This week, from 18-19 May 2023, the High-Level Meeting of the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework will be held in New York, organised by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is an agreement that all of our countries have signed up to in order to substantially reduce global disaster risks and losses.
Overview of Sendai goals (source: UNDRR)
Also this week, a severe tropical cyclone, ‘Mocha’, hit the border region of Myanmar and Bangladesh, an area of particular vulnerability due to massive refugee camps and low-lying land. Early reports of the death toll suggested that the impact had been much less than feared (in part due to the several days warning given by both the Myanmar and Bangladesh meteorological agencies and the mobilised response), but hundreds of thousands have people have still been left homeless.
And also this week, disaster preparedness and response has been a major issue in a Presidential election in Turkey, the Australian Government has announced a major restructure of national flood monitoring and warning arrangements, and a year 11 student died in a caving tragedy in New Zealand that occurred while the area was under a rain warning.
It’s fair to say that disasters, large and small, are never far away from the headlines in any part of the world. Consequently, the discussions in New York this week, and the wider work of disaster risk reduction, matter greatly.
So, where are we at, half-way through Sendai? Earlier this year, the UNDRR released the Report of the Midterm Review of Sendai. And, while it has lots of good news to report, it’s a far from rosy report, as highlighted in the Foreword:
“However, at the midpoint of the implementation of the 2015 agreements, progress has stalled and, in some cases, reversed. This has resulted not only from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also from short- versus long-termism, weakened multilateralism, disconnects between the real and the financial economies, rising inequality, and barriers between risk science, perception and risk-informed decision-making. Risks are being created and accumulating faster than our ability to anticipate, manage and reduce them, and when those risks are realized as shocks or disasters, they bring increasingly dire consequences for people, livelihoods, society and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
The report discusses the mixed progress against the goals of the Framework, the challenges encountered (including the grim lessons from COVID), and then lays out some strategic perspectives and recommendations, sprinkled with more less than cheerful phrases:
“The complexity of global catastrophic risk is overwhelming conventional governance systems, which were designed to address incremental environmental and social changes, rather than non-linear processes and complex interactions between drivers of risk and the irreversible impacts of breaching planetary boundaries.”
“With growing uncertainties and increasingly complex risks, amplified by increasing disaster impacts and losses, belief in our collective ability to achieve the 2030 Agenda appears to be waning.”
At the meeting this week, delegates will consider a draft political declaration coordinated by co-facilitators (from Australia and Indonesia). Fully charged and armed with the groundwork behind the review, the draft doesn’t pull any punches:
“We express deep concern at the increasing frequency and intensity, as well as the number and scale of disasters and their devastating impacts, which have resulted in massive loss of life, food insecurity and famine, biodiversity loss, water-related challenges, increased displacement, humanitarian and development needs and longterm negative economic, social and environmental consequences, especially for those in vulnerable situations throughout the world, and which are undermining progress towards sustainable development, the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the achievement of its Sustainable Development Goals, in particular for the least developed countries, small island developing States, landlocked developing countries and African countries, as well as middle-income countries facing specific challenges.”
The draft declaration renews and updates calls for action on the four Sendai priorities: 1) Understanding disaster risk, 2) Strengthening disaster risk governance, 3) Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, and 4) Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. In support of that last priority, the declaration also highlights the UN Early Warnings For All initiative and calls for universal coverage of multi-hazard early warning systems.
Live streams of the meeting sessions on Wednesday 17- Friday 19 May (New York time) are available here. Country reports, regional reports, UN reports, thematic studies, and other contributions are also available as part of the meeting documents.
It’s easy to see UN processes as remote, inaccessible, and ineffective. But the vital work of the world’s disaster risk reduction community affects us all, and includes us all – nothing globally agreed can occur without local hands making it work. The first step to making progress on global disaster risk reduction is to make sure we’re all on board. Accessing Sendai processes is as easy as clicking a link and then considering how to help make it happen.
This week, a landmark global conference was held for natural hazard management. The four-day World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Data Conference attracted over 1800 registrations and was held in a fully online format, with participants from all over the world despite a schedule that strongly favoured European and African time zones.
Data and the miracle of meteorology
So why was a conference on such a dry subject as ‘data’ so important for natural hazards management, and why are WMO the critical drivers? It comes back to the miracles of science and diplomacy that drive weather services. Modern meteorology, including related fields such as oceanography and hydrology, rests on three pillars:
The near-simultaneous and free exchange of observational data around the world
Our scientific ability to analyse that data, understand the current situation, and predict what will happen next
The supercomputing advances that enable us to do that work in real time and share the results with each other.
