiting to happen were ignored.

There has been an outpouring of grief and anger from the affected community and beyond and tensions remain high. While certain elements of the media rebuke those seeking to hold the ruling class accountable, it is important to emphasise a simple truth: disasters are socially – and politically – constructed.

Root causes of disaster

Disasters are often misunderstood as “natural”, or simply assumed to be extreme and tragic events.
This view draws on a century-old paradigm that puts the blame on rare and inescapable natural phenomena, an “act of God”, or technological breakdowns that lie beyond the everyday social fabric.
But there is nothing natural about disasters; disasters usually have root causes of vulnerability that we don’t speak about and that reflect the day-to-day make-up of society – inequality, poverty, political ideology, class and power relations.

These root causes are similar in London, New York, New Orleans, Port-au-Prince and Manila – a few of the world’s cities that have been stricken by major disasters in recent times.

The Grenfell Action Group couldn’t have been clearer in its warnings of disaster – this one is from November 2016. Grenfell Action Group

Disasters as experienced today are often rooted in the historical development of societies. The impacts of colonialism, slavery, military conquest and discrimination based on class, gender, race and religion are visible today.

Billions of people around the world, in both wealthy and less affluent countries, are at this moment suffering under structural injustices. As demonstrated at Grenfell Tower, this is a recipe for disaster.

Structural injustice creates vulnerability

This disaster is quite a shock to British society. Although the contributing sociopolitical drivers (while sometimes not explicitly discussed) are perhaps more visible on this occasion, having struck a centre of wealth and power in London, we need to recognise that injustice lies at the core of almost all disasters.

At the Grenfell Tower and around the world, the poor and the marginalised suffer the most from disasters.

This injustice is not an accident – it is by design. There is no disaster that kills everyone in a particular locality nor one that knocks down all buildings in a single place.

Normally the resources to overcome the impact of natural hazards are available locally. The privileged have access to these resources while those at the margin do not.

Vulnerability to hazards, and related disasters, therefore mirrors how power and resources are unequally shared within societies. More often than not disasters affect people not because of a lack of knowledge about disasters, but because this knowledge is not applied.

Political decisions also put lives at risk. MP Chi Onwurah summarised appropriately when she wrote:

The residents of Grenfell were poor in a rich neighbourhood. They were those the market rejected, a burden on a borough apparently determined the rich should not pay to lift the constraints of the poor.

The British political class has failed to adequately represent the interests of its most vulnerable citizens for decades. That people are consigned to live in such conditions in a wealthy country is at best a betrayal of the vulnerable by the state. Some would call it criminal. It is not only the Tories who must swallow this bitter pill.

Cities are battlegrounds

Cities tend to greatly magnify inequality. The Grenfell Tower disaster is a product of a deep societal divide in Britain, where wealth is increasingly concentrated among a small minority.

Gentrification is pushing already marginalised people out of sight and out of mind. This kind of urban development is a boon for housing market profiteers and supports the ruling class agenda, but neglects the needs of the most needy in society. Marginal people become resourceless, invisible to public policies, and disempowered in public life. This increases their vulnerability.

If cities are to reduce the risk of disasters like the Grenfell fire, we must focus on social justice in urban development. The benefits of development or redevelopment should prioritise the have-nots and provide dignity to people regardless of income or background. Cities that are able to provide opportunities for all citizens are also able to appreciate diversity rather than homogenisation.

The Grenfell Tower fire exposes the injustice of disaster, and this terrible moment must be learned from and acted upon. Pushing people to the margins and deeming them worthless is ultimately what causes them to perish.


Jason von Meding, Senior Lecturer in Disaster Risk Reduction, University of Newcastle; Giuseppe Forino, PhD Candidate in Disaster Management, University of Newcastle; J.C. Gaillard, Associate Professor, School of Environment, and Ksenia Chmutina, Lecturer in Sustainable and Resilient Urbanism, Loughborough University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Special Issue "The L'Aquila earthquake ten years on (2009-2019): impacts and state-of-the-art"

Dears,

I am very happy to share with you this call for paper for the Special issue "The L'Aquila earthquake ten years on (2009-2019): impacts and state-of-the-art", which will be edited by me, Giuseppe Forino (University of Newcastle, Australia, g.forino@gmail.com), together with Fabio Carnelli (University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, fa.carnelli@gmail.com), and will be published on the journal Disaster Prevention and Management in December 2018.

