Science and Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia: Potentials and Challenges

By Rajib Shaw

Science and Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia: Potentials and Challenges provides both a local and global perspective on how to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Topics demonstrate the advancement of scientific research as it applies to early warning systems, including identifying risk and the strengthening of infrastructure for different types of hazards. Through different major disasters, it has become evident that there must be a balance between hard and soft technology and physical, process and social solutions. This book demonstrates how this has been successfully implemented in Asia, and how these applications can apply on a global basis.

• Covers new research on the role of science in Disaster Risk Reduction and lessons learned when research has been applied
• Utilizes case studies to outline the broader lessons learned
• Focuses on the Sendai Framework, which was adopted in the Third UN World Conference in 2015

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Oct 13, 2017
• ISBN: 9780128127124

Book preview

decision-making.

Part I

Overview

Outline

1 Science and technology in disaster risk reduction in Asia

2 Priority actions for science and technology to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

1

Science and technology in disaster risk reduction in Asia

Post-Sendai developments

Rajib Shaw¹, Takako Izumi² and Koichi Shiwaku³,    ¹Keio University, Fujisawa, Japan,    ²Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan,    ³OYO International Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

Science and technology (S&T) is the root of informed decision-making in disaster risk reduction (DRR). Role of S&T has got enhanced attention in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and there has been prominent global and several regional initiatives to enhance multistakeholder partnership in implementing science-based decision-making. In Asia, an advisory group is formed, followed by benchmarking the status of S&T application, a regional conference and an endeavor to bring S&T in the national planning process to implement SFDRR. To continue this, multistakeholder partnership is required for science technology community needs to focus on the new role of S&T, apart from the technological innovation only. Thus success of S&T in implementing SFDRR depends on (1) a proactive role in collaboration with relevant government department and support science-based decision-making, (2) promoting innovation through field needs and priorities, and (3) codesigning solutions with different stakeholders.

Keywords

Vaccine effectiveness; infectious disease incidence; disease prevention; public health

1.1 Introduction

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030 shifts the focus from managing disasters to managing risks. Such a shift requires a better understanding of risk in all its dimensions of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability; a disaster risk governance that ensures disaster risk is factored into planning and development at all levels across all sectors as well as in disaster preparedness, rehabilitation, recovery, and reconstruction; and cost–benefit analysis to support prioritization of investments in disaster risk reduction (DRR) for long-term resilience.

The Sendai Framework emphasizes the role of science and technology (S&T). It calls to prioritize the development and dissemination of science-based risk knowledge, methodologies and tools, S&T work on DRR through existing networks and research institutions, and strengthened interface between science and policy to support all four priority areas: understanding disaster risk, disaster risk governance, investing in DRR for resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness for response and to Build Back Better. Following Sendai conference, a Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 has been agreed as the result of United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Science and Technology Conference in January 2016. The Roadmap includes expected outcomes, actions, and global deliverables under each of the four priorities of the Sendai Framework (UNISDR, 2016a).

Asia has been the world’s hotspot of economic development and development of S&T over recent decades. At the same time, the region continues to be highly exposed and vulnerable to disasters. Science- and technology-based DRR have been a priority in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia. At the sixth Asia Ministerial Conference on DRR (AMCDRR) in 2014, the Science Technology Academia Stakeholder Group made a series of commitments to promote a holistic, science-based approach toward community resilience, support the use of S&T advancements through increased earth observation, develop course curriculum and promote higher education in DRR; and promote community- and problem-based implementation research. The Asia Regional Plan for Implementation of SFDRR (UNISDR, 2016b) also emphasizes the proactive role of S&T in DRR. The draft regional roadmap emphasizes that by 2016, 20% of the countries would have the national mechanism to collect, analyze, and disseminate information on disaster losses and risk, with gender segregated data. It also targets that by 2018, 20% of the countries would have established national mechanisms to foster the dialogue and cooperation between government and experts from science technology for risk informed and innovative risk management. It is important to note that S&T can play an important role in public, private, and local partnership in achieving the targets of SFDRR.

This chapter provides an overview of development of S&T in DRR with specific focus on Asia in the post-Sendai context. The chapter describes process and contents of regional priorities of S&T, followed by benchmarking exercise and national planning process.

1.2 Prioritizing regional science technology needs in disaster risk reduction

In the post-Sendai context, there has been an upbeat in the regional and national initiatives to enhance the role of S&T in DRR in Asia. Several important events marked the gradual development of a structured regional program of S&T in DRR, which serves not only the needs for Asian countries, but also became a model for its possible replication in other disaster prone regions of the world. Therefore it is important to go through these early development stages in post-Sendai scenario.