It’s difficult to understate the magnitude of what has been achieved using this approach. In meteorology, we can now make forecasts of what will happen at a location more than a week in advance, making more probabilistic forecasts of how months and seasons will turn out, and making long-range climate predictions based on observations, physics and computing. The skill of these forecasts keeps improving, just as science and computing keep improving, and that directly results in longer-range and more accurate predictions of weather-related hazards for communities, meaning more lives are saved and less property is lost to disaster. In the field of recent human achievements, this comes into the ‘outstanding’ category.
But all of this rests on data, and useful collection and exchange of data does not just happen – like any good, productive and beautiful garden, it needs constant care and attention. WMO and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization, have coordinated and regulated the international exchange of observations and other meteorological data for the last 150 years.
Graphic shown by the ECMWF of the current state of surface pressure observations around the world. Pink and green show normal or above expected observations receipt, red and black are coverage gaps. As noted on the graphic, some areas have been stagnant or have reduced their coverage since 1995, whilst the resolution of the models that use these data have increased by factors of 1000- 10000.
The need for change
Let’s go a bit corporate. WMO has a strategic vision, to:
“By 2030… ..see a world where all nations, especially the most vulnerable, are more resilient to the socioeconomic consequences of extreme weather, climate, water and other environmental events; and underpin their sustainable development through the best possible services, whether over land, at sea or in the air”.
This is supported by the WMO Strategic Plan, which includes objectives such as:
Objective 1.1 Strengthen national multihazard early warning/alert systems and extend reach to better enable effective response to the associated risks.
Objective 2.2 Improve and increase access to, exchange and management of current and past Earth system observation data and derived products through the WMO Information System (WIS). The useful shelf life for observations accessed through the WIS is unlimited. Atmospheric composition, climate, hydrological and oceanographic observations from all times will need to be continuously available and accessible for research, climate monitoring, re-analysis and other applications.
Objective 2.3 Enable access and use of numerical analysis and Earth system prediction products at all temporal and spatial scales from the WMO seamless Global Data Processing and Forecasting System (GDPFS). Major weather patterns are routinely predicted more than a week ahead, tropical cyclone landfalls are predicted accurately several days ahead, and even small-scale severe weather with high local impact is often forecasted with enough lead-time to mitigate its impact. WMO will further promote the development of Earth system Prediction, facilitate the use of cascading seamless system of numerical models operated by centres around the world and coordinated through WMO to enhance national forecasting capabilities of all Members.
You can’t do this without a modern approach to data, and the data landscape has been evolving rapidly along with the details of the mission. As noted on the conference website:
‘Since the establishment of WMO in 1950, the activities of the organization have expanded into areas such as atmospheric composition, hydrology and space weather, leading to a holistic approach to Earth system modelling and prediction being adopted as a strategic priority of the organization. In parallel, the explosive growth in demand for weather, climate and other environmental data from all sectors of society has led to a dramatic increase in the involvement of entities outside the traditional group of WMO National Hydrological and Meteorological Services in monitoring and prediction efforts.’
New functions, many public and private organizations involved, lots of data – in some ways this sounds like a nightmare to manage, but an alternative way to think about is that it’s an intoxicating mix, because there is so much that can be achieved.
Cold war cooperation
The early highlight of the conference was undoubtedly the keynote speech by Australian Professor John Zillman, a former President of WMO and former long-serving Director of the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia. Professor Zillman outlined the incredible achievements discussed above, taking us back to the 1800s for the pre-history, and reminding us of an extraordinary Cold War event:
‘All of the accumulated experience and wisdom of the founding fathers of WMO and the successful implementation of the IGY was built into the September 1961 proposal from US President Kennedy to the United Nations that meteorology should lead the way in international global cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space; in the responding General Assembly Resolution of December 1961 (Zillman, 2013); and especially in a remarkable March 1962 exchange of letters (Edwards, 2010) between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Krushchev through which the US and USSR agreed to joint establishment of an operational weather satellite observation system to support the provision of meteorological services for all nations:
• Kennedy to Krushchev (7 March 1962) Perhaps we could render no greater service to mankind through our space programs than by the joint establishment of an early operational weather satellite system. Such a system would be designed to provide global weather data for prompt use by any nation. To initiate this service, I propose that the United States and the Soviet Union each launch a satellite to photograph cloud cover and provide other agreed meteorological services for all nations. 4
• Krushchev to Kennedy (21 March 1962) It is difficult to overstate the benefit which could be brought to mankind by organising a world weather observation service with the aid of artificial earth satellites. Precise and timely weather forecasts will be another important step along the way to mans’ conquering of nature, will help him still more successfully cope with natural calamities and open up new prospects for improving the well-being of mankind. Let us cooperate in this field, too.’