Please feel free to contact us in case of interest and to distribute the call among your networks and peers.

Here the call for paper (also available on the journal website)

Introduction

Due to the recent occurrence of disruptive earthquakes in Italy (Emilia, 2012; Central Italy, 2016 and 2017) following the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009, both disaster scholars and social scientists (sociology, anthropology, geography) communities show a growing interest in understanding the medium and long term impacts of such earthquake and the related controversial recovery. Furthermore, in both national and international journals there is a growing interest on issues related to other Italian earthquakes. Nevertheless, while a number of publications exists about the short-term impacts of the earthquake in L’Aquila, evidences are still necessary for providing a clear understanding of the long terms impacts by the recovery and reconstruction management on local communities, their everyday life, and their surrounding environment. 

Accordingly, this special issue aims to add to the existing body of knowledge on the L’Aquila earthquake a socially-centred perspective able to investigate issues broadly related to impacts on, and response by, the socio-cultural systems and its functioning. Theoretical and methodological findings for disaster research are also welcome. The call aims to collect perspectives from, but not limited to, disaster studies, geography, anthropology, sociology, political ecology, environmental history, and urban studies.

Submissions on topics relating but not limited to;

Long-term reconstruction impacts

Politics and policy in disaster recovery

Political ecology of recovery

Culture, local knowledge and recovery

Social Vulnerability

Disaster governance

Emergency/recovery and socio-psychological aspects

Land-use and land-use conflicts

Space, place, and urban planning

Community and urban resilience

Social/spatial/environmental justice

Risk communication

Housing studies and political economy

Social movements and recovery

Folklore studies, religion and recovery

Methodological and epistemological issues in disaster research

Deadlines

Submission deadline; 31st December 2017

Expected Publication Date: December 2018

Submission Information

Special Issue submissions should be made through ScholarOne Manuscripts, the online submission and peer review system. Registration and access is available at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/dpm.

DRECB-SEA project activities in Manila a great success

From November 23th-25th 2016, a consortium of researchers from 5 countries, led by the University of Newcastle and funded by the Australia-ASEAN Council, collaborated to host a series of activities in Manila. The events coincided with the 70th anniversary celebration of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines and allowed the AAC board and Australian Embassy to participate in project activities.

Over 200 participants attended a much anticipated Symposium, entitled "Building Resilience through Synergies in Education" on the 23rd, hosted by the University of Philippines, School of Urban and Regional Planning. AAC board member Professor Alice Woodhead was among the keynote speakers on a day that featured three expert discussion panels; on Disaster Education; Disaster Governance; and Disaster Research and Innovation.

DRECB Manila Symposium - Highlights from Jason von Meding on Vimeo.

The DRECB team launched its new website and the DRR curriculum mapping tool that is under development. There were lively debates between panelists and public participants with respect to key concern in DRR education, research and governance.

In addition to the Symposium event, the DRECB team held a DRR curriculum mapping workshop drawing 30 representatives of different stakeholder groups on the 24th November. Participants worked in groups including practitioners, educators and community actors to analyse and reflect on the Sendai Framework mapping that the project has undertaken. The results of these workshops will be forthcoming in 2017.

The project team wrapped up the week's activities with a visit to Valenzuela City on the 25th, meeting with community leaders, disaster risk reduction practitioners and emergency responders. Special thanks to the UP-SURP organising team and in particular Professor Mario Delos Reyes and Dr Mark Morales for their leadership in making all of these events possible.