1.2.1 Formation of Asia Science Technology Academia Advisory Group

In response to and recognizing the increasing importance of role of S&T in DRR, the UNISDR Asia-Pacific Office has formed the Asian Science Technology and Academia Advisory Group (ASTAAG) in May 2015. Academia, science, and technological communities have a responsibility to be an active partner for providing solutions to problems based on their research findings, to introduce new technology and innovations as well as to improve the dialogue and cooperation with other relevant stakeholders and policy-makers (ASTAAG, 2015). ASTAAG comprises selected disaster experts from Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand. The Group provides policy advisory services to governments and other stakeholders on appropriate technology and its application in decision-making. Advisory services include risk governance, community-based disaster risk management, urban risk management, earthquake risk mitigation, private sector involvement, public health, urban planning, climate change adaptation, disaster and environmental education, and disaster resistant building design. The group also provides advices on higher education curriculum development in DRR. The key focus areas are as follows:

1. Strengthen capacities of the Science, Technology, and Academic community in disaster science.

2. Support governments in science-based decision-making to implement SFDRR.

3. Enhance networking among academic community and other stakeholders.

Major suggested activities of the group includes:

1. Periodic assessment of status and S&T for DRR in the region.

2. Provide specific advices to national and local governments on science-based decision-making.

3. Assisting governments in reviewing the progress of the SFDRR implementation.

4. Recognition of networks of universities/center of excellences and engage them in sharing knowledge and experience.

Since the formation of the group, ASTAAG is supported by the UNISDR, and has a legitimacy to provide expert advice on S&T to the government, and work together with other partners and stakeholders such as civil society organizations, private sectors, and media. The success of the advisory group depends on the leadership it provides and the value addition it brings to the regional and national DRR contexts.

1.2.2 APRU Kyoto dialogue on S&T

After the formation of the ASTAAG, in order to discuss the role of S&T in the Sendai Framework, Kyoto University, and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU)—a network of 45 leading research universities in the Pacific Rim region organized an annual symposium in March 2016. This gathering brought together nearly 100 participants from academia/universities, governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector representatives, among others, to discuss the anticipated challenges and key issues to be faced during implementation of the Sendai Framework (Shaw et al., 2016a). The structure and discussion in the symposium were guided by the four priority areas of the Sendai Framework. The participants strongly agreed to commit to:

1. strengthen scientific community capacities through fostering young researchers and encouraging implementation of multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research;

2. continue support for the inclusion of S&T innovations in national policy and decision-making to achieve DRR;

3. foster greater collaboration with local institutions and local governments to increase science- and technology-based decision-making;

4. learn from the experiences of good practices in the region and to foster further collaboration with various stakeholders; and

5. contribute to organizing and supporting periodic S&T conferences on DRR at national and regional levels.

This conference was conceptualized to understand the perception of the academics and researchers with certain inputs from other stakeholders. Thus although there were academic presentations, which were divided into four priority areas, the key discussion focused on the expected roles of S&T community.

Table 1.1 summarizes the role in traditional and partnership process. The traditional role (termed here as internal) is considered to be within the S&T community, while the partnership role focused on a new emerging need to cooperate with other stakeholders, and thereby termed here as external roles. Many of the external roles need to be initiated by other stakeholders; however, support from the science technology community would enrich the process with more evidence and data. The key challenge is how to motivate the science technology and academia community to gradually shift from their traditional role to more partnership-based roles.

Table 1.1

Suggested internal and external roles of S&T community

APRU Kyoto dialogue has also discussed the S&T role in three specific focus areas: (1) promoting science-based decision-making, (2) enhancing investment in S&T, and (3) strengthening the link of S&T to people. These focus areas were later used by ASTAAG to develop benchmarks of science technology status in DRR in selected Asian countries. Following are some of the suggested priority actions in these three focus areas.

Priority actions: promoting science-based decision-making:

• Develop partnership, dialogue, and close communication with various stakeholders to bridge a gap between policy-makers and scientific community. Integrate local decision-making into national policy.

• Create opportunities to share data and research results with governments and policy-makers such as seminars and symposium.

• Enhance targeted information for decision-making on land use to strengthen urban resilience, legal framework for building code, early warning, and evacuation system.

• Make available disaster risk and impact data as well as scientists involvement for making evidence-based decision-making and policy.

• S&T-based training for the personnel to make them enable for science-based decision-making and action.

• Require accurate and dependable disaster damage and loss data for researchers as well as policy-makers in DRR and recovery.

• Establish research capacities in less developed countries for a better understanding of local/traditional building technologies.