Professor Zillman also noted the great leap of faith in WMO adopting the current policy on free exchange of data, known as Resolution 40, in 1995. The resolution was build on a fragile consensus rooted in the ‘deep-seated belief in the goodness of international cooperation in meteorology than of any particular line of legal or economic argument’, and ‘few of those who rose in standing ovation at its adoption knew how we were going to make it work.’
Cooperation for the greater good does not naturally happen. It requires risks, demands faith in the better parts of human nature, and takes a great deal of work. For anybody concerned at the current state of the world, take comfort – if Krushchev and Kennedy could find that common ground, we can be inspired to find our own ways to make a difference.
The work ahead
Over the rest of the conference, we did indeed get to hear of the amount of work being done by the international community, including government, non-government, and volunteer work, and including the results of preparatory workshops to the conference. Many presentations and posters showed us the societal value and impact created by sharing observations, and many showed us the challenges still to be faced. Despite the progress made, particularly in satellite observations, there are still enormous gaps in our current observations networks. Bold proposals have been forward to address this ongoing issue, such as the WMO Systematic Observations Financing Facility. A new WMO Resolution, provisionally known as Resolution 42, is being drafted to update Resolution 40 and companion resolutions.
The planned Systematic Observations Financing Facility, a critical initiative to sustainably close data gaps in observations (source: WMO).
The Conference outcome material captures the key moments of the conference. For the perspective of anybody involved in natural hazards, this work is important. For those outside the meteorological and hydrological domains, it may all seem less immediate because of WMO’s traditional focus on weather, climate and water and the dry nature of navigating through UN processes. However the principles and challenges discussed this week apply across the board, and one of those future challenges is to have us all sharing data seamlessly across disciplines, in support of truly integrated Multi Hazard Early Warning Systems. That means that seismologists, volcanologists, fire specialists and others will eventually benefit from all of this hard work. And it will be hard – we all know that there are no simple fixes when it comes to the sustainable operation of reliable observation networks across the world.
The value of meteorological and hydrological services is generally estimated at around the 10:1 mark (ie for every $1 invested there is around $10 of societal benefit). Achieving that number, or, preferably much more than that number, requires discipline, including investment in observations that are useful, sustainable and shared. The greater the discipline, the better the outcomes and the more attractive the investment when compared to other priorities. What’s at stake here is a new global best practice for making and sharing observations that make a difference, with an extraordinarily high net societal benefit. It’s worth the effort of getting that right.
Thick smoke blankets SE Australia from multiple fires on 4 January 2020. Image: NASA Aqua/MODIS
A major report into Natural Disasters landed last week in Australia. Just how major may not become apparent for some time, whilst its 80 recommendations and plethora of observations are digested, but deep into its 594-pages there’s a strong clue. There have more than 240 previous inquiries related to natural disasters in Australia, but this one is the only Royal Commission to be convened into Australia’s natural disaster arrangements at a national level. The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements will set the agenda within Australia for many years to come, and will be of great interest in many countries where parallel challenges are being faced to those that Australia was grappling with during the 2019/2020 Southern Hemisphere summer.
For those not familiar with Royal Commissions: they are the highest level of ad-hoc formal public inquiry that can be held in Australia and some other monarchies. They carry great expectations, have strong powers, and are not called for trivial reasons. Royal Commissions have ranged over topics such as financial mismanagement, civil rights abuses, nuclear testing, and taxation arrangements, and usually arise following strong public concern.
That the 2019/2020 summer was of significance in Australia was never in doubt. The word of the summer, before COVID started to trouble the world, was ‘unprecedented’. The hottest and driest year on record in Australia created horrific bushfire conditions, with fire seasons starting far earlier than usual, over 24 million hectares burnt, 33 deaths, over 3000 homes destroyed, and nearly three billion animals killed or displaced. Smoke blanketed parts of Australia for week after week, likely contributing to hundreds more deaths and thousands of hospital admissions. The fires attracted international attention and triggered a flood of gratefully received donations. Many countries rendered assistance, for which Australia was also grateful. The emergency services sector and public responded magnificently, but communities everywhere were stretched to breaking point.
Smoke over Sydney Harbour, 29 December 2019 (Nick-D, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=85718721)
What did it cover?
Wisely, the Australian Government decided that now, of all times, the country needed to look at the big picture. The terms of reference included:
the responsibilities of, and coordination between, Australian, state, territory and local governments relating to natural disasters
Australia’s arrangements for improving resilience and adapting to changing climatic conditions
what actions should be taken to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters, and
whether changes are needed to Australia’s legal framework for the involvement of the Commonwealth in responding to national emergencies.