Flood Disaster in Central Vietnam: The Need to Involve Experts

by Chinh Luu and Jason von Meding

From 12-15 October, 2016, Central Vietnam faced an all too common occurance - disastrous flooding. While meteorologists are not surprised by the intense 2016 monsoon season due to the El Niño phenomenon and warmer Pacific water temperatures, the impacted provinces from Ha Tinh to Thua Thien Hue are some of the most vulnerable in Vietnam. As is often the case, the root causes of this disaster have been overlooked.

In some areas in Quang Binh, total rainfall reached over 900mm in 3 days. Torrential rain led to rivers overflowing their banks. Flooding in mountainous areas caused landslides and across the region, roads were destroyed and residential areas were devastated. 

Ho Chi Minh Trail underwater (Source: http://phongchongthientai.vn/tin-tuc/mua-lu-gay-thiet-hai-tai-cac-tinh-mien-trung/-c3222.html)

According to a report by the Department of Natural Disaster Prevention and Control (national level), the main impact of the floods included 34 deaths, over 100,000 flooded properties, over 300,000 animals killed and widespread damage to roads, agricultural land, canals, dykes and embankments. 

Boating through Phong Nha (Photograph by Mi Xu)

The severe consequences in terms of loss of lives and property in Ha Tinh and Quang Binh province cause us to look at preparedness and response from the national level to the local level (province, district and commune). What we find is that both those responsible for disaster management and those affected by disasters adopt a largely passive approach. 

Institutional framework for disaster management in Vietnam

The institutional framework for disaster management in Vietnam shows that the public administration apparatus is entirely responsible for disaster related activities and that expert scholars and scientists are not involved in decision-making committees. 

The approach of the Vietnamese government is almost entirely reactive. If we want to really understand the impact of a disaster, we must reject the idea that it is a natural event, or the notion that it has no political drivers. In this case, the lack of a proactive approach has all but ensured widespread death and destruction. 

Flood risk management approaches

In the aftermath of such destructive flooding, provincial and district officials have all laid blamed on the flood discharge of a small hydropower project. This has been reported widely in the media. 

We have a situation where the heads of committees and those with decision-making power either do not understand the cause of flooding, or are deliberately misleading the public. Either way, the current working of committees is clearly not effective for protecting people and property. Decision-makers do not possess expertise in disaster management, let alone disaster risk reduction. They are government officials with little accountability.

In May 2014 the Law on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control of Vietnam stipulated that disaster management activities must include prevention, response and remediation of consequences. However, after each event of this nature (which occurs every year and in many localities), we are left with fresh questions as to the effectiveness of the legal, organisational and operational framework. 

Action plans are prepared annually at each level. However, these are primarily administrative documents. They are prepared based on the flood risk management experience of staff working within the political system. 

It is important to note the positive force with which all levels of government in Vietnam are mobilized in a disaster context, working with communities rapidly and in solidarity. This speaks to a strong existing community capacity. However, the presence of the public administration apparatus in flood risk management activities is just not enough. 

We call for the involvement of expert researchers and scientists in the flood risk management steering committee, shifting the focus to more proactive approaches, including mitigation and preparedness. Decisions must be made based on a combination of the latest scientific knowledge and a deep sensitivity to the local context. A solution to reduce risk in Central Vietnam must go beyond a technical fix; it must be economic, social, political and environmental. 

We Must Democratise Disaster Risk Creation

As we know all to well, those impacted most by disasters are the poor, the marginalised and the dispossessed. Base vulnerability underpins disaster risk. The most pervasive driver of risk creation is a political and economic system that operates for the benefit of the powerful, and to the detriment of the powerless. Those that face the greatest threats in the 21st Century have no voice, no representation and no justice.

This system is inherently undemocratic. There is nothing that the powerful fear more than empowered peasants. Western democracy has become little more than a show, having been bought and paid for by special interests. In the United States we are told to choose a 'lesser evil' candidate from the ruling parties, while the dying two-party system fights to ensure that progressive change can never take any real hold. The great global institutions, the UN, the IMF and the World Bank, despite a pretence to represent democratic ideals, fight largely to uphold a status quo that enables continuing neo-imperial conquest and accumulation of private wealth at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. If we are hoping for neoliberal institutions to save humanity, we are still asleep.

