The Hyogo Protocol as an Important Initiative - Case Study Example

To what extent Hyogo Agreement has remained successful in achieving its aim? When Hyogo Agreement was signed in Hyogo, Japan as the outcome to the World Conference on Disaster Reduction and presented a framework 2005-2015, it was thought that the then problems presented by the anguish of the Mother Nature would be resolved. Though challenges were already identified that were posed by the disasters like earthquake tsunami, Hurricane Katrina etc, Hyogo agreement after identifying the major challenges caused by natural disasters developed a Yokohama Strategy which listed out all the gaps between objectives and accomplishments. Thus the Hyogo Protocol served as a positive measure which not only highlighted the global need to imply risk reduction strategies into policy formulation and implementation but also took an initiative to alleviate natural disaster. It aimed at identifying all the possible measures in creating awareness, education, training, planning, program-building and management in order to achieve disaster mitigation but then as Alexander (2006) has commented that though the Hyogo Protocol is an important initiative, but it is entirely and critically dependent on levels of commitment and funding at the implementation stage (Alexander, 2006). Disaster Risk in context with Hyogo Framework In order to critically debate on the Hyogo Framework it is necessary to first understand the basic concept behind ‘disaster risk’. Disaster risk can be understood in terms of those factors that when combines determine the potential for people to be exposed to particular types of natural hazard. The Hyogo Framework has identified four key areas that affect ‘Disaster risk’ conditions. These four areas which are identified in the framework as ‘vulnerabilities’ are: physical, social, economic and environmental. In this case the framework is determined to develop such systems that would serve as ‘indicators’ of disaster risk at local and national level. As a result such action would impact disasters in context with the social and economic conditions and would be helpful in recording up to date statistical data on a regional and international level. In identification of gaps, policies are designed in five main areas of the Hyogo Protocol that means the framework identifies work to be done by adopting five basic strategies that it can mix and vary to create the desired organisational and social action in event of disaster. First, it would assist individuals and organisations to improve their capacity to achieve policy goals, that is, to protect lives and property within their own homes, workplaces, and communities. Second, it would identify risk assessment and would monitor early warning programs in such a manner that it would be able to allocate resources, tasks, and time to establish continuity in organisational structures and procedures across changing budget years, personnel assignments, and administrative regions. Third, it would spread knowledge management, awareness and education in context with the natural hazards disaster that would establish integrating patterns of communication to link individuals and organisations engaged in emergency activities to one another as well as to relevant clientele and resources in the environment. The other two strategies would be to reduce risk factors along with adequate preparation of recovery programs. These strategies, taken together, allow the conscious design of an organisational network that can mobilise the relevant resources, knowledge, and personnel to take appropriate and timely action under emergency conditions. Many critics believe that written and statistical records provide ample evidence of a long history of repeated natural hazard that has exacted a high price on the peoples and communities of the archipelago in terms of broken lives, personal loss and property damage over the centuries (Bankoff, 2002, p. 83). Feria-Miranda (1994) while giving an example of Philippine disaster quotes: “Natural Hazard management and the organisation of disaster relief and rehabilitation have always been the primarily business of government whose policy implementation has effectively turned ‘disasters into political exercises’” (Feria-Miranda, 1994, p. 249). Apart from what the critics have blamed Government, while analysing the Hyogo Framework closely, we see that the first step towards social and economic development practices is to provide food security in those areas which are subjected to affect by the disaster (ISDR, Hyogo Framework For Action, p. 13). The framework also aims at improving the physical infrastructure of the vulnerable. The question is how come the framework is so sure about providing equal access to the resources and opportunities they are providing that they have not emphasised upon equality except for some discussions about ‘gender’ equality. Let us examine the framework at some different angle. The Mother Nature presents unequal conditions for humankind. These include earning livelihoods in locations that combine opportunities with hazards. Example as given by Wisner et al (2003) draws our attention towards those flood plains that seem useless unless they are purchased by businesses and organisations, similarly the useless volcanoes slopes that seem useless are generally very fertile for agriculture, but are only accessible by a particular class (Wisner et al, 2003, p. 7). That clearly indicates that despite ensuring equal access to promote gender cultural equality, Hyogo Protocol is unable to visualise the real essence of the dilemma. The protocol is unable to realise that poor people can only afford to live in slum settlements in unsafe ravines and on low-lying land within and around the cities where they have to work. In other words, Protocol is not realising that the spatial variety of nature provides different types of environmental opportunity and hazard. The framework in this case does not guarantee to provide equal access of the resources and opportunities to the ‘socially destitute class’, which means the framework aims at providing cultural and social recovery to reduce future risks but to what extent is not defined. Similarly the framework talks about society in international context which indicates the framework is serious about providing aid even to the highly indebted and poor nations in “Resource Mobilization” (ISDR, Hyogo Framework For Action, p. 20), but the framework does not take into account an important point to consider, i.e., the level of exposure towards disaster risk hazards is not always equal. That is also dependable upon the level of vulnerability, the society is subjected to. A society is not characterised by the same class, therefore whether or not people have enough land to farm, or adequate access to water, or a decent home, are determined by social, economic and political factors. The framework has not mentioned those social processes according to which risk exposure would be determined, for example who is most at risk from hazards, what are the lifestyle of the people, what are their living conditions, are they able to afford hazard protection, preparedness, information, wealth and health have nothing to do with nature as such, but are attributes of society which differs according to ‘class’. Vulnerability in context with Hyogo Framework Vulnerability as defined in the framework is caused when the ‘conditions’ are determined by the above