Together We Stand

[ 155 ] Empowerment of communities towards disaster resilience through disaster risk management for sustainable development Omar Osman, Kamarulazizi Ibrahim, Kanayathu Chacko Koshy, Ahmad Firdaus Ahmad Shabudin, and Sharifah Nurlaili Farhana Syed Azhar, Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia T he series of catastrophes witnessed in recent times provides a strong reminder that the disaster risks associated with hazards such as tropical cyclones, floods, earthquakes, droughts and tsunamis constitute a major challenge to sustainable development (SD). 1 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved without managing disaster risk effectively. 2 Disasters generally continue to be conceptual- ized as external shocks to normally functioning economies, rather than as manifestations of underlying risk drivers inherent to development practices which generate and accumulate disaster risks. Unless the drivers of challenges such as loss of biodiversity and poverty are addressed, societal loss and damage will dramatically increase, threatening many of the hard-won socioeconomic gains. Notably, climate change is projected to increase in frequency, intensity and the cost of disasters in terms of lives lost and damage to social, economic and environmen- tal assets. Disaster damage goes far beyond the physical destruction normally seen; what isn’t so clear is the value provided by the damaged infrastructure and lost services. A progressively risk-reducing approach can enable societies to manage disasters and promote sustainability. In most developing countries, conventional disaster management is limited to event-based reactions, while proac- tive disaster management calls for stronger process-based measures. Therefore we need a new and innovative risk reduc- tion model and action based on it. Going a step further, we need to integrate disaster risk management (DRM) with SD. The Centre for Global Sustainable Studies (CGSS), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) developed such a concept model in 2013 which, when applied fully, will address disaster management, disaster risk reduction, resilience-building and promotion of sustainable development in an integrated way. This model is called disaster risk management for sustainable development (DRM-SD). This risk-reduced approach to development that involves mitigation of drivers and adaptation to impacts is what we call ‘development with a difference’. 3 This model requires that we always take anticipatory action, in the absence of which the disaster risks will become harsher with increases in population, chang- ing climate and accelerating environmental degradation. Poverty, loss of biodiversity, poor governance and even the vagaries of climate change may be treated in this way, as all of these SD challenges pass through a risk level which, if not addressed well, comes back to haunt us as disasters. The DRM-SD model The DRM-SD model 4 represents a cyclic and iterative process where ‘risk reduction’ and ‘resilience enhancement’ are given equal importance. These are the pre- and post-disaster activi- ties (shown as radii of the right and left hemispheres of the diagram). It is assumed that the radius of the right hemisphere represents the full risk and that on the left, the full disas- ter. The key to the successful implementation of the model is the ability to progressively reduce risk through mitigation (R1), adaptation (R2) and readiness (R3) measures carried out ‘before the event’ under prevention and preparedness. The residual risk is shown by R4 which, when realized as disaster (D1), is presumably small and manageable. The post-disas- ter activities of relief (D2), restoration (D3) and sustainable development (D4) will enhance resilience (reduced disaster) under the response and recovery phases. The governance segment is the ever-present enabling envi- ronment required for the other four components to operate efficiently. The checklist items shown outside the circle in pockets are examples of activities that form part of DRM-SD. This model requires that we move from an ‘event-based’ to an SD-compatible ‘process-based’ approach for improved results. In this approach, the overall risk (in the absence of any risk reduction measures) will be progressively reduced to a level where any resulting disaster from the residual risk will be considered manageable. This becomes more evident if we imagine a horizontal slicing of the DRM-SD cycle which will leave both ‘preparedness’ and ‘response’ close to the event and ‘recovery’ and ‘prevention’ away from the event. While hastily put-together preparedness and response surrounding the disas- ter event may be likened to reactive sustainability measures, a more proactive response aligned to the sustainability vision will be the recovery and prevention farther away from the event. We believe that if these principles and new approach are adopted and practised over the long term, a sustainable pathway can be found for all nations. As disasters are seen as realized risk, this approach requires pre-emptive action through sustainability-compatible interventions. T ogether W e S tand