(text in italics is directly quoted from the report)
By considering the mechanics of natural hazard management in Australia through the lens of such of a vivid disaster, the Commission was given not just immediacy (responding to societal needs to talk through what happened), but the chance of making an impact.
And make an impact they will. The recommendations are wide-ranging, covering:
National coordination arrangements (6 recommendations)
Supporting better decisions (7 recommendations)
A new power for the Australian Government to declare a national emergency (1 recommendation)
Improvements to the national emergency response capability (6 recommendations)
The role of the Australian Defence Force (3 recommendations)
National aerial firefighting capabilities and arrangements (3 recommendations)
Essential services (5 recommendations)
Community education (1 recommendation)
Emergency planning (2 recommendations)
Evacuation planning and shelters (7 recommendations)
Emergency information and warnings (6 recommendations)
Air quality (2 recommendations)
Health (4 recommendations)
Wildlife and heritage (1 recommendation)
Public and private land management (3 recommendations)
Indigenous land and fire management (2 recommendations)
Land-use planning and building regulation (4 recommendations)
Insurance (1 recommendation)
Coordinating relief and recovery (5 recommendations)
Delivery of recovery services and financial assistance (8 recommendations)
Assurance and accountability (3 recommendations)
It’s quite a list. Inevitably, it will have missed some important issues, but there is more than enough here to be getting on with.
So what are the juicy bits?
Here’s the thing. When a large, wide-ranging report like this hits the streets, everybody’s going to focus on the bits that matter most to them. It’s very unlikely that anybody else’s summary will convey everything that we ourselves really need to know, so anybody with a real interest should just take a deep breath, set some hours aside, and dive in. There probably won’t be another report like this to read for several decades, so this is worth our time. The Commission’s own overview of the text runs for 116 paragraphs, and that should be the absolute minimum.
That said, here are just a few things to mention…..
Climate…. of course
Much public attention during the summer and its aftermath was focused on climate issues, so the Commission’s commentary on that, based on expert input, was always going to attract interest even when stating the obvious:
Extreme weather has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change; further global warming over the next 20 to 30 years is inevitable. Globally, temperatures will continue to rise, and Australia will have more hot days and fewer cool days. Sea levels are also projected to continue to rise. Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in number, but increase in intensity. Floods and bushfires are expected to become more frequent and more intense. Catastrophic fire conditions may render traditional bushfire prediction models and firefighting techniques less effective.
Natural disasters are expected to become more complex, more unpredictable, and more difficult to manage. We are likely to see more compounding disasters on a national scale with far-reaching consequences. Compounding disasters may be caused by multiple disasters happening simultaneously, or one after another. Some may involve multiple hazards – fires, floods and storms. Some have cascading effects – threatening not only lives and homes, but also the nation’s economy, critical infrastructure and essential services, such as our electricity, telecommunications and water supply, and our roads, railways and airports.
The Commission also pointed to the evidence received that warming over the immediate timeframe is inevitable and that therefore adaptive measures have to happen regardless; the recommendations that followed were framed around the urgent reality of a warming climate and not whether effective action on climate change would reduce the need to manage disasters better.
A little later in the report, the climate theme gets picked up again, around the need for national climate projections:
Australia does not have an authoritative agreed set of climate change scenarios for the nation nor standardised guidance on how to interpret and use these scenarios consistently… …there is growing national and international interest in understanding and disclosing the impacts of climate change, including hazard and disaster impacts. The finance sector is perhaps the strongest example – where the impact of a changing climate on assets and investments, coupled with changing consumer interests as the world transitions to a lower-carbon economy, mean that the viability of businesses may be at risk.
Recommendation 4.5 National climate projections
Australian, state and territory governments should produce downscaled climate projections:(1) to inform the assessment of future natural disaster risk by relevant decision makers, including state and territory government agencies with planning and emergency management responsibilities, (2) underpinned by an agreed common core set of climate trajectories and timelines, and(3) subject to regular review.
This is further backed up with recommendations on natural hazard impact data standards, collection, and sharing.
Relationships… it’s complicated… and what’s ‘subsidiarity‘ all about?
A major theme is the messy roles of different levels of government, non-government, and related agencies in shared emergency response.
