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.

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.

Challenging disaster myths and destructive narratives

This is an English language version of an article published in Tia Sang magazine (in Vietnamese) on 09/07/2018 by Jason von Meding - original here

———————

In the Vietnamese language, when we talk about a “disaster” we generally refer to it as a “natural disaster”. But there is an important distinction between the two. A failure to differentiate leaves us discussing people’s loss, pain and suffering in a certain way. Often, we think of it as a result of the “wrath of Mother nature”. Perhaps we even call it “the will of God”.  

When we focus on the “natural” we often neglect to discuss the social, economic and political parts of disasters.

My work investigating the root causes of disasters has led me to argue that they are actually quite unnatural. They are the result of human decisions about risk in society, about consumption, about rights and about ownership.

Sadly, disasters are inevitable in a world of increasing inequality.

Disasters aren’t natural

It is not a new concept to say that disasters are not natural. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first person on record to make this observation in 1756, after an earthquake and tsunami devastated Lisbon, Portugal. He argued that the casualties were due to the decisions and behaviours of people rather than nature.

Over the next 200 years, disasters were nevertheless discussed as natural or as acts of God. In the 1970s, scientists in various fields began to challenge this orthodox narrative. Since then, there have been constant challenges to the dominant position, but the terminology has only become more entrenched. There are now hundreds of thousands of references to “natural disaster” in the scientific literature.

So, what does make a disaster? Disasters often have natural triggers, and that is where we get this popular phrase “Natural disaster”. Hazards such as tsunamis, typhoons, bushfires and earthquakes do of course occur naturally. But disaster risk is determined by a combination of 2 things - 1) the hazard and 2) the vulnerability of the people in harm's way.

The truth is that around the world the victims of disasters are disproportionately impoverished, live in low-income countries and are marginalised in their society based on class, gender, religion, ethnicity and disability. And this is the way that societies are designed.

The most vulnerable suffer

Disaster impact is shaped by levels of human vulnerability. People are vulnerable for many reasons, but not because they choose to be. More often than not, someone else has made the decisions that determine their level of risk.

Injustice is built into our societies. In Vietnam we have only to look at how profoundly disasters impact on ethnic minorities. Flooding and landslides affect northwestern Vietnam periodically. In the past week, more than 20 people lost their lives, while in August 2017 dozens were killed.

These disasters cause severe hardship across provinces like Son La, Dien Bien, Yen Bai and Lai Chau. 80% of the population there belong to ethnic minorities. The poverty rate among ethnic minorities is unusually high in the region (73% - compared to a nationwide 2.9% for Kinh majority).

This is an example of how disaster risk is largely man-made. Ethnic minorities are often forgotten people in Vietnam. Attempts by the government to design policy measures to improve living standards often fail to recognise the diverse socio-economic development experience of ethnic minorities. Many ethnic minority communities have indeed benefited from development, but compared to the Kinh majority they have overwhelmingly been left behind.

Policy must therefore become more nuanced and targeted towards the specific socio-economic needs of each ethnic minority. Only then can the government start to address deficiencies in access to education, infrastructure, transportation, health care and other services. Inaction, or a simplistic and bureaucratic approach, has consequences. It is people that create disasters.

Every time a disaster occur, few people look into the role of poverty, marginalisation, environmental degradation or land use decisions in their analysis. This needs to change.

The injustices that people face define their day to day living conditions. This is how they end up living with a high level of risk. If we really want to understand the root causes of disaster, our starting point needs to be this - political, social and economic disadvantage.

These conditions are imposed on the vulnerable. It’s as simple as that. And this is where calling disasters “Natural” can be so dishonest and misleading.

Myths about disaster are commonplace

The “natural disaster” issue is not the only problem that we are facing in terms of how the public understands disasters. Society is shaped by certain prevailing narratives that are so often misleading.

Myths are widely accepted as truth. Here is a prime example. Around the world it is widely held that people behave negatively in crisis; selfishly, without compassion, irrationally and in panic. However, this simply does not fit with the available evidence. Disaster sociologists have been telling us for decades that we always see the best of human behaviour in such times. The reality is that communities come together in a disaster.

In the midst of trauma, we see the best of human "nature". People demonstrate solidarity. They give generously. They serve each other. They sacrifice not only for their family and friends, but for complete strangers. After a disaster there is a decline in crime. Victims do not loot, rape and murder. They come together.

Neighbours become first responders - something almost never picked up by the media as their stories follow international rescue teams. Communities organise and mobilise and utilise their incredible capacity to protect and assist and serve.

