Disasters as a footnote in the conversation on Climate Change

Climate Reality Project

Yesterday I wrote about how the Social Good Summit's theme of #2030NOW is an opportunity to inform the direction of the Post-2015 Agenda, or life after the Millennium Development Goals. With that understanding, I eagerly awaited today to hear about how the concept of climate change and disasters would be woven into some of the panels and presentations, and more importantly, how it would be cemented in the bedrock of the charter from which the global development community would derive its strategic direction for the next 15 years.

Al Gore kicked off the climate change portion of the day with an impassioned call to arms around climate action and introduced presentations like: We're already paying the cost of Carbon, Today's Solutions Tomorrow's Future, and Millennials Leading the Way. While very interesting, I was ultimately disappointed that disasters were only talked about as an outcome of unchecked carbon emissions rather than a topic within the broader conversation with it's own panel/presentation. 

I know that I shouldn't be surprised by this given that it was Al Gore leading the afternoon, but I feel that it was short-sighted. For the purposes of today's discussion at the Social Good Summit, Climate Change and the solutions proposed were economically based. Provide incentives to business to reduce carbon emissions by levying taxes or a financial tariff and bam! bottom-line thinking that gets at the root of the problem in a language business can understand. Talking in those terms however does not address the secondary and tertiary issues that arise from the fact that disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity, and ultimately affecting millions of people across the world annually. 

There was no talk of creating more resilient communities better prepared to deal with the cycle of drought, flooding, and famine in Africa, nor how vulnerable populations are addressing the challenges of flooding in cities like Manila. And there was certainly no talk of innovative technological solutions addressing the lack of coordination within OCHA's cluster system, nor how emergent groups are giving early recovery a facelift thanks to innovative social technologies. When looking at disasters through the lens of carbon emission, you're not talking about how to address the ongoing impacts of this augmented climate reality all of us are living in. Of course addressing the root of the problem is critical, but the conversation can and should be about so much more.

There was a bright spot however, Maggie Fox, CEO of the Climate Reality Project talked about climate change in the context of current events, i.e. the flooding in Colorado. She contextualized the issue by talking about how the impacts of this new climate reality are already unfolding in communities across the world and left the door open to continue to broaden the conversation as we move towards 2015. 

I realize that this summit is about expanding how we approach the unfinished business of the MDGs with new tech and fresh ideas, but I also thought it was about expanding upon what was built 13 years ago to encompass the new reality we face, the progress made, and the challenges we've encountered.

Indonesian President Yudhoyono...aka: STUD

Feeling down because no one wanted to talk about disasters, I turned to my friend the internet and looked for hope and found it in Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Hailed as the global champion for Disaster Risk Reduction, President Yudhoyono has mounted a crusade to ensure that the gains made in addressing the MDGs are not put in jeopardy due to the increasing risks natural disasters pose. The fact that there is an advocate championing this cause at some of the highest levels within the international development community, and one that represents a country with a deep appreciation for the impacts disasters can have on all aspects of community, gives me hope that the Post-2015 Agenda will have a broader approach to such an important issue.

Moving from managing Disasters, to managing Risks

The United Nation's Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has issued their 2013 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, a comprehensive report on...you guessed it, reducing disaster risk. Disaster Risk Reduction is essentially the International equivalent to community preparedness and resilience--working to integrate best practices and workable solutions into communities at risk.

If you've read more than a post or two you've seen the words "preparedness," "resilience," and 'community-based response" dot this blog and for good reason, these words are driving influences behind where and how Emergency Management dollars are allocated. However, transforming these words from rhetoric into action remains a challenge for local, state, and national agencies alike; and as we enter the eighth month of 2013, usually the most active month of hurricane season, 53 events have already been designated disasters by FEMA up from the yearly average of 19 during the 60's.

To be fair, the hard push towards whole of community disaster risk reduction is fairly new and will take time to yield tangible results; this newness coupled with the fact that it’s been non-stop disasters of some kind for as long as I can remember, and an argument for why more communities aren’t better prepared can be made. Then you read an article from Mother Jones where Superstorm Sandy is used as an example of how some of the damage from Sandy could have been avoided, and you begin to question whether that argument is valid. The article cites studies from early 01 and 09 that forecast exactly what happened in late Oct / early Nov of last year...in some cases studies that were commissioned by the city of New York but no action was taken as a result of the findings. 

We continue to hit on the points of: preparedness, resilience, and whole of community in an effort to help bolster preparedness and risk reduction at the local level, yet there seems to be a lack of any kind of political will to enact change. Who wants to spend money on levee re-construction when there hasn’t been a flood? Why shouldn’t we broaden our tax base and rezone riverfront land to build rental properties? Of course the Emergency Manager Position should be the fire or police chief, they have the expertise and the city doesn’t have to pay for another position. With cities going bankrupt, drastic times are calling for drastic measures, even if that means taking risks with lives and property.

It’s easy to say that it’s because programs lack proper funding that the recommendations of the studies conducted are not heeded, when in truth it ends up costing communities more in the long run to ignore them. There needs to be the will of those in power to make unpopular decisions and to do so in the name of preparing and protecting their community. As of July 3rd, Moore, Ok city's council had delayed their vote that would upgrade building codes to mandate that homes have construction techniques that make them more resistant to Tornadic winds, and earlier today, that same city council voted to approve the $32 Million dollar cleanup price tag that will be reimbursed by FEMA.

Maybe the federal government needs to re-evaluate the benchmarks used in determining what constitutes a federal declaration, maybe if communities knew that they’d be on their own unless it was a major event, stronger building codes would already be in place, and the time, energy, and attention needed would be paid to preparedness activities. If those draconian measures aren't politically palatable, then stipulating that in order to receive FEMA assistance, mitigation initiatives need to be a part of their recovery and rebuilding planning. This would send a message that the status quo is no longer acceptable when it comes to repair and rebuild following disasters and that by managing risks we can reduce their impacts.