The more that we invest in and perpetuate the injustice of this system, the more rapidly risk is created. The public are largely unaware or ignorant when it comes to disaster risk, particularly in consumer-driver societies where immediate self-gratification has replaced any sense of community responsibility. Politicians skirt the issue so as to avoid spending on core risk reduction solutions (may demand more health, education, welfare, science spending!), preferring to save the day in the event of a disaster rather than take any proactive action that may not 'pay off'. Re-election is generally more important than service.

The actions of a political class that has gone all-in for a neoliberal system based on economic myth, 'legal' corruption and global corporate dominance, are creating endless new risk, faster than people can be drawn out of risky starting conditions. Whether it is taking away social safety nets in Australia to 'help' people discipline themselves, or assisting developing countries with unrepayable loans that primarily serve the lender and its collaborating countries and corporations, there are few glimmers of hope WITHIN the system. It is easy to see why voters in the UK, the US and around the world are determining to 'burn it all down', whether or not they support the extremist demagogues that are leading such movements.

Will we survive the challenges that this Century will bring? It's possible. I hold out hope that we can still deviate from this destructive course, that democracy can be saved and that most people actually care about each other. We must, however, democratise disaster risk creation. No longer can we allow those in power to create risk, reap the financial reward, and socialise the losses. 

Slashed OLT represents lost opportunities for innovation in DRR

By Giuseppe Forino and Jason von Meding

2015 represented an important year for disaster scholars, with the release of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in March, the launch of new Sustainable Development Goals in New York in September, and the December agreement for carbon emission reduction at COP21 under the UNFCCC in Paris. The value and the effectiveness of these international agreements are certainly open to debate. George Monbiot (2004, p.75) questions the democratic value of the UN, arguing that 'the nation states tacitly conspire against their peoples,' and that 'we the people' in the UN Charter should read 'we the States.' Furthermore, if we do not start questioning our current methods of production, consumption, and development, any well-intentioned international frameworks may ultimately represent no more than empty promises. 

At their best, these milestones can enable a new roadmap in research, policy, and practice of DRR to emerge that will enable us to move forward significantly in the next 15 years. We must interrogate governance; the role of the State, the private sector and local communities and the balance of power; as well as understanding how various issues from globalisation to climate change contribute to shape exposure and vulnerability, and become imperative in DRR science. Such a roadmap must inform teaching and learning related to disaster risk reduction in higher education. The increase in the number of undergraduate and postgraduate courses and programs exploring disasters and related issues illustrates the recognition of the challenges faced by the global community and therefore an emerging market to train experts. However, higher education is also shifting and we onus is on educators to develop better ways to engage learners that may not actually be participating in learning activities in the same place or time. 

Haigh and Amaratunga (2015) developed a roadmap for the ANDROID research network, which gathers different universities and scholars with different backgrounds and perspectives related to disaster resilience, DRR, and CCA. In this roadmap, the main challenge presenting for disaster resilience in higher education is the reduction of the policy–science gap, insomuch that research be translated to action.

Five critical opportunities and challenges for higher education were identified:

1. linking research, education and action;

2. integrating all hazards, stakeholders and disciplines;

3. collaborating regionally and globally;

4. facilitating policy dialogue, knowledge sharing and capacity development; and

5. developing flexible and customisable education programmes.

At the University of Newcastle, we are somewhat unique in that we teach disaster resilience/DRR into our Bachelor of Construction Management degree. We do this because we believe that DRR needs to be a core competency in built environment professions. In our Master of Disaster Preparedness and Reconstruction, we progress to a much more detailed exploration of various elements of disasters. 

In 2015 we launched the RES-SIM project, a collaboration with RMIT and funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). This project proposes to develop the conceptual model for a virtually distributed computer-based teaching and learning tool that enables students within and across disciplines (e.g. engineering, architecture, logistics), both on and off campus, to collaboratively acquire essential decision-making skills through immersion in a dynamic disaster system simulation. 