Sometimes when the authorities and so-called “experts” finally arrive, they actually disrupt a recovery process that is already well advanced. They often fail to recognise the importance of local capacity.

Importance of language

The words that we use are important. If a disaster is “natural” then nobody is accountable. We don’t have to think about uncomfortable root causes. Explaining disasters away as “natural” can actually prevent action to address the real root social, political and economic root causes.

In Vietnam, who benefits from this language? Which powerful interests would be unhappy if we were to speak more about the root causes of disaster rather than “nature”? Vietnam’s rapid development is not benefiting everyone equally. Inequality is growing, causing fractures in society, while the ecological impacts of rapid growth are profound. Disasters are often preceded by poor development decision-making.

One way to keep decision-makers accountable is to question the dominant narrative and language. Every time that we talk about any disaster we should be talking about vulnerability and injustice and rights. This rarely happens when we use the language of “natural disasters”.

Of course, there is always opposition to any suggestion to change the status quo. But in my experience, the opposition to abandoning the falsehood of “natural disaster” comes from those in positions of power and privilege. Some (for example academics and journalists) derive benefit from maintaining the language, because it is central to their vocabulary and they claim that it is all that the public understand. Others (for example politicians), because they might be challenged by any discussion of disaster root causes.

Although the public also commonly use this language, they are not invested in it. Most people are actually quite interested to discuss why disasters are not natural and they understand quickly.

Role of science communication and the media

So why are we so misinformed about disasters? The language is important, but it is only one factor. The media are also out for sensational stories and headlines. Disasters rarely make the news unless there is a large death toll. Rich countries are prioritised over poor ones. Consider the relative coverage of the impact of the Atlantic hurricane season on the United States to the 2017 monsoon impacts across South-Asia. Most of the media focused on the U.S.

Hollywood depicts a rescuer/victim dynamic in disaster narratives and focuses on the need to maintain law and order. Think of any disaster movie that you have watched. The people affected are panicking, selfish, irrational, helpless. This couldn’t be further from reality - but it serves a purpose to sell such a story.

Those in power have a lot to gain from perpetuating these myths. If the wider public believes that communities affected by disaster are behaving antisocially, they will not complain when force is used to “keep the law”. In the U.S. in particular, there is a history of authority-led violence after disasters. There is panic after disasters - but it comes from those afraid to lose power and control, rather than from affected communities.

Ultimately, what disaster science tells us just doesn’t square with the way that disasters are portrayed in the media or by Hollywood. Policy-makers know this and are not concerned. Therefore the rest of us must demand better.

So the next time you hear someone say “natural disaster”, inquire as to what the real cause of the disaster might be. If you see it in writing, challenge the author. We can all be a part of something positive here and shift the public discourse.

Most important of all, we need to be having the right conversation; one that is about root causes and shakes the halls of power.

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.

Sacred Cows of Cancun (and some elephants in the room)

The Sendai Framework for DRR, like the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, represents a successful global negotiation leading to a commitment to address pressing issues for humanity. This week we gather at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Cancun to talk about the move from "commitment to action."

While we should appreciate the goals that are aspired to, and the intention behind them, it would be remiss of us to exclude the promoted strategies to achieve success from critique. Shouldn't we be willing to listen to and respond to criticisms, particularly with such vital outcomes at stake?

We have heard a lot about action this week. Have we really taken action though? Is it the right action? Private sector engagement. Innovation. Technology. Entrepreneurship. Growth. 

Certain assumptions and voluntary blind spots are required in order to promote this approach to "taking action" with little or no debate. Therefore I have put together the following (slightly tongue in cheek) list of issues that I feel a) are simply out of bounds in polite DRR conversation or b) we ignore for convenience.

Sacred Cows of Cancun

1. Economic Growth - we are still attached to the idea that economic growth is essential. Should we measure success differently? Particularly when we consider 2.
2. Limitless Consumption - we deny the reality of a finite planet and put all of our eggs in the "decoupling" basket.

Elephants in the Room

3. Absolute Corporate Power - we have seen a great transfer of power to the private sector. Is this the world that we want to live in? We will see some gains through philanthropy perhaps, but is it worth it? 
4. Neoliberalism is Failing - 2016 showed a dramatic loss of trust. The public can see that mooted solutions require magical thinking. The rise of reactionary politics is putting more people at risk.
5. Usually, the Powerful Simply do Not Care - By and large, those in power demonstrate over and over that they do not care if people die, starve or suffer. This is not changing, as much as we might like it to.