The Commission is quick and clear to affirm that in Australia, state and territory governments have primary responsibility for the protection of life, property and the environment, within their jurisdictions. Much of the text deals with examples of how this plays out, with the considerable expertise, innovation, and inevitable inconsistencies around Australia. Another critical point brought out is that of subsidiarity:
Perhaps the strongest policy reason why state and territory governments should retain primary responsibility stems from the principle of subsidiarity. This principle suggests that risk should be managed by the lowest level of government that is capable of managing it, and emphasises the importance of local knowledge, which is vital to managing natural disasters. Many policies and services should be ‘tailored to meet the needs of people and communities they directly affect’ and account for differences in climate, geography, ecosystems, demography, culture, and resources. While natural disasters on a national scale are likely to become more common, all disasters large and small require a local response. The importance of local knowledge to disaster management, and particularly to disaster response, was emphasised by many people we heard from, including firefighters and the public. State, territory and local governments expressed strong support for the principle, and stressed the need for ‘deep engagement’ with affected communities. A locally-led response was described as ‘one of the strengths of the disaster management system’ and a ‘foundational principle’.
Whilst respecting this important principle, the Commission had to discuss the gaps in outcomes, particularly those where there is no unity or where the Commonwealth was seen as missing in action. In Chapter 3 of the report, dealing with national coordination arrangements, the Commission delicately draws out the roles of the players and the natural tensions between them as they seek to fulfil their duties in the general public interest, before coming to the inevitable point:
This tension of interests between national outcomes and state or territory objectives will become more challenging to manage in the midst of compound disasters. In catastrophic circumstances, when the finite national resources are insufficient, difficult and complex, decisions about resource sharing, including resources funded in whole or in part by the Australian Government, will require regard to whole-of-nation interests. In the extreme, it may involve making choices that prioritise the needs of one or more states or territories over another… National coordination arrangements for natural disasters should facilitate decision-making that takes into account the national interest
So, the Commission trod the careful path of affirming current arrangements, celebrating the good, and proposing new things with a minimum of tearing down the old. And, where it could be accused of promoting a Commonwealth power play, it was careful to outline the reasoning:
A national approach to natural disasters calls for the Australian Government to play a greater role than it currently plays. Generally, the Australian Government should complement, enhance and support the role of the states and territories. It should continue to be focused primarily on areas in which national consistency, coordination and cooperation across jurisdictions would help the states and territories to manage natural disasters more effectively.
However, as discussed further below, the Australian Government also has capabilities and capacities not available to the states and territories. It can play a greater role in assisting the states and territories to respond to and recover from natural disasters on a national scale…. …In most cases, a state or territory government will have requested assistance when needed. However, in some limited circumstances, the Australian Government should be able to take action in response to a natural disaster, whether or not a state has requested assistance. A higher threshold should be required to be met before the Australian Government can take such unilateral action…
….the Australian Government should lead in the development and coordination of long-term, national strategic policy directed at making Australia resilient to natural disasters. It is uniquely placed to see the national picture, the national risks, and the impacts on all Australians. However, like all governments, it should also increase its capacity to address the complex and long-term strategic problems in disaster risk management and resilience.
The Commission recommends the reinvigoration of national ministerial forums at the top level, the establishment of an authoritative disaster advisory body, the integration of disaster management in the Australian Government, a new standing entity for resilience and recovery, and enhanced national preparedness and response.
A new headline grabber – the declaration of national emergency
If there had been any room for doubt on future stress in the first chapters of the Report, the Commission made things clear in addressing national emergency management:
Consecutive and compounding natural disasters will increasingly stress existing emergency management frameworks. These disasters will not always be confined to a single state or territory; they will extend across boundaries and, in more severe cases, will have a truly national impact… The 2019-2020 bushfire season is an early indication of a concerning future, concurrently impacting several states and territories. The bushfires were not the only disaster to impact Australia during that period. The season also saw heatwaves, hailstorms and flooding; all on the back of the crippling drought. In many areas, the combination of these events compounded their effect. These successive hazard events strained existing systems and capacity. It is foreseeable that a future disaster, or compounding disasters, could have a catastrophic impact on a national scale.
Recommendation 5.1 Make provision for a declaration of a state of emergency
The Australian Government should make provision, in legislation, for a declaration of a state of national emergency. The declaration should include the following components:(1) the ability for the Australian Government to make a public declaration to communicate the seriousness of a natural disaster(2) processes to mobilise and activate Australian Government agencies quickly to support states and territories to respond to and recover from a natural disaster, and(3) the power to take action without a state or territory request for assistance in clearly defined and limited circumstances.
It’s individual responsibility… or is it?
Most of us know that the vulnerable parts of society suffer most in disasters, but it’s also common to see a notable lack of sympathy coming from some sectors. The Commission gave us an eloquent reminder of why suffering is disproportionate, and why it is a role of government to help manage structural elements and build community resilience:
….A person’s exposure to natural disasters is not, however, entirely a matter of choice, but rather is affected by many factors outside their control. While responsibility for resilience and disaster risk management is shared between governments, individuals and others, it is often not shared equally. Individuals simply do not control many of the levers needed to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters.
