1. Root causes of disaster
It is certainly not popular to discuss poverty, inequality, conflict, discrimination, globalisation etc. as drivers of vulnerability and therefore disaster risk at forums like this. Perhaps scientists feel powerless to address these issues. Ok, but we must lend our voice to the cause of the vulnerable, rather than colluding to perpetuate structural violence. We must make clear that many of the solutions of science cannot succeed while global inequality and injustice flourish.
2. Inequality
The existence of inequality in not only wealth, but access to knowledge and opportunities was raised briefly on day 1. This issue came up again as individuals decried the academic paywall and the fact that much DRR knowledge is inaccessible to those who need access the most. In addition, we must ask whether the push that we are seeing towards privatising DRR is a healthy shift? Corporate control in DRR, climate change and sustainable development (*shudders*) is growing. Will this reduce vulnerability, or have the opposite effect by creating a bigger gap?
3. Discrimination
We are of course much more sensitive to discrimination against minority groups now than ever before. Thankfully we have witnessed great societal shifts, with rights being won for many. However, we must guard against cultural norms that are still inherently discriminatory against groups that we may not normally perceive as marginalised. One clear issue arising from this conference is that of discrimination against young scientists. 'You are so young'. 'You have to earn your credibility.' 'Wait till you have a PhD and then talk to me.' You only have to speak to a sample of PhD students to realise the gravity of the issues that young scientists face. We need mentoring, opportunities, resources, recognition for brilliant young minds. Uncorrupted. Uncompromised. Idealist. I'd prefer that they made decisions about our future than those currently holding power.
4. Political will
Disasters are political beasts. Much of the discussion has avoided the simple fact that the global political structure is highly resilient to change. I feel that the solutions being offered at this conference are based on the assumption that a system driven by growth, consumption and domination cannot be challenged. Our current system is creating new problems and exacerbating existing problems faster than we can solve them. Can science and technology solve problems that are inherently social, economic and political? Perhaps not directly, but we can become advocates and even activists. We know that there is an absence of will to change in the political establishment. Is there also an absence of will to advocate for change among researchers who rely upon the support of the establishment to further their careers?
Overall, we have heard some interesting perspectives on SFDRR implementation and about fascinating advances in science and technology. These things give me hope. However, like Sendai I will depart a bit frustrated at the general reluctance to engage with the systemic issues that uphold the status quo. All of our advances will be useless if we ignore these. As a speaker pointed out yesterday, we are in a special position where the public trusts our community of knowledge. We have a responsibility to communicate, not only about the technical aspects of our work but as commentators on the big issues society faces. As DRR researchers, we are uniquely qualified to do so.