• Regional entity to identify a few role models of S&T in decision-making and share them widely.

• Make open access disaster information at local and national levels before, during, and after disasters for research planning and action.

Priority actions: investment in S&T:

• Prove research results based on S&T which can be practical and useful to strengthen DRR capacity.

• Require further investment of human resource, budget, and technology from both government and private foundations before disasters.

• Share good practices with low cost and available technique.

• Ensure private sector and civil society engagements in DRR to innovate DRR measures and develop common terminology.

• Need participation and fostering of young researchers.

• Promote disaster risk assessment for awareness raising as the first step of DRR.

• Invest to research innovation for creating science-based data base for DRR.

• Regional entity/mechanisms to support capacities and link of scientific community to DRR-related ministries.

• Define elements of Build Back Better and conduct case studies on major disasters to prove Build Back Better works.

• Assist national and local governments in developing disaster damage and loss data.

Priority actions: linking science technology to people

• Actively organize events for public for awareness raising and learning opportunities especially on simplified technologies based on the latest S&T, risk identification, post needs assessment, low cost science.

• Promote community participation in all the disaster management phases (i.e., community-based early warning).

• Regular and routine communication between scientist, community-based organizations, local NGOs, and the community to interpret S&T.

• Capitalized on existing education systems to make student as an agent of change.

• Apply indigenous knowledge (both structural and nonstructural forms) with proper scientific validation and evolve the role cultural heritage for DRR and response.

• Conduct capacity development of engineers and scientist for the local context.

• Develop mechanism for funding research which is linked with the local development in DRR governance context.

• Promote utilization of SMS in case of emergency and for risk communication such as Facebook and Twitter.

• Local and national universities to develop a systematic linkage among local media, government, and communities.

1.2.3 Regional science technology conference

The First Asian Science and Technology Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction was organized in August 2016, by the Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (HAII) of the Royal Thai Government Ministry of Science and Technology and UNISDR, in collaboration with UNISDR’s ASTAAG, Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR), Future Earth and other scientific organizations and networks. The Conference brought together more than 300 senior policy-makers, practitioners, researchers and academics, civil society, and the private sector in the realm of DRR from across Asia, and more widely, to discuss how to strengthen science-based DRR policy development in support of the implementation of the Sendai Framework in Asia (ASTCDRR, 2016). The following recommended actions align with and contribute to the global Science and Technology Roadmap. The uniqueness of the conference lies in the fact that:

• This is the first of its type which is organized by a government and focusing entirely on S&T for DRR.

• The participants come from all different stakeholders including science technology, government, UN agencies, private sectors, civil society and media.

• The conference identified 12 specific actions under the 4 SFDRR priority areas, which became the official voice of science technology stakeholder group, and these priorities became part of the interministerial process of DRR in Asia. Thus, this conference and the abovementioned APRU Kyoto dialogue are considered as the key corner stones of S&T regional initiatives for DRR in Asia. Following are the 12 priority actions identified in the conference.

Priority 1—Understanding disaster risk

1. Enhance disaster loss and damage accounting, national and local disaster risk assessment and communication of disaster risk, with a specific focus on urban risks. This should be done through data standardization; appropriate and robust methodologies and tools; building the capacities of both the scientific community for dynamic research and innovation to cope with fast-changing context of hazards and vulnerabilities, and DRR practitioners to apply such methods; and promoting the role of mass media, civil society, and people working with communities to translate scientific information into understandable and accessible risk information. A multihazard, multiscale, multistakeholder, and multifacet approach and participatory process should be a standard.

2. Use space and disaster risk mapping technologies and strengthen the capacity for using these technologies for improved understanding of disaster risks at global, national, and local levels.

3. Strengthen regional exchange on disaster risk information and science in order to better understand complex disaster risks including risks of transboundary, cascading, and compound disasters.

Priority 2—Disaster risk governance

4. Strengthen science-policy-practice nexus at all levels (national, local, transboundary, and regional) through increased dialogue and networking among scientists, policy-makers and practitioners; better evidence to inform decision-making and proactive involvement of the S&T community in regional, national, and local platforms for DRR. Support these platforms to be multistakeholder partnerships, particularly including the private sector, civil society, media, and communities at-risk to deliver science-based solutions and technological user-friendly tools and methods to reduce disaster risk and strengthen resilience.

5. Develop interdisciplinary national S&T plans to support implementation of the Sendai Framework. This includes actions by academia/universities to develop their own disaster risk management plans.

6. Enhance collaboration between local governments, academia, and other partners to promote local communities’ knowledge and traditions and to sustain and replicate many good practices that exist locally for science-based decision-making.