For example, while for many Australians, living in the bush or other high-risk areas might be a ‘lifestyle choice’, for others, the choice is not entirely free. Many people must live near where they work; farmers are an obvious example. Children who live with their parents may be exposed to the risks their parents assume. And some people will find that the risk of a natural disaster where they live has grown.
There are other differences in people’s ability to mitigate the risks they face from disasters, aside from where they live. For example, some are better able to build or modify their homes to withstand disasters, or to afford adequate home insurance, or medical care. Some are better able to clear fuel from around their homes, to protect themselves during a disaster, and to recover afterwards.
The decisions people make concerning where they live and how they manage risk are also affected by government decisions and laws. An individual’s decision about where to live, for example, is informed by how governments zone land; their decisions about how to build their homes are informed by government building codes; and the extent to which they can clear fuel and manage their land is constrained by government regulations.
One of the excellent, and potentially far reaching, recommendations related to this topic is the incorporation of natural disaster risk considerations in planning decisions:
Recommendation 19.3 Mandatory consideration of natural disaster risk in land-use planning decisions State, territory and local governments should be required to consider present and future natural disaster risk when making land-use planning decisions for new developments.
Smoke and health
The Commission spent time looking at air quality, a notable weaknesses in Australia’s natural hazard arrangements, and an almost continuous headline during the 2019/20 crisis:
We heard that peer-reviewed research indicated that smoke, from 19 weeks of continuous fire activity, may have contributed up to 429 premature deaths, 3,320 hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and 1,523 presentations to emergency departments for asthma. That research also suggested that the health costs of smoke exposure from the 2019-2020 bushfires resulted in $1.95 billion in health costs, associated with premature loss of life and admissions to hospitals.
After noting the many issues of consistency and public information available around Australia, the Commission highlighted positive actions such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Wildfire Smoke Guide for Public Health Officials and the recent efforts by Victoria, NSW, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to create a smoke plume forecasting capability, the Air Quality Forecasting System:
Recommendation 14.2 National Air Quality Forecasting CapabilityAustralian, state and territory governments should develop national air quality forecasting capabilities, which include broad coverage of population centres and apply to smoke and other airborne pollutants, such as dust and pollen, to predict plume behaviour.
The Commission also looked at broader health issues arising during natural disasters, including national health coordination arrangements, Australian Medical Assistance (AUSMAT) Teams, and highlighted the importance of a well-joined up health system during national emergencies. The AUSMAT teams were set up for international assistance initially, and were deployed for the first time during the 2019-2020 bushfires, inevitably uncovering areas to be improved in health response coordination during the process.
Mental Health
As you would expect, the Commission also had a lot to say about the mental health impacts of natural disasters:
There is compelling evidence of the impacts of natural disasters on mental health. Natural disasters give rise to increased rates of stress, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol and substance abuse, aggression and violence, suicide, and exacerbation of other underlying mental health problems.Individuals may also experience somatic symptoms, disorders where a person has excessive or abnormal feelings or thoughts about physical conditions.People can also suffer from insomnia and broken sleep….
….Some studies have found that up to 39% of emergency responders have been diagnosed with a mental health condition in their life, compared to 20% of all adults in Australia.These effects can also persist over an extended period – one follow-up study of the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires found that a core group of firefighters reported psychiatric disturbance and PTSD symptoms seven years after the event.These effects could potentially extend to the loved ones of those responding to natural disasters.
The related recommendation looks relatively mild (Recommendation 15.3 Prioritising mental health during and after natural disasters Australian, state and territory governments should refine arrangements to support localised planning and the delivery of appropriate mental health services following a natural disaster), but underneath this is a complex and important narrative about improvements that must be made at the local, state and national levels.
Weather and fuel influences on fire
Reflecting yet another hot topic during the summer just past, the Commission spent considerable time discussing fuel management and fuel loading. There is a lot in this discussion – fuel is an ongoing critical management issue, and can often receive public and political attention during fire emergencies, with some commentary less well informed than would be ideal.
During this discussion, the Commission recommended more research on fire-generated convection, which has been a notable feature of some recent bushfire disasters in Australia and overseas. The main point though, is that fuel is not everything:
We received evidence that emphasised the influence that fire weather has on fire behaviour and the relevance of ‘extreme fires’ to the effectiveness of fuel management. The research on this issue differentiates between ordinary fires, which are largely a surface phenomenon, and extreme fires, where there is a coupling of the fire with the atmosphere…….in extreme bushfires, the fire behaviour is no longer solely a function of the environmental conditions. These fires generate their own behaviour by interacting with the surrounding atmosphere. This results in fire behaviours that are difficult to predict… …in extreme bushfires, fuel loads do not appear to have a material impact on fire behaviour.