We frame our collective action as a force to reduce the impacts of disaster; and more broadly to fight against poverty, hunger, inequality and climate change. But what if we are still not getting to the root causes? The structural injustices? Why are people poor, hungry, marginalised and vulnerable to disasters? 

We might approach these problems with the assumption that our solutions must honour the Sacred Cows and ignore the Elephants. We might double down on failed strategies because we are afraid of challenging the status quo. The academic community has become as inept as the political class at working for the common good, when it demands radical thinking. That cannot continue.

This week we should be having a frank discussion about the uncomfortable issues. Everything is NOT going great. We do NOT have it under control. Radical thinking IS required. 

We need to resist before it is too late. 

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.

What Causes Disasters?

When you picture a disaster, what comes to mind? The Asian Tsunami? The Haitian Earthquake? Hurricane Katrina? What about the Syrian Civil War? Is it a disaster? Most people think of disasters in terms of the natural hazards that act as the trigger; earthquakes, cyclones, floods and tsunamis are some of the most widely perceived hazards. The prevalence of this outlook produces a myth of disasters as natural occurrences. This masks the fact that disasters occur due to complex social, political and economic choices and circumstances.

Certain cities, countries and regions are undeniably more exposed to natural hazards than others. Residents of New Zealand and Japan understand and accept the likelihood of earthquakes impacting on their lives, just as residents of the Philippines and Caribbean island nations understand and accept the likelihood of destructive typhoons/cyclones. In many cases, relocation away from a hazard is not a possibility.

However, not every individual or community or nation that faces a high likelihood of natural hazards occurring due to location is equally affected. Impact is determined by factors other than the strength or the frequency of the hazard.

Since the Industrial Revolution we have witnessed significant changes in every aspect of our society. Much is made of the "progress" of the human race since then. However, as much as the wealth and health generated has allowed our species to flourish, more people have been the victims of this progress than have been beneficiaries. Billions of people today suffer from hunger, thirst, poverty, discrimination, conflict and other injustice, often stemming directly from the "progress" of others.

Disasters are simply inevitable in this world of deep injustice, where the majority have been left behind (and in many cases left worse off) as the privileged few have moved ahead.

We can analyse people that have been left behind at different levels. Certain countries benefited greatly from colonisation and more recently, globalization. In both cases, the majority are left to serve the minority from a position of powerlessness. This translates into a widening divide between the rich and the poor. Rising inequality is not only a growing issue between countries, but between communities and classes in most nations. At the scale of the individual, personal characteristics and circumstances are key.

Right now, in 2016, it feels as though we are hurtling towards catastrophic collapse. From the refusal to take real action on climate change (and in many cases outright denial of the problem) to the power-grab by reactionary political elements, strengthened by public discontent with the neoliberal status quo. Rhetoric is becoming more divisive, more hateful, more intolerant.

Our finely tuned ecosystems are breaking down. The "progress" of the human race has resulted in great losses for all other life on earth. Our coral reefs are dying. Our oceans are being emptied. Our forests and jungles are being destroyed. Almost all agricultural diversity is being lost. Species are becoming extinct at 1000 times the background rate (without our influence). We treat everything (living and otherwise) on earth as a resource to be exploited for profit.

We are in the middle of a mass extinction and we carry on as if things have never been better. Hubris. Blissful ignorance. Dangerous delusion.

When I started on my research journey in this field, I wrongly assumed that the best I could do was discover how to manage disasters more efficiently, competently and sensitively. Of course, I quickly realised that this approach is based on a highly reactive ideology that does not offer real hope for reducing losses in the future, particularly in a world changing in the way that it is. To commit to only managing disasters seems to assume that we cannot do more.

My view is that we need to advocate for an approach based on a deeper understanding of and concern for the reasons why disasters happen, why people are vulnerable in the first place and what the human and non-human impacts of disasters are.

We must respond to the needs of our planet and all forms of life on it. We should not accept disasters as natural, or associated losses as an inevitable outcome. A disaster risk reduction approach is committed to addressing the socially constructed root causes of disasters. Scholarship in this field asserts that pre-existing vulnerability is always the main predictor of disaster impact, and efforts to reduce risk begin invariably with root causes rather than symptoms.

By finding ways to help people become less vulnerable, and opposing the political, economic and social norms that hold them back, it is still possible to envisage a world with less disasters.