The research team works with practitioners to develop
disaster scenarios

Our field work gave us the opportunity to interview and share knowledge with eminent scholars in DRR, information technology and construction management. It also allowed us to meet volunteers and practitioners involved in emergency management across New South Wales and Victoria, to talk with them about procedures, priorities, and expectations, and to build a network for knowledge exchange and future collaboration. The 1 year project has represented an opportunity, as academic scholars, to contribute to reducing the gap between our world and that of practitioners and volunteers, contributing to the central necessity outlined in the ANDROID roadmap. 

This grant by the OLT gave us the seed funding to do something otherwise not possible. 

Workshops allow educators and practitioners to describe
their world as a system

At the end of June, the OLT will cease to offer any new projects, based on cuts announced in the federal budget. We had advanced warning of this since 2015, but a commitment previously made to establish a successor 'institute' for research in teaching and learning has now also been scrapped. The closure of the OLT, as well as the loss of its grants and fellowships, removes from Australian higher education the national commitment to innovation and improved performance in learning and teaching (Gardner, 2016).

The closure of the OLT is a dark day for both researchers and citizens who believe in the betterment of countries and societies through education, culture, and engagement. Under a cloak of 'innovation' and 'industry engagement' the government has set its own agenda above that of the people. We must therefore stand up against these cuts and proclaim that research for the common good is of value. We have a democratic society and it is time for the government to recognise the will of the people over corporate interests. 

References:

Gardner M. (2016). Innovation in teaching and learning is too important to cut. The Conversation.

Haigh, R., & Amaratunga, D. (2015). Moving from 2015 to 2030: challenges and opportunities for higher education. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(3).

Monbiot, G. (2004) The age of consent. HarperPerennial.

Sacrifice (someone else)

It has been playing on my mind recently how quick we are to sacrifice others, their families and their communities, for our own personal or national self-interest.

The Australian public has been bombarded with damaging political rhetoric about refugees for decades. Many are prepared to turn a blind eye to abuse, injustice and abdication of international responsibility in the 'national interest', building an argument on the logic that oppressing a relatively small number of the global displaced, the most vulnerable and damaged, will keep 'the masses' away from our entitled existence. That this is built on centuries of dispossession and injustice is not something that those advocating for its protection wish to acknowledge. We plan to send babies born in Australia to Nauru, to put it beyond doubt that if you try to come here, we are prepared to torture your children. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

My wholehearted daughter, out protesting for refugees in Newcastle...

Having thrived during an age of climate stability, the human race is facing climate change as an existential threat, pushing well beyond the planetary boundaries that would ensure some measure of safety. We have destroyed the very ecosystem that we depend on for life, a tragedy and a disgrace. The villains in this arena; the corporations and industries that profit, the politicians that enable and, like it or not, the people that consume. 

As the world wakes up to this climate reality, it appears to be too little too late. The powers that be are unwilling to adopt the radical change that is necessary. And yet again, we sacrifice the little guys to maintain the status quo. Pacific island states will be lost to the sea. Developing nations will be pummelled by ever more frequent and destructive disasters. It is not unrealistic to expect climate change migrants to be met with military force in the years to come. In international forums, talk of common but differentiated responsibility is quelled. In the meantime, trade agreements continue the raid on resources begun under colonial conquest. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

In the US the political establishment continue to oppress the working man. In a country rich on international plunder, millions earn a poverty wage. In the UK, the government continues to enforce austerity on the poor while giving corporate and millionaire welfare. In Australia, unions are under attack by politicians that are unwilling to allow scrutiny of their own activities and are opposed to transparency in the affairs of their industry backers. We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. 

We make war when diplomacy does not ensure our supremacy in determining the affairs of other nations. We call it 'freedom' and 'democracy', and those who would be patriots must not dissent when we kill other people's children. We support tyrants around the world, as long as they play by our economic rules. We supply the weapons to kill and maim, and wonder why there is not more peace on earth. Can we truly desire peace, and build it through violence? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest. For Oil. For Markets. We call it 'national interest' or 'national security'.