Systemic continuous improvement
The last substantive recommendation is one of the best, and also highlights how different jurisdictions have innovated to show the path for all. The Commission called for accountability and assurance mechanisms to promote continuous improvement and best practice in natural disaster arrangements, noting the positive example of two of Australia’s States:
Victoria and Queensland have Inspectors-General of Emergency Management (IGEMs), who have published updates or progress reports on the implementation of recommendations from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and the 2011 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry respectively. In so doing, these offices have supported public accountability in addition to their core objectives of encouraging a culture of continuous improvement and best practice in emergency management within their states.
It’s down to us
So, after spending most of the year in intense deliberation, after hearing from more than 270 witnesses, processing 80,000 pages of tendered documents and more than 1750 public submissions, the Commission, including the hard-working Secretariat that supported them, have delivered. They have produced a report of great substance, working during an enormous global crisis and in a noisy public environment. They’ve done their job. For the Australian professional community, whatever our role or interest, we now need to do our job. 80 recommendations to not just be ticked off, but implemented well, with heart and soul, in service to the community. For the international community, there will be wisdom to take from the report and applied elsewhere, and there will also be more opportunity to deliver more wisdom to Australia and other countries as the sophistication of international best practice evolves. For all of those who watched or participated with anguish during the hard summer of 2019-2020, we can do things better. And if we don’t drop the ball on this, we will save lives and property. It’s down to us.
“Remember the words of Taine: “for a young person the world always seems a scandalous place”. Later in life, the world seems only to be an imperfect place which can be worked on here and there. I’m told that finally, in old age, the world becomes either infinitely amusing or infinitely annoying — according to one’s temperament.” Frank Moorhouse, Grand Days
“if it didn’t exist, we would have to invent it”
It must be tough working in public relations in the United Nations. For an organisation created by some giants of the 20th century in Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, it sometimes comes under an extraordinary level of attack from some of their successors. It simultaneously has its hands tied on critical issues whilst being regarded with suspicion by those who are worried about global conspiracies. And of course, it has its many imperfections. Former United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was fond of joking that the United Nations ‘is a little bit like an organization run by a board of directors of 193 countries, or people, who want to get their son-in-law a job.’
Yet, as the saying goes (also quoted by Albright), ‘if it didn’t exist, we would have to invent it’. Anybody who has watched with alarm the rise of new nationalist movements around the world, become concerned about the state of the environment, or participated in the global struggle against the current pandemic, would agree the need for a way to sort out our various issues, lest we fall into the cynicism described by Moorhouse in his book on the League of Nations above.
If we believe that there should be something like the United Nations in the world, and we want that body to work well in the interests of peace and prosperity, we need to be literate enough to sensibly discuss it. At the very least, when in a ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ discussion about the United Nations, we should have something to hand. But where to start? The United Nations is neither simple nor united. Nor, if we consider the complexity of the world and the problems that we would like to solve, is it ever going to be. Reaching a meaningful, practical, and enduring global consensus on any one issue takes a lot more work than yelling at everybody in English until they acquiesce.
Some essential United Nations agencies
The ‘simplified’ United Nations org chart, with the five agencies discussed here highlighted.
Everything on the United Nations org chart is worthwhile and deserves attention. But since this blog is focused on natural hazards, let’s just look at five of the many bits of the United Nations that are relevant for us to be able to deal sensibly with natural hazards, and let those parts speak for the whole.
Firstly, why do we need to deal with natural hazards internationally, rather than let every country look after itself? With the overwhelming nature of natural disasters and the inequities in capabilities between countries, it’s undesirable and inefficient to approach disasters piecemeal – it’s far better to work together to face these hazards together. And it’s much cheaper in both money and lives to anticipate and mitigate the effects of hazards rather than pick up the pieces of a disaster afterwards. Somebody must do the hard work of organising that. Enter the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (created in 1999), which currently oversees the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The Sendai Framework captures four priorities for action and seven targets – it’s suitably ambitious in scope and challenging in implementation.