Priority 3—Invest in DRR for resilience

7. Make DRR an area of focus within education including networking between universities. Jointly develop research and higher education programs that contribute to the building of resilient communities and societies. Promote knowledge broker education and training programs to help close the gap between disaster risk science and people including through community networks such as faith-based organizations.

8. Ensure risk-sensitive investments. Enhance the role of the S&T community in building public private partnerships for the purpose of reducing vulnerabilities of communities and ecosystems-at-risk, preventing risks and building resilience of critical infrastructure, essential services as well as emerging industries.

9. Develop young professionals in the field of multidisciplinary DRR. In particular, more women and girls should be engaged in DRR research and a gender marker should be a key element of many aspects of such enquiry.

Priority 4—Enhance disaster preparedness for effective response and to Build Back Better

10. Promote the role of interdisciplinary S&T in effective predisaster planning, preparedness, response, rehabilitation, recovery, and reconstruction to Build Back Better. Promote the combination of traditional knowledge and modern science. Enhance regional cooperation, particularly for preparedness, response, and Build Back Better in transboundary disasters.

11. Develop an efficient and effective cooperation among the science community and business sector by utilizing the advancements of the fast-developing information and communication technology including big data.

12. Research into innovative solutions to promote the whole-of-society engagement; innovative financial mechanisms to maximize social capital for DRR (such as a disaster resilience fund to provide urgently needed resources to disaster affected communities for quick recovery), and to help the business sector shift toward sustainable and resilient development pathway.

1.3 Benchmarking S&T status

In continuation of the abovementioned regional efforts to promote and advocate for enhanced role of S&T in DRR, ASTAAG made an attempt to benchmark the status of S&T in 11 countries. The details of the methodology and results can be found in Shaw et al. (2016a, b). A qualitative indicator was developed based on the abovementioned three focus areas: (1) promoting science-based decision-making, (2) enhancing investment in S&T, and (3) strengthening the link of S&T to people. In total, 21 indicators (attributes, as they are referred in Shaw et al., 2016a) provide a comprehensive country status of application of S&T in DRR. A numerical calculation provided in Shaw et al. (2016b) suggests that China has the highest rank with a cumulative science technology attribution score, followed by Japan and Indonesia (Table 1.2). The analysis points out some interesting facts as follows:

1. Overall scores show that there needs to be additional focus on linking S&T to people in all the countries.

2. While China tops the countries on science into decision-making and science investment, Indonesia tops the county list with link to S&T to people.

3. Science-based early warning system has the highest score, and scientific validation of indigenous knowledge gets the least score among all the 21 indicators for all the countries.

4. Nine out of 21 indicators have scored below the average of cumulative attribution score. Out of these nine, five indicators are in the category science technology link to people.

Table 1.2

Attribution of S&T to DRR

Source: Shaw et al. (2016b).

Although there are signified scopes of improvement in this benchmark exercise, there is an emerging consensus that this method/updated method be used in different countries through appropriate government counterparts, so that there can be a yardstick of measurement of the progress of S&T in DRR. There is also a parallel argument that this methodology is merged with the newly developed and agreed SFDRR indicators (UN, 2016) and to see how science technology can help in implementing SFDRR. Whatever be the future development of benchmarking science technology status in DRR, a certain periodic measurement would help the countries to set specific targets and implement certain relevant actions.

1.4 Bringing science technology into national-level planning

As a follow-up of the benchmarking exercise, IRDR, along with International Council of Sciences (ICSU) worked in 11 countries and 1 region (Pacific) to help in developing the science technology plan. This was done through a series of consultation, and the details are provided in Shaw et al. (2017). Different consultation processes were followed in different countries, especially consulting with the national disaster management organization (NDMO) and/or related ministries. Two regional workshops were organized, and draft plans were proposed and discussed. While developing national science technology plan was very much country specific, a few common principles were followed (Shaw et al., 2017):

• Multistakeholder partnership: Please be reminded that Science Technology Plan is NOT a Scientist’s plan. It needs multistakeholder collaboration, including science community, government, civil society, private sector, media, etc.

• Focused approach: The plan does not need to include the hazard, vulnerability of the country, which is already part of the national DRR plan. More emphasis is required to focus on the four priority areas of SFDRR, and looking through a science lens.

• Inclusive approach: The plan development should have a balanced mix of different professions, stakeholders, age, and gender. Link to different professional societies and science academy is important.

• Cultural calibration: Science and its influences on society and governance are different in different countries. Thus there is not a single one-fit-all model for all countries. Science technology plan needs to keep in mind the local cultural issues of the countries, and customize accordingly.