In our workplaces, in our social clubs, in our communities and in our homes, we have fallen for the age old lie, that looking after number one is all you can really do. Some of us extend our caring to our family, our friends, our tribe, our nation. How many extend it to all human beings? How many extend their compassion to all life on earth? We are sacrificing the vulnerable for self interest.

The cowardly resolve to make a sacrifice of those least able to raise a voice or a fist must be challenged on all fronts. We cannot claim to be for justice and equality while we turn a blind eye to another's suffering. We are all in this together.

Mass Media and Disasters

Thank you to Eloisa Rozul, graduating from our Master of Disaster Preparedness and Reconstruction, for this excellent video and some interesting thoughts on media in disasters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In today’s society, people are bombarded with constant exposure to mass media in different modes. These include television, magazines, books, radio, newspapers, movies and the most recent, internet. Media has proven to be a significant contributor of the people’s new ways of thinking, of perceiving and of interacting with their environment. Indeed, media has become an integral part of human existence. For instance, it provides an update of what is the latest fashion trend, new sports icon, the next political leader, the “perfect body” image, the upcoming celebrity star and all other events that arouse the interests of the public. Mass media has become a source of power and meaning.

Significantly, with the increasing number of global crisis and disaster occurrences, mass media has played a significant role in the entire disaster management cycle – from the pre-disaster phase (mitigation and preparedness) up to the post-disaster phase (relief and recovery). It has proven to be successful in fulfilling its strategic role in information distribution, mass communication and education of people in times of relocation, evacuation and relief assistance. Interestingly, mass media has seen to portray a new role – the linkage and emotional utility function. However, sensational portrayals of poverty and vulnerability, government’s shortcomings and helplessness of victims have resulted in inappropriate media stereotypes of the communities concerned. Although it has certainly helped in fund raising campaigns, it appears to have negatively influenced both victims and the concerned governments. As an example, the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines showed the positive and the negative impacts of mass media coverage. This video presents a simple but clear illustration of the power of mass media, focusing on the case of Haiyan.

by Eloisa Rozul

Disaster resilience in L'Aquila (Italy)

On 6^th April 2009, an earthquake hit the Italian city of L’Aquila and definitively compromised its pre-existing social and physical structures. In disaster studies, L’Aquila has represented the litmus of “traditional” top-down and clientelistic practices by Italian government and the strong politicization of post-disaster emergency, reconstruction and recovery. The new sprawling city resulting by institutional strategies ignored the social and spatial peculiarities of L’Aquila and trivialized the centuries-old relations between the historical centre of the city and its surrounding neighbourhoods, with current and long-term consequences for the everyday life of the inhabitants.

Several scholars have explored the multiple and complex dimensions of post-disaster L’Aquila: from psychological consequences to changes in the built environment, from social transformations to urban networks and connectivity issues, from social movements to cultural heritage damages. Recently, I have published two papers aiming to investigate the resilience process enacted by emergent grassroots groups in the reconstruction of L’Aquila. These groups are spontaneous and autonomous, and proposed and enacted own ideas and initiatives in reconstructing the city.

The first paper is co-authored with Francesca Fois; it analyses in-depth the functioning of the EVA ecovillage community in developing its own resilience process and in exploiting the window of opportunity, opened by the earthquake, through sustainable practices of everyday life. The second paper analyses and describes the disaster resilience by some emergent groups in L’Aquila, considered as a shared and bottom-up process, rather than a top-down and paternalistic outcome. The paper asserts the integration of the disaster resilience process into institutional strategies would have more successful targeted the needs of local communities during the reconstruction process. Both papers shed light on a qualitative dimension of resilience, that requires more investigation and debate in literature to clearly depict the social and political context in which disasters and related resilience take place.  

If you are interested in my papers, you can find here the first and here the second, and both on my Academia profile.

Any comment is welcome.