An even stronger argument for international cooperation is provided by the agencies that coordinate safe international travel. The International Maritime Organization (founded 1948) and International Civil Aviation Organization (founded 1944) are two specialized United Nations agencies that deal with transport through international oceans and international skies respectively. The International Maritime Organization inherited the critically important International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, which was first passed following the sinking of the Titanic in 1914, and the International Civil Aviation Organization looks after the (Chicago) Convention on International Civil Aviation. Both modes of transport are highly vulnerable to natural hazards, and in both areas, having national differences in handling these hazards would be frustrating and inefficient at either end of a journey and would be nonsensical in international waters or airspace. Consequently, the patient work of these agencies has served to directly strengthen safe travel by air and sea and has had flow on impacts to the way that everybody operates within their own countries. When aircraft fly overnight across the world and avoid dangerous weather systems on the way, they are using standardised, coordinated information about those weather hazards from around the world.
Organising global weather forecasts
Which leads us to the piece de resistance of international cooperation – the extraordinary teamwork between nations organised by the World Meteorological Organization (established in 1950 as a successor to the International Meteorological Organization, itself founded in 1873). In meteorology, it is physically impossible to make a meaningful weather forecast beyond a couple of days without the real time sharing of observations across borders. The World Meteorological Organization coordinates the free exchange of observations, forecasts, standards, and underlying science around the world, and has done so since well before the advent of modern supercomputing and communications. It’s due to this work, the relentless advance of science, and the dedication of the broader meteorological community around the world that we now have generally accurate forecasts for many natural hazards a week or more out, and now even skilful seasonal forecasts. In the world of preventing natural disasters, this gives us an enormous edge, and it would be impossible without United Nations processes.
For a fifth agency, we should mention the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. With such a broad remit, you would expect that many aspects of natural hazard management are supported in some way by the scientific and other activities undertaken, and that’s the case. But in one area in particular, the organization has really stepped up specifically – the coordination of international tsunami warning arrangements undertaken by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in collaboration with other partners.
Natural disasters cost us approximately $3 trillion United States dollars over the past twenty years, dwarfing the budget of the above agencies (the World Meteorological Organization, for example, has a budget of around $70 million annually). The work of United Nations agencies is only a part of addressing this, but it’s a critical part, because without the coordinating role played by these agencies, it would be hard to get much done at all. Our weather, climate and ocean forecasts would be far less accurate or effective, our travel by air or by sea much more dangerous, and our communities far more exposed.
That said, for the overwhelming majority of us who do not work with international agencies, the world of the United Nations can feel highly inaccessible and unrelatable, as is the case outside any enormous bureaucracy. This is probably the only article that you will ever read about the United Nations that does not contain any acronyms, and learning the acronyms is just the start. But ultimately, the workforce of United Nations agencies is composed of ordinary people from all over the world who generally want to make a real difference, and they are supported by many passionate volunteers and by taxpayers from all over the world. It’s complex, it’s imperfect, and it can be frustrating, but it’s our United Nations.
And this brings us to the point of this article. Because of the gaps and imperfections in the system and our own lack of understanding, it’s completely possible for us to fail to properly connect United Nations processes to what we do in our own countries. If that’s the case, we’re missing an opportunity and wasting some of the money that our community puts into the system. The more that we can make the United Nations system work for us, the better value our investment will be and the better the societal outcomes. We don’t have the option of sitting back and criticising. In whatever field we work in in preventing natural disasters, we should know how United Nations processes interact with that field and, as much as possible, how to navigate them and improve them. That’s not easy work, but it’s the necessary work to get the job done properly, and it will make a difference in making our world better.
Welcome to the Natural Hazards Consulting blog! This will be a blog for discussing the science and practice of forecasting and managing natural hazards of all kinds, but with a particular focus on hydro-meteorological hazards and their cross-connections to geohazards. This is not a blog for celebrating scary things that kill people, but for discussing, understanding, and learning to manage these scary things better.
And there’s a lot to talk about. One of the fantastic achievements of global cooperation and science (which will be discussed a lot in this blog) is that deaths from natural disasters are going down.
Global annual deaths from natural disasters, by decade and classified by type, visualisation from OurWorldinData.org, with sources as listed.
That’s great news, but it hasn’t come without effort, and it’s happening in a world of increasing vulnerability and exposure to stress. Natural hazards also cause tremendous disruption and economic damage, as well as anxiety, and these things are not trivial – indeed one the constant tensions in emergency management is getting the proportionality of response right. If we want to keep improving in natural hazards management, we need to understand how and why our hard work is paying off, and see if we can do even better.
So, in this blog, let’s talk about what works, and what doesn’t. Let’s talk about emerging hazards, forgotten hazards, and how to do hazards stuff better. Let’s talk about the local scale, where the rubber hits the road, but let’s also talk about the big picture, which also has to work well for the local level solutions to work at all. And, let’s talk about talking, because it’s pointless being able to predict the occurrence of a natural hazards with 100% certainty without being able to communicate to the potentially affected population – that way lies (literally) disaster.