Scientific Evidence: Generated today, ignored tomorrow

by Jason von Meding and Giuseppe Forino


Habitat III (The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development) in Quito, Ecuador, took place from 17-20 October. It brought together over 35,000 participants to discuss sustainability, inclusiveness, and resilience in cities. While the text was adopted at the UN General Assembly in September, Habitat III shifted the focus on to implementation.

Source: UN Habitat

Cities are very much a central theme of the 21st Century. In the next 30 years, explosive growth will occur, particularly in developing world’s urban centres. Our major problems, from climate change to increasing inequality can be addressed most rapidly by understanding and harnessing this trend. On the other hand, rapid growth in cities on the current trajectory will simply exacerbate the exploitation, marginalisation and deep rooted vulnerability that the most at risk sections of society face.

This largely unplanned growth of urban areas places limits on efforts to reduce risk, while creating additional problems with which future residents must contend. Habitat III is the latest UN-led conference that touts inclusivity of stakeholders, empowerment of minorities and a global consensus. The University of Newcastle is eager to be heard as part of the highly visible UN platform, participating in both the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and Habitat III.

At each global forum the latest research is presented and the evidence is drawn upon to chart a path forward. The question is, what happens after the photo-op, the press release, the new framework, the policy paper?

Role of Science in Providing Input and Shaping Awareness in Society

In the case of the ‘New Urban Agenda’, the scientific community continues to build upon the knowledge base in diverse disciplinary areas, contributing to our understanding of every aspect of urbanisation. We learn more and more about the problems we may face and the solutions that human innovation may offer.

What is also clear is that without considerable political will at the very top level, structural social and economic problems will persist and worsen. Meanwhile, the environmental impact of accelerating growth in urban areas is likely to be dire. Without a clear and feasible mitigation strategy, it could be catastrophic.

The scientific community is at the forefront of identifying and helping us understand important issues in society that must be responded to. We cannot ignore the impact of economic and political decisions on the most vulnerable, even when pursued for the greater good of building ‘resilient cities'; for example through gentrification; land grabbing, displacement and genocide; growth of unplanned settlements without tenure, health or safety issues; environmental degradation.

Besides telling us what the problems are, science should champion progressive change. We have become accustomed to celebrating new technologies, better policy recommendations and more efficient management process and frameworks to follow. In the meantime, risk among the most vulnerable multiplies and we avoid the uncomfortable truth that our solutions do not help everyone. We try to depoliticise disasters.

There are numerous barriers that prevent the scientific community from achieving maximum impact in society. Research funding often comes with strings attached. Universities and research institutes - consciously or not - play the neoliberal game and scholars are herded towards projects that have a financial imperative. Research much fit with the government agenda.

The relationship between science and the media is often unhealthy. This can be as much about scholars under pressure to perform as about journalists looking for a story. The 24-hour media cycle and now a truly global platform means that the unique and sensational sells.

The scientific community often fails to communicate its ideas clearly to the public. In some areas of research, virtually nothing is understood by the public and in others, widely held myths are not challenged often enough to be displaced. In the absence of a simple explanation, anyone can write almost anything they like and sound informed.

Has Science been Stifled by the ‘International Community’?

All of us read and use policy documents produced and promoted by international organizations for disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change agendas. We know that often their contents and outcomes can be widely criticised, they are nevertheless useful as a background to develop our ideas.

While 2015 was marked by significant global agreements in Sendai, New York and Paris, very little was demanded in terms of accountability for the failures of previous agreements to curb our excesses, slow environmental destruction and protect the most vulnerable. Of course, there are many success stories of the previous decades, but to continually focus on these alone is somewhat disingenuous. Who is responsible for failures in implementation? Of course, most negotiators are able to say, ‘the previous government!’

Each of the ultimately non-binding pacts is highly aspirational and difficult to implement, with much left open for interpretation. Often they leave a sense of vagueness and incompleteness, failing to address the systemic root causes of today’s problems, choosing rather to rely on a particular kind of science which limits analysis at the present without understanding how communities, places and society evolve through their particular history in their capabilities, trajectories, and disadvantages.

A watering down of each agenda at the negotiation table was a far cry from where each dialogue began, often with the close input of the scientific community. In the end, it is not necessarily scientific evidence that shapes the final document but the agenda of national negotiators (and of course their corporate partners).

We end up wondering whether the knowledge being generated for these events really does anything beyond legitimising the status quo? If our calls for radical change in economic and development imperatives are ignored or compromised, it is difficult to see how our diligent engagement actually prevents in any way the continued marginalization of already disempowered people around the world, by the economic system that is backed by the UN itself.