• Dynamic evolution: DRR is an evolving subject. The science landscape is changing rapidly over time. The plan needs to cope with the dynamic evolution of the subject as well as science landscape.

• Youth voices: The whole subject of DRR is very much related to its future disciplinary evolution. Higher education plays an important role here. It is very important to involve young scientists, professionals, and practitioners in the process to make it futuristic oriented.

The key point of this exercise is that it is not a Scientist’s plan, rather a multistakeholder plan. The ownership belongs to the country governments, especially with the NDMOs and related ministry/science technology department so that specific action points can be implemented.

1.5 About the book

With the abovementioned context, this book presents specific cases of role of S&T in four priority areas of SFDRR. The book has a total of 26 chapters under 5 parts. The first part is an overview, which has two chapters, this one and another chapter on priority actions. This chapter focuses on professional and organizational perceptions and priorities of different actions, which need to be implemented under SFDRR four priorities.

Second part is SFDRR priority 1: Understanding risk. It has six chapters. There is one overview chapter, followed by three chapters on Bangladesh, one chapter on Hong Kong and another one on Taiwan. The third part of the book is SFDRR priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. It has five chapters. First one is an overview chapter of the Asia-Pacific region, followed by one chapter on Vietnam, two on India, and one on Nepal. The fourth part is SFDRR priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. In total, there are five chapters in the part. The first one is an overview, followed by one each from Taiwan, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh. The last part focused on SFDRR priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. It has eight chapters. The first one is an overview, followed by one generic chapter and one each of Japan, Myanmar, India, Philippines, and two from Bangladesh.

1.6 Looking forward

In post-Sendai scenario, science technology role in DRR has drawn significant attention of different stakeholders. The role of S&T needs to change from traditional academic and scientist only mindset to multistakeholder partnership-oriented approach. While it is required to continue the interest-driven research, which generates innovation, it is also important to develop demand-driven research, which serves the community’s needs and priorities. Merging of natural science with social science is a key for future demand-driven implementation and action research. Innovation is one of the keywords, which needs to be reflected in future role of S&T. However the definition of innovation and related mindset needs to be changed. While, it is important to focus on technical innovation, social innovation is also equally relevant, and needs urgent focus. This would help in bridging the gap of science technology link to people, which got lowest score in the country analysis. Scientist cannot fill the gap if they work in isolation, it needs to be participatory, and their solutions need to be codesigned with the scientists and other stakeholders.

Acknowledgments

This research was part of the APRU Kyoto University conference (mentioned here as APRU Kyoto Dialogue) in 2016. Financial supports came from Kyoto University headquarter and a collaborative research project with CWS Asia Pacific. This is highly acknowledged.

References

1. ASTAAG, 2015. Asia Science Technology Academia Stakeholder Group, Policy Note and terms of reference, UN ISDR, Bangkok.

2. ASTCDRR, 2016. Asia Science Technology Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction declaration, UN ISDR, Bangkok.

3. Shaw R, Izumi T, Shi P. Perspectives of science and technology in disaster risk reduction of Asia. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2016a;7:329–342.

4. Shaw R, Izumi T, Shi P, Lu L, Yang S, Ye Q. Asia Science Technology Status for Disaster Risk Reduction Beijing, China: IRDR, Future Earth, and ASTAAG; 2016b.

5. Shaw, R., Lu, L., Lian F. 2017. Science Technology Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction: Asian and Pacific Perspectives, ICSU and IRDR, Beijing, China, p. 60.

6. UN, 2016. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction, A 71/644, 71st Session Agenda item 19c, UN General assembly, NY, USA.

7. UNISDR. The Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 Geneva: UNISDR; 2016a.

8. UNISDR, 2016b. Asia Regional Plan for Implementation of the SFDRR 2015-2030, UN ISDR Bangkok.

2

Priority actions for science and technology to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Fang Lian¹, Lucy Lu¹ and Rajib Shaw²,    ¹Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, Beijing, China,    ²Keio University, Fujisawa, Japan

Abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) recognizes the importance of science and technology as well as contributes to the UNISDR Science and Technology Roadmap. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk served two surveys to analyze the top priority actions of science and technology to accomplish the Roadmap among a wide range of stakeholders. The surveys report that considerable progress should be prioritized in strengthening capacity building of young scientists who are crucial contributors to multidisciplinary research in the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR). Meanwhile, DRR’s higher education knowledge platforms and networks take precedence to implement all SFDRR priorities. Enhancing government engagement and legal resources is essential to promote science–policy interface and fulfill the goals of SFDRR, particularly for nations to establish state targets and local indicators. The rest of the actions are taken into account in the medium- (next 5 years) and long-term