mentioned four factors. Here the word ‘conditions’ is best suited by ‘social’ that would be those situations that are affected by the social conditions or characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to react towards the impact of a natural hazard. Though the framework has discussed ‘vulnerability’ by highlighting their aims to recover the social needs of the poor, it still lacks to mention those factors that determine the extent to which a person’s life, livelihood and property is effected and put at risk by an identifiable event in nature and in society. In this scenario, there is inequality. Inequality subjected to those groups that are more prone to damage, those who have suffered more in the context of differing hazards as compared with the less sufferers. Therefore Hyogo Framework is unable to determine this ‘inequality’ which it must have been understood. Apart from the critics, the framework is a good effort in understanding variations of hazards which it only focuses upon ‘health’, ‘gender’, ‘disability’ and ‘age’ factor. The rest key variables that are significant variations of impact upon class are never mentioned in the Hyogo Framework. These include occupation, caste, ethnicity, and most importantly immigration status. Many frameworks have been initiated and developed up till now, all with lack of implementation uphold many slogans which aims to measure the nature and extent of social networks involving in disaster management. These actors should bear in mind that vulnerability cannot be measured alone without considering the damage which occurs to future livelihoods; it is not some incident that happens to life and property at the time of the hazardous events. Natural disasters are uncommon occurrences which are often considered unavoidable, while others, like industrial accidents, are probably avoidable at the price of costly precautions and uphold an economic impact. The framework talks about the economic development. History tells us that development actors that have always came forward towards helping the vulnerable tend to downplay vulnerability due to traditional emphasis on economic development. Such development actors should think about alleviating ‘poverty’ in context with various economic models, and not what they assume it to be about lack of income or opportunity, they should know that today’s public cannot be fooled by simply addressing the problem or avoiding acute human suffering. In the past we have seen that many times disasters have been acknowledged as indications but acknowledgement simply is not enough to heal the vulnerable. In the name of ‘developmental relief’, though humanitarians and development actors have addressed the interrelations between risk and broader development issues that discourage concerted and consistent efforts within bureaucracies that are oriented toward filling temporary service provision gaps (Pelling, 2003, p. 96), but such relief measures are not sufficient to fulfil the practical criteria. If we put the critics aside, it is clear that disaster managers or actors are under serious threat of becoming redundant. They are always confronted by newly developed challenges and their monopoly over disaster management is always been in a constant persistence among potential victims to role model their disaster behavior by unofficial traditional means (Krischenbaum, 2004, p. 135). What else could the Governmental bodies are supposed than to well informing and creating awareness to their public about all the relevant information and instructions about what to do? The main obstruction in delivering and receiving the disaster information and aid is the lack of understanding between development actors and public. The objectives of the disaster management organisations are not welcomed and perceived in the same way as they are supposed to understand by the potential disaster victims. It seems there is a gap or barrier between the two. The main reason for this existence is of course the past experiences and perceptions of risk. In the past, whenever disaster has strike, communities and their residents were thrown quite literally into another world (Comfort, 1988, p. 117). Normal, day-to-day social and economic functioning was disrupted and was ceased altogether in the most severe events. How can with such experiences does any framework expects that a community, would struck those harsh blows and would begin to put the pieces back together so soon? There has never been in public sector disaster management organisations that take rational decisions buttressed by administrative edict, making risk assessment a highly formalised and informed process. The gap has to be bridged between the vulnerable and the Government and it is only possible through effective implementation of the aims and objectives of the Hyogo Framework, so that public might be able to regain the lost confidence. The framework must be put to action immediately following the initial impact of the disaster so as to focus all the attention on responding to the emergency and keeping the public in a safer environment (Cheung, 2007). Valiant search-and-rescue efforts must be launched to locate and bring survivors to safety; emergency shelter, clothing, and food are dispensed. What public sees and rates the Government is the immediate response to the disaster in the form of recovery, which to the people is a process of healing for their communities and residents (Jasanoff, 1994, p. 34). The Governmental bodies must understand that though recovery is often conceptualised as a phase of activity distinct from response, it is the beginning after the emergency has receded; early coping behavior in fact initiates the recovery process while the community and its citizens are continuing response efforts. As steps to restore the vital functions and activities of the community begin to be undertaken, those pieces of the puzzle which once formed functioning systems are put and occasionally forced back into place. Thus, it is the recovery process that would make things work for both, the vulnerable and the Government. References/ Bibliography Alexander David, (2006) “Globalization of Disaster: Trends, Problems and Dilemmas” In: Journal of International Affairs. Volume: 59. Issue: 2: p. 1. Bankoff Greg, (2002) Cultures of Disaster: Society and Natural Hazards in the Philippines: Routledge: London. Cheung Kin-Wai Norman, (2007) “At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters” In: The Geographical Journal. Volume: 173. Issue: 2. Comfort K. Louise, (1988) Managing Disaster: Strategies and Policy Perspectives: Duke University Press: Durham, NC. Feria-Miranda, M. (1994) Role of NGOs, People’s Organizations and Volunteer Groups in Disaster Management. In Natural Disaster Mitigation in the Philippines. Proceedings of National Conference on Natural Disaster Mitigation 19-21 October 1994 ISDR, Hyogo Framework For Action 2005-2015 Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Accessed from . Jasanoff Sheila, (1994) Learning from Disaster: Risk Management after Bhopal: University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Krischenbaum Alan, (2004) Chaos Organization and Disaster Management: Marcel Dekker: London. Pelling Mark, (2003) Natural Disasters and Development: In a Globalizing World: Routledge: London. Wisner Ben, Blaikie Piers, Cannon Terry & Davis Ian, (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability, and Disasters: Routledge: London. Read More