Implementation and Political Will

Why are the best and most revolutionary ideas ‘not feasible’ when it comes to implementation? Often it is because a powerful interest would be left worse off. In global negotiations, much has been said about the lobbying power of the United States to veto any proposal. This was certainly the case in 2015, when much of the fine tuning was done by the US teams.

In addition, we observe a narrow scope of acceptable policy and practice. Rarely do bureaucrats discuss root causes of poverty, or hunger, or disaster risk, much less ways to solve such pressing issues. We are told to believe in the ‘invisible hand’. We are sold PPP’s and re-insurance and free trade agreements.

The most celebrated science at these forums does not rock the boat. Rather, it aligns perfectly with a religiously neoliberal worldview, and the government bodies, NGOs, philanthropic organisations and (sometimes discretely) the corporations that call themselves the ‘international community.’ Furthermore, science that cannot be monetised is sadly not a high priority. This is leading to an increasingly corporatised UN conference circuit.

In the implementation of the agreements on climate change, sustainable development disaster risk reduction and cities, there is little pressure to implement progressive change because what that looks like is not widely understood. The public often do not know whether their leaders are taking action based on evidence or not. They do not understand the science, the historical context or the hidden agendas. The media is generally committed only to reinforcing pre-conceptions among its viewers, listeners and readers. This destructive cycle fosters both ignorance and misunderstanding about science.

We cannot blame only the lobby groups and the private interests and the powerful states for the lack of real change. We must reflect on the failure of the scientific community to force the hand of politicians through watertight evidence, communicated not only at UN conferences but to the public in a way that they can understand. Some scientists are not asking the right questions, but many are and do not communicate effectively. Politicians more often than not bow to public pressure, and one way that we can stimulate transformation is through knowledge. Only under intense pressure will there ever be any ‘political will’ to change.

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. 

Change, or the Same Old Thing?

Sometimes it appears that nothing is changing. The rich and powerful continue to find new ways to subjugate, oppress, control and generally get what they want. The injustice that we observe all around us can be overwhelming, a feeling enhanced by a rapid dissemination of information that is unique to our time. War, disease and greed are timeless. So too, though, are kindness, compassion and love. 

We may wonder, therefore, whether the age that we live in is really any different and to what degree we should be genuinely concerned for the future of humanity. In my writing, I argue repeatedly that we must reject the social/economic/political status quo. This is a status quo that has generated great wealth and has overseen remarkable progress in science, the arts and every aspect of society. If we are to advocate for a departure from it, we have a responsibility both to diagnose the problem and suggest a treatment.

Given this context, there are 5 key reasons that I believe that today is indeed different to any other time in history. This is why I think that we must consider radical alternatives if we are to protect life, health and human rights in the future.

1. Society/culture - We are seeing a rise in nationalism and tribalism in politics. In more and more countries, society is driven by materialism, the quest for possessions. Externally, this manifests in displays of dominance and greed. Our education systems are producing robots rather than thinkers, lending their support to questionable societal and governmental objectives. A nuclear war is a distinct possibility, as the U.S. and allies further militarise and position themselves against Russia and China.

2. Environmental damage - We are in the middle of a mass extinction event, the so-called ‘Holocene extinction’. Last time this happened, the dinosaurs and most everything else died within 3 human lifetimes. We are losing species now at an alarming rate, and this is before we even consider the impact of ecological tipping-points due to climate change.

3. Consumption - Consider this; the global middle class is projected to grow to 3.2 billion by 2020 and 4.9 billion by 2030. Our planet is currently coming apart at the seams as it is and imagine the impact if most people consumed like the average middle-class Westerner, which appears to be the objective.

4. A Global Cabal of the Powerful - We rely on whistleblowers, hackers and activists to bring truth, while the mainstream media promotes and protects the status quo, collaborating and conspiring with the corporations, billionaires, politicians and other powerful individuals and collectives that profit from the established order of things.

5. Corporate Dominance - Since the industrial revolution, we have seen a continuous effort to privatise profit to generate wealth for a select few that hold power and influence. At the same time, any negative impact (social, environmental, economic) is shifted onto the public. Nothing is sacred, everything is subject to privatisation. Political lobbying and corruption has destroyed any pretence of governance in the interests of the people. National governments are run as corporate enterprises.

Today we face new challenges, or exacerbated conditions that demand immediate attention. We do not have time to wait and see what happens; we must act on the evidence that is before us. There are powerful forces that will oppose any radical ideas for change. They will divide us in any way possible. They will ridicule us as naive 'purists'. They will manufacture consent for their agenda.

We must organise for a fight.